The United States War Production Board (WPB)
was charged with insuring that critical fabrics and materials were reserved
exclusively for the purposes of essential military production. These
materials included nylon, rubber, silk, leather and wool. Minimizing
the degree of civilian fashion transformation was also important.
The WPB considered unfettered fashion flexibility during wartime unacceptable
because changes resulted in the necessity for increased labor costs as
well as production processes. Any new techniques demanded by fashion
dictates would require at least some changes in equipment and manufacturing.
The goal to “freeze the fashion silhouette” to prewar standard was imposed
as part of the American war effort.
.
Click image to enlarge
|
........ |
Public resentment over War Production Board
attempts to keep antiquated prewar fashion in place, as exemplified by
the obsolete “fashion silhouette” of a woman shopper in a wartime American
grocery store, became focused against Limitation Order L-85, which was
blamed for every undesired fabric-related setback and inconvenience.
(Collection Shelby Stanton) |
.
Forcible governmental fixation of fashion
standards was feared as an intolerable layer of authoritarianism on top
of fabric limitations. Material conservation could be grasped by the public.
However, governmental interference in the form of socially engineering
fashion threatened 1940-era free enterprise concepts regarding the democratic
marketplace. Therefore, the impact of War Production Board policies in
general, and Limitation Order L-85 schedules in particular (see May II
2009 column for implementation details), were viewed as endangering the
entire future of fashion. In fact, H. Stanley Marcus, Chief of the
Apparel Section of the WPB, was forced to allay fears about the effect
of the order on fashion survivability. The following are some of his responses
in defense of WPB mandates published within “Women's Wear Daily” on April
8, 1942.
As to the basic question whether fashion could
survive Limitation Order L-85, Mr. Marcus of the WPB wrote, “Yes is the
emphatic answer to that frequently asked question. Fashion is with us and
will be with us always. The flame of fashion can't be quenched like that
of a burning building. The force of fashion can't be subdued like that
of a wild animal. Fashion will adapt itself to the order of the day, just
as it always has in the past. The order of this day is conservation, and
fashion will cut its pattern to meet the existing and future supplies of
cloth.”
.
The Statue of Liberty embodied the feminine
democratic outcry over WPB decisions of “fixing the silhouette” by freezing
prewar fashion. Here trendy American girls flaunt accessorized modernity
despite Limitation Order L-85 restrictions, while accompanying French merchant
marine sailors in New York City during October1942.
(Collection Shelby Stanton) |
........ |
Click image to enlarge
|
.
At the same time, the WPB through Mr. Marcus
commented on the possibility of new ideas transforming fashion developments:
"The limitations contained in this order obviously restrict the designers
in dimensions, but there is no reason to believe that new ideas won't transform
those very limitations into a new expression of fashion. There have been
great periods of fashion when great yardages were consumed, and there have
been equally great periods when small yardages were used. Fashion blossomed
during both eras.”
WPB apparel section chief Marcus urged Americans
to view conformity with the limitation order as an opportunity for citizen
cooperation instead of resentment: "Through this order, the Government
is giving the industries an opportunity for cooperating in the fabric conservation
without basic changes in the character of their product and their operations.
It is not possible at this time to discuss the length of the period to
be covered by these rules. New restrictions may be dictated by more acute
stringencies in the fabric supply situation or by the failure of these
measures to achieve their aim.”
.
Click image to enlarge
|
..... |
The American public feared Limitation Order
L-85 was a vehicle for governmental uniformity of fashion. The mandated
single-breasted jacket of Jennifer Bruce on the left (see June II column
for design restriction) bears resemblance to the uniform of her friend
Lieutenant Frances Peel, Royal Canadian Air Force, at right. The absence
or diminution of civilian jacket pockets was encouraged but large pockets
required for military coats. The man lounges in a men's robe to patriotically
save wear on his civilian suit, since he is at home and out of the office.
This photo was taken in Los Angeles, California, during 1944. (Collection
Shelby Stanton) |
.
Mr. Marcus of the WPB concluded his remarks
by reemphasizing the combined influence of apparel consumers and purchasers
on fashionable progress: "The fabric-saving rules do not regiment clothes.
The nonfunctional features being eliminated do not narrow the scope of
a manufacturer's fashion ingenuity. No attempt is being made to design
by edict. We are, however, hopeful that the members of these industries
will make textile conservation a major theme in their creative efforts
in order to affect economies beyond those contained in the order itself."
Note: The next few columns will be devoted
to a detailed survey of Limitation Order L-85 and wartime feminine dress,
along with illustrative examples. My information for this topic is based
on personal research in U.S. National Archives Record Group 179.2 and supplemented
by contemporary newspaper archives. |