The Pros And Cons Of A Total War

Total War: All of society, including military forces as well as civilians, was encouraged to participate in the idea of total war. This is a tactic used when all restrictions are neglected as far as weaponry and territory. Usually, the economy takes the hit the hardest because it becomes second to the government with regards to importance. For example, during the time period of 1943-1944 in the U.S., car factories switched gears and instead used their time to construct tanks and other machines to be used in the war. The U.S. was not the only country that quickly became accustomed to adaptation. In Britain, some fruits were basically not seen for a few years because the space they would have taken up was needed for space on the merchant ships. The involvement in the automobile and weaponry industries creates larger more invasive government. Children are expected to help in some way; if it means

The consequences of the war were extremely gloomy because it opposed to the progress of the nature, destroying human beings. In that harsh war, the living

The scale of the war forced all sectors of society to change and adapt to the growing scale of the war. In 1914 the British government believed that the war would be a brief one and as a result there was

World War I was a great loss both physically and emotionally. It was a conflict between the Allies and the Central Powers from 1914 to 1918. More than 15 million people were killed in battled, making it one of the most deadly conflicts in history. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria- Hungary was seen as the trigger of the war. The war was described as a world war, a total war, and a modern war. A world war because it involved the whole world. A total war because people used maximum resources for the purpose of the war. A modern war because the people used technological and industrial mobilization.

World War I was the bloodiest and most brutal battle at its time, and without all the new weapons, it might not have been. World War I started in 1914 and ended in 1918. It was a war fought

War is a scandalous topic where peoples’ views differ as to what war is. Some people see it as pure evil and wicked while others think that it is brave and noble of what soldiers do. Looking at poems which had been written by people affected by war help show the messages which are portrayed. The two sets of poems which show different views of war as well as some similarities are “the Charge of the Light Brigade” by Alfred Lord Tennyson, “To Lucasta, on Going to the Wars” by Richard Lovelace and “Dulce Et Decorum Est” by Wilfred Owen, “The Song of the Mud” by Mary Borden. Both these poets use linguistic devices to convince the reader of their view of what the war is. Tennyson and Lovelace show how war is worthy

​“The war to end all wars” was what people called it. Others called it “The Great War”. Many people died in this war. And there was really no right or wrong in this war; meaning that I don’t think there really was a side that was wrong or right, and I’m going to explain why further in this essay. I think both sides were wrong in things, but in the end, Germany was the one that suffered the most because they were being forced to pay billions dollars in the war debts, and let the French control a rich mine for well over 15 years. But before that Germany and the Britain’s were at war with each other. And Germany sent out a warning to everyone saying that every ship crossing the war zone line (which was the

The First World War of 1914-1918, also known as the Great War, was the first total war in history. What began as a European struggle over the balance of power between the triple alliance of France, Britain and Russia on one side and the central powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary on the other, soon became a global conflict that involved the imperial powers of Europe, their colonies and lands such as the Ottoman Empire, Japan and the United States. Although the sheer number of countries involved in the conflict is enough to describe the First World War as a mass war, what makes it total is the fact that it was waged not only against the enemy’s armies, but also against the civilian

Total war is the idea that there are no restrictions on weapons used, territory or people involved, and the laws of war are generally disregarded. In total war, “there [is] no difference between civilian and soldiers” (118). Many people believed that since, “It was war and we had to expect it” (117) and by it they meant the worst.

Was World War I a total war?i think it was.A total war is when a nation dumps all resources and moresome into the war effort.During World War I most nations was doing this and ignoring other things.This war was a total war because all focus was on the war creating or stunting military,economic,and social/cultural growth.

Evidently, total war has explicitly affected all aspects of society and has even influenced the way people lived their lives. Firstly, total war was embedded into the education system, as “The Canada War Book” was given to students in New Brunswick. The book itself teaches children to save because there isn't an abundance of money in Canada and additionally, the book includes more propaganda, as it portrays going to war as a soldier or nurse to be very desirable. Secondly, there were books published to specifically feed one hundred soldiers, thus impacting the food aspect of society. The recipes found in the book are economical and precise, as the recipes avoid the use of seasonings to make the meals cheaper and specific weights are

The war involved the use of deadly weapons such as the 2 nuclear weapons that were used. This led to death of millions of children and women. Also, several soldier involved in the war across over 30 countries lost their lives (Black 61). Apart from the loss of lives of millions, the war left some who survived homeless. The industrial structure is most European countries had been destroyed leading to a collapse of the European economy.

The comprehension of the term ‘total war’ has had great significance towards the understanding as to how wars are fought, affect society and differ from other conflicts. The main issue that arises is conclusively defining total war and is continually differing between both historians and military combatants alike. Roger Chickering defines states “total war is distinguished by its intensity and extent. Theatres of operation span the globe; the scale of the battle is practically limitless” all the while adding “total war requires the mobilisation not only of armed forced but also of whole populations” This definition, while not quintessential is a good starting point for a definition due to its broadness and acceptance of the idea of the incapability to fully mobilise a society’s entire resource. David A. Bell states that it is often defined as ‘a war involving the complete mobilization of a society’s resources to achieve the absolute destruction of an enemy, with all distinction erased between combatants and non-combatants’ . However, he notes the limitations of such an idea including the inability for societies to meet such criterion, in particular, the ability for a society to completely utilise its resources towards the war effort. Ultimately, Jeremey black, while not giving a conclusive definition for the term, total war, does acknowledge different definitions by various individuals distilling many of their arguments and consequently outlining main characteristics of

WWII had an effect on people’s lives. People were urged to wear gas masks to protect themselves from possible gas attacks. Women and Children were moved from big cities to countryside (Barrow 2013: sp). Gruhl (2013) states that:” The war was four times more destructive of life, and even more destructive of infrastructure, property, and economies, than the First world War.” Some 300 million people lost their lives during the war Gruhl(2013: 24). Some of the people, who survived, suffered terribly. Russia suffered a great los with a number of 20 million lives.

In part one of “The Age of Total War”, Hobsbawm (1994) also argues that the war of 1914-1918 was senseless. It is argued that it is difficult to understand “why sensible statemen had not decided to settle the war by some compromise before it destroyed the world of 1914” (Hobsbawm, 1994, p. 29). He claims that the war was brutal and caused more death and destruction than was necessary. The battlefield of the Western Front was as brutal as it got. A field of blood, guts, mud and the abandoned bodies of brothers and friends was surrounded by the sound of never ending a gun fire, shouts of orders and screaming of men, whilst millions stood in trenches on either side and fired weapons at each other to add to the mass of chaos. Landscapes and towns were destroyed, countries lost up to twenty percent of their men, and those who weren’t lost were often mutated and severe haters of war. Moreover, it is argued that the destruction caused by the war did not end purely with the loss of human life, it