If we define “Total War” as a type of warfare that affects and involves every part of a society, then World War I can be argued to be the first attempt by military and political leaders to engage in such a conflict. Modernity was at Europe’s door thus leading to the inventions and innovations that would allow for war on a scale, and of a scope, that had never before been considered. Yet, it was not the fact that these innovations and technologies existed, or that specific conflicts necessitated war, but rather that the political and military elite, coming out of an age of pompous militarism, made decisions based on previous experiences and not on future possibilities. These decisions had an adverse affect not only on the outcome of the war politically (as far as treaties and borders were concerned), but it affected individuals at a grassroots level creating a subsequent era of distrust, listlessness, and eventual aggressive feelings creating the perfect storm out of which Nazism could rise. In the aftermath of the devastation, as soldiers and civilians became aware that things were not as they had seemed, there was very little stock left in what individual governments said or did. No one trusted the government, and thus the nations of Europe fell into a riotous interim of attempted reform and subsequent revolt. This eventually gave rise to the fascist movements that became the bane of the democratic west, as well as the socialist east, and would launch Europe into a second and even more wholly devastating “Total War”. Because the leaders and commanders of WWI forever changed the nature of war, it influenced the later Nazi leaders decisions, and forced the next set of Allies to adapt to an entirely new concept of total war as i... ... middle of paper ... ...s often being an honorable victory and nothing less). This mandated that the allied leaders embrace a similar total war ideology in order to be competitive. Thus total war, as defined by the leaders of WWI was elaborated upon by the leaders of WWII. They changed it from something that was total on the battlefield to something that encompassed all of humanity. But this change in definition created problems that it’s initial practitioners did not face. Hitler and Stalin faced off in a battle of attrition that was about so much more than what was fought for at Verdun. Their battle, almost purely based on principle and not on actually strategy, though similar to the battle in France, would change the rest of WWII and subsequently shape the fate of both Germany and Russia, culminating in the defeat of Nazism and the dawn of an era of a whole new kind of total war.
This was definitely a tough predicament for Europe to be in. In the aftermath of World War I, literally tens of millions were mortally wounded and missing, there were devastating effects on morale and view towards war, which would make most any weakened society ...
World War II, known as the largest armed conflict in history, began in Europe in the 1930s and led to effect many people. The war resulted in not only the involvement of more countries than any other war but also introduced powerful, new, nuclear weapons that also contributed to the most deaths. As Hitler rose to power in 1933 the Holocaust began, his quest for the ‘perfect’ race resulted in the use of concentration camps, which would help to create the largest genocide of people in history.
World War I is marked by its extraordinary brutality and violence due to the technological advancement in the late 18th century and early 19th century that made killing easier, more methodical and inhumane. It was a war that saw a transition from traditional warfare to a “modern” warfare. Calvary charges were replaced with tanks; swords were replaced with machine guns; strategic and decisive battles were r...
The First World War witnessed an appalling number of casualties. Due partly to this fact, some historians, developed the perception that commanders on both sides depended on only one disastrous approach to breaking the stalemate. These historians attributed the loss of life to the reliance on soldiers charging across no-man’s land only to be mowed down by enemy machineguns. The accuracy of this, however, is fallacious because both the German’s and Allies developed and used a variety of tactics during the war. The main reason for battlefield success and eventual victory by the Allies came from the transformation of battlefield tactics; nevertheless, moral played a major role by greatly affecting the development of new tactics and the final outcome of the war.
Even though half of a century separates us from the unforgettable event, it left horrible memories especially in those who saw, felt and experienced World War II which was waged on land, on sea, and in the air all over the earth for approximately six years. Whether it’s a battle, hospital, or holocaust, there are so many stories from the survivors, who can teach us not only about the profession of arms, but also about military preparations, global strategies and combined operations in the coalition war against fascism.
They are many ways to approach a conflict in order to find a resolution. For minimal actions people are often willing to talk about it, but for major actions the solutions to those problems are usually acted out by violence thus, the creation of war. For many centuries countries have been going to war over disagreements. However, it is not any type of disagreements; it is usually about the political beliefs of certain countries. In fact, World War 1 was caused by the disagreements of the European countries in power which were Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary. Some of the countries had a difference of opinion concerning political values on ruling the country. Some were in favour of nationalism, imperialism, or militarism which caused physical conflict and created war. (Duffy) Many soldiers had to go fight to represent their country and make them proud. Many novels have been written to explain to the people how the war had a psychological impact on the soldiers who participated in The Great War, but in the novel All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque he explains the true depth of war by implicating his knowledge of his days as a German soldier fighting on the western front. Remarque’s awful war experience influenced him to write his novel to show the realistic brutality of war by graphic violence, the emotional impacts on the privates as well as the impact of nationalism by the Germans.
Historians generally refer to WWI as the first 'total war'. It was the first conflict in which modern industrialized societies mobilized their complete economic, technological and psychological resources in order to wage war. Unlike earlier wars, which involved relatively small numbers of soldiers on the battlefield, it affected many aspects of the lives of civilian populations and demanded enormous sacrifices and support from them. Mobilization of the home front was crucial to achieving military victory. Some of the main aspects of Total War include conscription of men into the armed services, increased government control of the economy and daily lives of citizens and subsequent loss of personal liberty. Control of the labor force, physical safety and security of civilian populations threatene...
For America, Japan, Germany, Britain, and France WWll was known as the war that reshaped the political and social aspects around the world. “The demand for the fullest exploitation of materials and human resources for increased production, the use of blockades, and the intensive bombing of civilian targets made the war of 1939 even more total that is, comprehensive and intense than that of 1914.” (Kagan, 2001)
However, when confronted with a strict policy of appeasement, by both the French and the English, the stage was set for a second World War. Taylor constructs a powerful and effective argument by expelling certain dogmas that painted Hitler as a madman, and by evaluating historical events as a body of actions and reactions, disagreeing with the common idea that the Axis had a specific program from the start. The book begins with the conclusion of the First World War, by exploring the idea that critical mistakes made then made a second war likely, yet not inevitable. Taylor points out that although Germany was defeated on the Western front, “Russia fell out of Europe and ceased to exist, for the time being, as a Great Power. The constellation of Europe was profoundly changed—and to Germany’s advantage.”
To write this book the author, John Toland, had to devote 15 years researching different stories from all sides of the war. He studied war memoirs, interviewed war veterans, and read military documents. While doing this he focused on both the allied and axis forces to truly understand both sides of the story and be able to write such a descriptive and accurate piece of work. This research was used in the book to describe the unlikely victory of the Americans over the Germans during the “Battle of the Bulge”.
The first global world war that led to the death of millions of people and the use of excessive chemical weapons, tanks, and machine guns that the world has ever witnessed is accused by Germany’s violent actions and their extreme ideologies, but some others argue Germany was not the sole cause of the war. In an attempt to dominate the world, Germany enforced their extreme ideologies to the rest of Europe. Many scholars believe that Germany fueled World War 1 because Germany believed that they should conquer the weak. Some people believe that Germany was the sole cause of World War because their extreme ideologies led them to declare war on other countries. Although Germany deliberately supported Austria to go to war with Serbia, supported the idea of Nationalism, and signed secret treaties, Russia also supported Serbia and signed secret treaties. Thus, Germany wasn’t the sole motive of World War 1.
These two World Wars caused many harm to life of many people but were fought for the protection of other countries and for the United States. World War was fought for acquiring of land while WWII was fought for the containment of fascism and communism. Each war had different methods of fighting and technology use. Overall these wars caused a lot of unforgettable things such as genocide and scared people everyday’s life. Thought the damages of the war caused much destruction in politics, economics, and social for countries who took part of it, it helped the countries to rebuild and get back to its feet once again.
Amongst military theorists and practitioners who studied war, its origin and implications, Carl von Clausewitz assumes a place among the most prominent figures. With his book On War, he demonstrated his capability to provide thorough historical analysis and conclusions of the conflicts in which he was engaged, and as a philosopher he reflected about all encompassing aspects of war. Today, Western armies conduct modern warfare in a dynamic environment composed of flexible and multiple threats in which civilians form a substantial part. Studying Clausewitz provides current military and political leadership useful insights to understand twenty-first century warfare. He explains the nature of war, provides an analytical tool to understand the chaos of warfare, and he argues for well educated and adaptable leadership capable of creative thinking. Although he died before his work was complete, his writing style was ambiguous and unclear at some moments, and current technology reduced some of his tactics obsolete, his work still arouses and inspires military and political strategists and analysts.
Citino cites ample evidence to show that Germany, and Prussia before it, had always sought to fight short wars because of its paucity of resources and central position in Europe. Short wars necessitated speed, audacity and nimble operational maneuvers. In turn, these priotities required commanders to be aggressive and seize the earliest possible moment to try to force a battlefield decision. Citino presents repeated examples of this pattern as a hallmark of Prussian/German operations from the seventeenth century to the early phase of World War II. For Citino, this is the German way of war: a war of movement intended to bring a sudden and decisive victory. Simply put, Citino sees that Germany (and Prussia before it) simply did not have the luxury of time in fighting, which necessitated the development of Bewegungskrieg early on in the Prussian military tradition. For Citino, blitzkrieg merely constitutes the effective adaptation of new technologies to this traditional Prussian/German style of
...makes to the store of war literature should prove of interest to the student of the specialist mind and of the author’s own personal career. It is of less interest as a study and analysis of German strategy and tactic. ”