The Evolution of Total War
The concept of “total war” emerged in the early 20th century, when General Carl von Clausewitz proposed a scenario in which the destruction of a country was the primary goal. The concept expanded beyond the battlefield, with thinkers such as Ernst Forsthoff and Ernst Jünger emphasizing state control over society. The term was attributed to Léon Daudet during World War II, but the foundations had been laid much earlier. Industrialization and technological advances produced new weaponry and tactics, requiring strong domestic support networks and large-scale army recruitment. The concept blurred the lines between combatants and civilians, and the horrors of World War I reinforced its reality. The four pillars of total war are total objectives, methods, control, and mobilization.
To begin a thorough analysis of the concept of “total war” as it relates to the First World War, we need to define the term precisely and thoroughly. For detailed and accurate analysis, the fundamental stage is important.
A similar theoretical framework was put forward by the Prussian military thinker Clausewitz before the idea of “total war.” Clausewitz’s concept of “absolute war” proposes a situation in which both sides aim to completely subjugate the other. According to Clausewitz, the logic of conflict will force total war to escalate. Each fighter must unleash all his destructive potential on his opponent in order to win. In other words, absolute war requires the use of every strategy and resource available to defeat the enemy. Clausewitz goes on to say how any hesitation in the field would give an unbeatable advantage to other armies, allowing them to defeat less loyal groups using greater force.
Throughout the early 20th century, the idea of using all available forces to completely destroy an enemy went beyond the realm of war alone. There was an important break from the boundaries of conventional combat. For example, Forsthoff argued how complete state control over all aspects of society was necessary for the survival of the nation in his treatise entitled “The Total State.” The point of view is consistent with the ideas put forward by Jünger. According to Jünger, the most important lesson from World War I was how war requires the most powerful weaponry, right down to the deepest nerves. Basically, Jünger supported a type of warfare that penetrated every level of society.
The turning point in the evolution of the theory of “total war” occurred in 1916. The famous expression total war, the war of the entire German people inside and outside the country against the Allied countries was written by Daudet during World War II. Most people agree how the inscription is the earliest known use of the term “total war.”
In an effort to close the conceptual gap between “total state” and “total mobilization,” German General Erich Ludendorff drew on his experience leading the German war effort during World War I. Later, he developed the idea of “absolute war” into the more complex notion of “total war,” which he discusses in his book of the same title. According to Ludendorff, total war is the total mobilization of a country’s material and human resources for the sole purpose of waging war. To dictate national policy in response to the demands of total war, he chose a centralized command system led by a supreme military commander.
The twentieth century saw a particularly strong rise in the idea of total war. Industrialization and technological advances brought new weapons and tactics to war. Nevertheless, the developments often led to a stalemate in battle; neither side gained any real advantage through military means alone. Due to the lack of specific military victories, countries began to use more strategy in their wars; they seek every advantage they can. Building a strong domestic support network is critical to mobilizing troops in large numbers. The nation-state has proven to be a useful tool for planning large-scale mobilization. However, the widespread participation of various social groups in the war effort also posed new dangers. Despite soldiers being specially selected and educated to withstand the psychological and physical stress of combat, citizens on the “home front” were largely unprepared to face the harsh realities of war. There is a hypothesis about how a country can be destroyed without experiencing conventional military victory if the people can be isolated and bullied in some way.
Through war during World War I, the rights of non-combatants previously considered sacred were significantly undermined in 1916, by both the Central Powers and the Allies. The distinction between a country’s civilian population and military personnel is becoming increasingly blurred. Wartime tactics underwent significant changes as a result of the phenomenon, with a strategic shift away from conventional tactical operations and toward a single goal: the methodical destruction of the enemy’s capacity to defend his military apparatus. The idea of “total war” ultimately emerged from the development of warfare. All components of a warring country (both material and human) are targeted for extermination worthy of total war.
The Four Pillars of Total War
The phrase “total war” has transcended its original meaning and is now widely used by academics and historians in various fields. It provides a comprehensive framework for studying the history of war, including various aspects of warfare. But considering the parameters, “total war” is actually still an unattainable goal. Although total war may never be fully realized, its component parts are easy to recognize and provide a useful basis for further analysis. One useful approach to evaluating the applicability of the idea of “total war” has been devised by Förster and Gessler. Four main pillars (Total Goals, Total Methods, Total Control, and Total Mobilization) support their system. Combined, the four components provide a powerful technique for evaluating how well “total war” applies to specific historical wars.
Total conquest of enemy forces is the ultimate goal of total war. It is achieved by requiring the enemy to surrender unconditionally; a conflict (in dire situations) can result in the total destruction of the opponent’s body. Total war can also include the destruction of an enemy’s resources, so that they are unable to continue the war effort and to facilitate physical eradication. In addition to causing the destruction of infrastructure, cutting off water supplies, or blocking imports (usually by blockading them), the objectives also discourage the hostile community’s will to resist as a whole. The lack of distinction between legitimate combatants and civilians is characteristic of all-encompassing objectives.
With an eye to the future, the German General Staff issued an official warning against a long-term struggle that could claim millions of lives right at the start of World War I. Although they tried their best to prevent such a dire situation, they were unsuccessful in the end. It resulted in a terrible war of attrition trapping the German army and its enemies. According to Howard, the tactic was essentially total war because although the term had not yet been officially used it targeted not only the systematic moral extermination of the enemy’s population but also the total destruction of their armed forces.
Given the unbreakable stalemate on the Western Front, neither warring party could envisage decisive operational action. As a result, there was a change in tactics. Instead of trying to openly disarm their opponents, both sides instead tried to weaken their morale by causing many deaths. There is an opinion that the secret of victory is to destroy the opponent’s morale. Therefore, the number of enemy soldiers killed on the Somme was used to determine victory and not territorial gains.
Inevitably, the battle of attrition dragged on pushing both sides to look for goals outside the battlefield. The goal evolved into the total destruction of the enemy’s ability to wage war including the entire social and economic infrastructure in addition to the armed forces. Best of all, the tactics were demonstrated during the 1914-1919 Allied Blockade of Germany. Economically, the aim of the protracted naval operation was to strangle Germany by blocking the supply of essential products. The Allies intended to destroy Germany’s industrial capacity and deprive the country of the resources it needed to defend its civilian population and war effort by cutting off sea supply lines. The blocking turned out to be very successful. German citizens began to suffer from widespread starvation in the winter of 1916, while food shortages in Austria-Hungary led to unrest and, in some areas, total starvation.
Germany began a campaign of unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917, driven by a desire for revenge and the goal of overthrowing British naval superiority. The intensification signaled a dramatic shift toward “total war,” targeting enemy populations as well as military targets.
A period of fighting characterized by the unavoidable but devastating effects of aerial bombing campaigns, in stark contrast to the predetermined boundaries of land and sea combat. Unintentional massacres, involving the death of civilians and infrastructure, quickly turned into a strategy used with the aim of weakening the will and morale of the enemy. The strategies lead to a vicious cycle of demonization in which both sides portray the other as barbaric and cruel. The hostile environment fosters feelings of rationalization for increasingly severe acts of retaliation, then continuing a dangerous spiral of violence.
The main political objectives of both sides in the early stages of World War I were defensive and simple. Warring states had no intention of destroying their enemies completely when they started the battle. However, the initial goal quickly evolved into a comprehensive plan centered on the complete destruction of the enemy’s armed forces and political system. As the severity of the war increased, both sides began to see each other as manifestations of evil, necessitating total elimination. Despite the German people sincerely believing in how they were fighting for their unique cultural history, the German government harbored expansionist intentions. Likewise, the British people believed that they were fighting a barbaric enemy whose warlike military posture and expansionist ambitions could only be subdued by a radical change in the opponent’s political system.
How World War I Exemplified Total War
Adopting total techniques is the second component of the idea of “total war” identified by Förster and Gessler. That is, in the highly militarized situation of World War I, any action deemed to help achieve final victory was acceptable. As a result, it is more difficult to distinguish who is a combatant and who is not, or soldiers and civilians. Ultimately, the erosion of differences makes civilians the direct targets of fighting.
The stalemate that plagued the Western Front during World War I demonstrated a crucial weakness on both sides: the inability to formulate operational plans might have ended the stalemate definitively. As has been said previously, the number of casualties suffered by enemy troops is a greater indicator of victory on the battlefield than territorial gains. The actions of the grim can clearly be applied to the German campaign at Verdun in 1916, as well as the Allied offensive in Flanders and the Somme. It was deliberate to cause casualties on a large scale, not to disarm the enemy, but rather to achieve a more subtle goal: to destroy their morale. Any confrontation reaching the point where the primary goal is not to destroy the enemy’s military through strategic maneuvers, but to destroy the enemy’s social will to fight, has inevitably developed into “total war.”
As a calculated move to cripple the German war machine, the British government implemented a five-year blockade of Germany. Strategic actions aim to strangle the state by limiting access to vital resources, with the consequence of starving the people and weakening the military’s capacity to fight. Effectively, the blockade ignored the principle of distinction established in the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), mandating the protection of civilians during times of war. In an effort to achieve final victory, the Allies were willing to incur additional losses on the German people, and considered them regrettable but unavoidable losses.
Driven by a desire for retaliation and the strategic goal of disrupting British naval dominance, Germany retaliated with a campaign of unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917. Regardless of whether the ships located were military or civilian, the brutal tactics involved deploying submarines to sink all enemy ship shape. The escalation marks a shift towards total war, where all aspects of society become easy targets.
World War I also saw the rise of horrific aerial bombing, with both sides launching bombing raids destroying enemy cities and industrial centers. The raids, a new and frightening weapon at the time, caused many civilian casualties and opened a new era of indiscriminate warfare from the skies.
Proving to be all-encompassing, Britain launched a military effort from the start of the War involving all national resources. All the tactics of the war were implemented very quickly; just seven days after war was declared, the Westminster Parliament passed the Defense of the Realm Act.
The laws listed give the government a large amount of executive authority. It gave them the authority to censor any criticism made public and deemed detrimental to the war effort. Furthermore, the law gives the government the authority to imprison people without needing to be tried. Additionally, it gave the government the power to confiscate financial resources vital to the war effort. It included the authority to seize any factories or land deemed essential to producing the large quantities of munitions and weapons necessary to win the war.
During the conflict, the Natural Defense Law was also amended six times. The changes include a series of initiatives aimed at maximizing the country’s military campaigns. One of the changes extended the number of hours of daylight available for work by requiring daylight saving time. There are also other amendments limiting alcohol consumption including reducing the number of hours pubs are open and lowering the alcohol content of drinks. It was further amended to prohibit the lighting of bonfires and the flying of kites, as they were considered a way to attract enemy airships.
In the midst of the heat, the idea of daylight-saving time (DST) reemerges with new meaning. The return of technology is closely related to the urgent need to conserve coal, which is the main fuel supply in this era. Through energy savings, citizens can actually support the war effort by implementing DST. Germany has implemented a similar system after realizing its potential advantages. Germany’s decisive steps were the trigger that pushed Britain to pass the Summertime Act on May 17, 1916. The act started a trend that spread across the European continent, making it a significant turning point. Many countries, including Australia, France, Italy, Russia, and even Finland, adopted DST within weeks.
In 1915 after a critical period known as the “Shell Crisis” (a period of scarcity of artillery shells severely hampering British military efforts on the Western Front), the British government witnessed a dramatic increase in its control over the country’s economy. apparatus. The unprecedented level of state intervention was considered an important consequence of the conflict’s evolution into “total war.” The shell shortage was a stark illustration of the inadequacy of existing wartime production methods and sparked a political crisis designed to force Parliament to adopt a national strategy for munitions production. In their opinion, the strategy required the appointment of a powerful leader, someone with the capacity to oversee and direct the country’s industrial output toward the single goal of victory.
As a radical move to prioritize production during wartime, the newly formed armaments program required the construction of new facilities from scratch. In addition, state supervision applied to industrial facilities already existed; the facility underwent a thorough re-equipment process with the exclusive aim of producing artillery shells in large quantities. Dramatically, ammunition production increased as a result of the aggressive strategy, exceeding growth by one thousand percent.
In addition, the government implemented a “land requisition” strategy, involving taking over underutilized land (including public parks) and converting it into agricultural production zones. Together with the establishment of a blanket rationing scheme, the tactic essentially gave the government complete control over the nation’s food supply, a vital resource in the final stages of World War I. The all-out war had a major impact on the civilian population beyond the nation’s borders. Citizens are forced to carry out military duties by implementing conscription. It is clear how France also used similar drastic means of control over social sectors. Simply put, at the time a system of almost total state control over all aspects of society was in place; it was a tactic considered essential to achieving full mobilization in the war effort.
The Consequences of Total War
Due to severe supply shortages resulting from the devastating Allied naval blockade, Germany was forced to implement an oppressive system of government against its citizens. By 1916, the country’s reserves of important resources were almost completely depleted, and a sharp decline in production levels was apparent. The Oberster Kriegsamt, or Supreme War Office, was established under special circumstances. The organization was responsible for the overall management and synchronization of labor, industry, and transportation during the war.
When we understand the concept of total mobilization, it becomes important to realize how mobilization goes far beyond the military realm. Comprehensively, it includes the mobilization of a country’s civilian population for the purposes of total war. During World War I, the belligerent nations implemented a multifaceted approach to mobilize their civilian populations in the war effort. The strategy included conscription, widespread use of military propaganda, and implementation of rationing programs. As a result, even those who did not explicitly agree to participate in the war were forced to make significant sacrifices. The sacrifices include restricted food consumption, restricted access to essential supplies, dedication of time and effort, as well as contributions of financial resources; all in the name of strengthening the war effort. Collectively, the various elements represent the hallmarks of total war.
Bibliography
- Honig, J. W. (2012). The idea of total war: From Clausewitz to Ludendorff. In The Pacific War as Total War: Proceedings of the 2011 International Forum on War History (pp. 29-41). National Institute for Defence Studies.
- Mulligan, W. (2008). Total war. War in History, 15(2), 211-221.
- Segesser, D. (2014). Controversy Total War.
- Serazhudinovich, G. K. (2018). Essay on the Phenomenon of the Totalization of War. Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Международные отношения, 18(4), 859-871.
