To what extent was the period one of total war between 1792-1945?
Across the period 1792-1945 elements of total war have played a crucial role in warfare. Total war is when
the entirety of a nation places all of its efforts towards winning a war. Usually within a total war there is
mass civilian involvement, not just on the Homefront, where homes, food, jobs are devoted to the war
effort, but equally, many army’s are made up by civilians. Furthermore a total war requires political
commitment; the government has large scale aims to dominate a country, and all government attention is
devoted to the war. Finally the strategy and tactics of battles and warfare can help to define weather a war
is limited or total, as certain tactics have effective and catastrophic effects when the nation’s strategy is to
attack civilians industry and the economy. Often it is only WW1 and world war two that are defined as total
wars however, I would argue that many of the other wars within the period have elements of total war, and
therefore the period as a whole can be described as one of limited war, however with strong total war
influences particularly in strategy, and tactics used.
In terms of civilian involvement most of the wars have some elements of total wars, as in one way or
another civilians are involved with the war. I would argue that world war two was the peak of civilian
participation; The blitz was a whole strategy that targeted civilians, the total deaths in the uk alone totalled
to 40,000, this statistic doesn’t even take into account the damage to people homes, workplaces, that
significantly impacted their everyday lives. However, the civilian moral during the raids was seen as crucial
to the country’s survival. Equally, the effects on civilians weren’t just in one country, the effects of bombing
on Germany were similar. The invasion of Poland and the holocaust resulted in the death of 6,000,000
people and it was an attempt to eradicate a whole religion of people, therefore civilians played a huge part
in many aspects of world war two. One main effect on civilians during a war is conscription, just like in WW2
during the Napoleonic wars, napoleon employed a similar strategy of mass national conscription, called
levee en mass, calling up all men aged between 18-25 to fight for their country, consequently effecting a
huge amount of the population. Napoleon was the creator of ‘nation in arms’ which is essentially controlling
and aligning all aspects of the military and state, making the military and war part of every ordinary person’s
life. This strategy is particularly common within a total war, and throughout history the ‘nation in arms’
strategy is echoed, particularly in both ww1 and ww2. However one may argue that it was only the French in
the Napoleonic wars who were fully invested in a total war, for example the British people were really only
effected by a worsening economy, meaning they were taxed more, which suggests that the Napoleonic wars
were more of a limited war for nations like Britain. In contrast to the Napoleonic wars where the military
became part of everyday life and normal for any French family, in the American civil war both sides used
mass civilian armies, who weren’t trained, and to begin with, opposed conscription, as it conflicted with their
ideologies. However, as the war continues ‘the draft’ is introduced, which was conscription, for the south
first in 1862 then the north the following year. The Mass civilian armies show a huge participation and
involvement from civilians in America, which is similar, although on a much smaller scale of civilian
commitment in ww2 which contributes to the war being considered total. However, in the period there are
wars, like in Crimea, where civilians are only loosely involved, as there is no conscription, the only link that
the public had to the war, was that for the first time they could gain knowledge of the action, the same day,
due to the invention of the telegram. This technological advancement paved the way for increased
nationalism and awareness for wars for those not fighting, and therefore although the Crimean war is
considered majority limited, due to lack of civilian involvement, you could ague that it is a crucial turning
point for integrating wars into peoples every day life’s, which is echoed and later exacerbated by Churchills
speeches in world war two appealing to the moral of the civilians. Therefore, although the level of civilian
involvement significantly differs throughout the period, it is a feature within all of the wars, thus the period
can be described as having strong influences from total war culminating in the two world wars.
Another factor that contributes to a total or limited war is the amount and ambitions of the political
commitment. Within the period ambitions and aims aren’t always prominent, and large enough to be
considered likely to contribute to a total war. However in world war one the aims were particularly strong,
the allies wanted to crush the whole German army and the axis powers aiming for domination over
Across the period 1792-1945 elements of total war have played a crucial role in warfare. Total war is when
the entirety of a nation places all of its efforts towards winning a war. Usually within a total war there is
mass civilian involvement, not just on the Homefront, where homes, food, jobs are devoted to the war
effort, but equally, many army’s are made up by civilians. Furthermore a total war requires political
commitment; the government has large scale aims to dominate a country, and all government attention is
devoted to the war. Finally the strategy and tactics of battles and warfare can help to define weather a war
is limited or total, as certain tactics have effective and catastrophic effects when the nation’s strategy is to
attack civilians industry and the economy. Often it is only WW1 and world war two that are defined as total
wars however, I would argue that many of the other wars within the period have elements of total war, and
therefore the period as a whole can be described as one of limited war, however with strong total war
influences particularly in strategy, and tactics used.
In terms of civilian involvement most of the wars have some elements of total wars, as in one way or
another civilians are involved with the war. I would argue that world war two was the peak of civilian
participation; The blitz was a whole strategy that targeted civilians, the total deaths in the uk alone totalled
to 40,000, this statistic doesn’t even take into account the damage to people homes, workplaces, that
significantly impacted their everyday lives. However, the civilian moral during the raids was seen as crucial
to the country’s survival. Equally, the effects on civilians weren’t just in one country, the effects of bombing
on Germany were similar. The invasion of Poland and the holocaust resulted in the death of 6,000,000
people and it was an attempt to eradicate a whole religion of people, therefore civilians played a huge part
in many aspects of world war two. One main effect on civilians during a war is conscription, just like in WW2
during the Napoleonic wars, napoleon employed a similar strategy of mass national conscription, called
levee en mass, calling up all men aged between 18-25 to fight for their country, consequently effecting a
huge amount of the population. Napoleon was the creator of ‘nation in arms’ which is essentially controlling
and aligning all aspects of the military and state, making the military and war part of every ordinary person’s
life. This strategy is particularly common within a total war, and throughout history the ‘nation in arms’
strategy is echoed, particularly in both ww1 and ww2. However one may argue that it was only the French in
the Napoleonic wars who were fully invested in a total war, for example the British people were really only
effected by a worsening economy, meaning they were taxed more, which suggests that the Napoleonic wars
were more of a limited war for nations like Britain. In contrast to the Napoleonic wars where the military
became part of everyday life and normal for any French family, in the American civil war both sides used
mass civilian armies, who weren’t trained, and to begin with, opposed conscription, as it conflicted with their
ideologies. However, as the war continues ‘the draft’ is introduced, which was conscription, for the south
first in 1862 then the north the following year. The Mass civilian armies show a huge participation and
involvement from civilians in America, which is similar, although on a much smaller scale of civilian
commitment in ww2 which contributes to the war being considered total. However, in the period there are
wars, like in Crimea, where civilians are only loosely involved, as there is no conscription, the only link that
the public had to the war, was that for the first time they could gain knowledge of the action, the same day,
due to the invention of the telegram. This technological advancement paved the way for increased
nationalism and awareness for wars for those not fighting, and therefore although the Crimean war is
considered majority limited, due to lack of civilian involvement, you could ague that it is a crucial turning
point for integrating wars into peoples every day life’s, which is echoed and later exacerbated by Churchills
speeches in world war two appealing to the moral of the civilians. Therefore, although the level of civilian
involvement significantly differs throughout the period, it is a feature within all of the wars, thus the period
can be described as having strong influences from total war culminating in the two world wars.
Another factor that contributes to a total or limited war is the amount and ambitions of the political
commitment. Within the period ambitions and aims aren’t always prominent, and large enough to be
considered likely to contribute to a total war. However in world war one the aims were particularly strong,
the allies wanted to crush the whole German army and the axis powers aiming for domination over
