Talk:Total war/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ancient Sumeria

Given the close interconnection of the three definitions here, and the fact that some historians refer to ancient Sumeria as the origins of the idea of total war, scorched earth, genocide, etc., as the normal mode of warfare, this article should be written as one piece, explaining the whole history of the concept, the technological escalation to include all aspects of production and development of new weapons, such as the Technology during World War I which many say was the first such total war.

Nuclear bombing of Hiroshima

Possibly the most famous use of total war, was the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima by Harry Truman in order to extort Japan into surrendering or face the annihilation of their civilization.

I have removed this because it is a personal interpretation. Rewording can be done to mention this in NPOV manner. -- Taku 19:15, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

This would work better. "Possible the most famous display of total war tactics was the use of the nuclear bomb, against Japan during World War II, in order to force Japan to surrender." However, this is not an intrepretation I agree with. The strategy of total war should be applied to more conventional attacks (note the plural). The attack on Hiroshima was really more of a tactic to end the war, not a strategy. And indeed, more conventional attacks were more destructive, such as the firebombing of Toyko or Dresden. Instead of the citing atomic bomb, the night bombings of population centers by the British and Germans would be more appropriate example. It would even combine both definitions of total war. Stargoat 22:10, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Term "Total War" by Nazi propaganda minister

I put "The term has also been invoqued to shore up support during wartime, most famously by Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels at a time when Germany had just lost the Battle of Stalingrad." back in the introduction. The reason is that "total war" is not exclusively a military term (as one might think reading the article before my edits), it is also important in propaganda.pir 09:19, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I took it out. You misunderstand Goebbels' use of the word, and the context of the situation. Nazi Germany was not at that point in the war, committed to a total war. Goebbels was trying to drum up support for committing the entire economy to war; something that Germany had not yet done at that point in the war. His use of the word matches the scope of the article perfectly. Stargoat 14:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute because of selection of quotes

The selection of the quotes is not neutral as it gives the impression as if the Nazis were the only ones who deliberately targeted civilians and as if the bombing of Dresden that killed tens of thousands of civilians was a strike primarily on military targets. Get-back-world-respect 18:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There should be no neutrality dispute in this article. This is not an article about Dresden. Nor is this an article about Strategic Bombing. Furthermore, there is a quote in reference to Dresden. Additionally, there are two quotes from German leaders and two from British leaders. Stargoat 20:06, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Two are from criminal Nazi leaders. Two are from a British commander who killed tens of thousands of civilians, which is seen as a crime against humanity by many. That is not neutral. Get-back-world-respect 20:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I fail to see your point. Make it, or remove the NPOV objection. Stargoat 03:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because you cannot see it it must be invalid? I fail to see why you cannot see my point. Get-back-world-respect 12:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You've not made one. You have not said why the article should be NPOV disputed. Now either do something constructive, or go away. Stargoat 12:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I argued that the selection of the quotes is not neutral. If you do not agree, you do not have to, but you are not entitled to decide whether there are disputes of your view. Get-back-world-respect 13:31, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let's see. WWII quotes:

1. Churchill points out WWII is total war, including civilians

2. Goebbels uses the threat of total war (context unclear)

Bombing quotes:

1. Hitler points out civilians are targets for terror bombing

2. von Stum says "target civilian buildings"

3. Harris is smug about Britain retaliating

4. Harris defends the bombing of Dresden

5. Churchill admits bombing for terror purposes, admits doubt over Dresden

On the whole pretty fair: both sides admit to bombing for terror purposes. The article body is also NPOV, so I agree with Stargoat, this is a waste of time. --Air 15:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I regard it as not as unbalanced as before after I added the Churchill quote. Stargoat had disputed the neutrality dispute before that quote was added. Get-back-world-respect 22:44, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Carl von Clausewitz

If you're going to talk about total war, shouldn't you go to the man who coined the phrase "total war", Carl von Clausewitz in his book describing Napoleonic strategy and tactics, Vom Kriege (1832) and discuss the strategy itself instead of listing every battle that loosely meets the definition? ExplorerCDT 22:50, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Clausewitz coined the term "Absolute War" (see wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_war) which is quite different from "Total War". However he never mentions nor discusses the concept of Total War anywhere in his book Vom Kriege. This is a common misconception. The concept of Total War was first envisaged by General Erich von Ludendorff prior to World War II.

We do. Read the first half of the article. Stargoat 00:13, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Really? That's funny, because I don't see von Clausewitz's name on there at all? Perhaps this is simply because (knowing that I'm not blind) IT ISN'T THERE. Not only do I yearn to see any von Clausewitz reference, I do not even see a mention of Machiavelli and his Art of War. Nor do I see Genghis Khan, whose ravaging the Central Asian and European countryside inspired the Western doctrine that became "Total War" [especially in folks like Gustavus Adolphus, Frederick the Great, and later Napoleon Bonaparte, William Jenkins Worth, and Ulysses S. Grant (who admired GK as can be seen in their writings).] As someone well versed in military history, this article is terribly insufficient and barely scratches the surface of the philosophical and historical roots of "total war." Right now, it is military history written by novices. After this weekend, if I don't see much improvement, I will come back and do a massive edit. --ExplorerCDT 02:54, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Great. I look forward to seeing it. Stargoat 03:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is total war

Replaced

"This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now. -- (Richard Perle in an interview on the War on Terror) [1]

with

"Second thing is—and this concerns me a lot—no stages. This is a total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. And all this talk about, well, first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq, then we will take a look around and see how thing stand, that is entirely the wrong way to go about it. Because these guys all talk to each other and are all working with one another." – Michael Ledden October 29, at a meeting of the American Enterprise Institute: The Battle for Ideas in the U.S. War on Terrorism

Because Anon said "I don't know what the hell I'm doing here. Anyway, this quote is misattributed. John Pilger said it was Perle, everyone else links to him, but it was actually Michael Ledeen, on October 29, at a meeting of the American Enterprise Institute. Perle was there.' Link to the original URL

obsessive with WWII

I'm actually thinking along the same lines. The article has (particularly at the bottom) become so obsessive with WWII and, to a less extend nuclear weapons, that it does not seem to serve its purpose, which is the generic interpretation of Total War. I'm thinking of gutting it and redoing most of it. That there is already a Total War (or strategic bombing in World War II) article moves me even further in this direction. Any comments from the community? Stargoat 04:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would be against this. World War II and to a lesser extent World war I are the only total wars in the meaning of a clash between two industrial societies. The Spartans and the Zulus both had militaristic societies but when they went to war one would not normally say that it was a "total war". Similarly many societies have been utterly destroyed by war, eg many of those on the receiving end of the Roman legions, but it is not considered to be an example of total war.

It is only with examples that one can fully appreciate what total war means. Personally I do not think that the USA has ever fought a total war. For example they did not suspend elections, which if they had been fighting a total war would not have been practical and would have been seen as a distraction from the effort of wining the war, as was the case in Britain. Philip Baird Shearer 12:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Careless Deletion

The following lines were somewhat carelessly deleted. [2]

Instead of wars fought directly between world powers, during the cold war, wars between industrialized nations were fought by proxy over national prestige, tactical strategic advantage or colonial and neocolonial resources. Examples include the US war in Vietnam, the Six Day War, and the Soviet War in Afghanistan.

The War in Iraq however has shown that it is possible, by first using political means to ensure that an opponent has no access to nuclear weapons, for war to continue between two industrial nations, albeit not yet a total war between reasonably equally matched opponents. Further developments in weapons technology such as the Star Wars Initiative, which make possible a hope of survival of nuclear war, make it possible for a gradual entry into total war to be envisioned caused by a war with limited initial aims spiralling out of control.

Another development which may lead to the resumption of total war is the development and deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons. These requre greater targeting accuracy and so have to be deployed in a more decentralised manner. This makes accidental, mistaken or malicious use more likely and is liable to lead to full scale retaliation, leading once again to total war[3][4].

I'm planning to revert the edit but I'd like to put this up to discuss first and perhaps see if there was some clarity missing.

The point here is that people have honestly claimed that we were living in a "post history" society; beyond the possibility of total warfare. The claim was that "industrial" societies can't have wars any more and that since only an industrial society can have total war, there will never be total war again.

The Iraq war does not represent total warfare; that is clear (maybe we should say The War in Iraq however, whilst not near to total war... ; would that help?) however it was a war between two industrial societies (Iraq, prior to sactions had quite a large industrial base) and as such it is a clear counter-example which breaks the simple statement of the theory that total war will never occur again.

The second point is that the premise behind MAD is the premise that there is a clear line crossing which leads to total war and total anhiliation. The deployment of smaller battlefield weapons which are expected to be used blurs that line. Once again, it breaks the theories upon which the impossibility of total warfare were based by providing a path for a minor local conflict to escalate through to total warfare by misunderstandings about the meaning of nuclear weapon use. E.g. Pakistan has said it will use battlefield nuclear weapons to deal with superior Indian forces and is considering deploying them to the front line. India has said it will react to any nuclear weapon use with a nuclear attack "unacceptable" to Pakistan. All it would take for an outbreak of total war is a misunderstanding of the size of an attack by a Pakistani commander or a misunderstanding of an accidental deployment by India.

Finally, a section

These small wars do not fall into the category of total war, but instead are a form of third or fourth generational warfare.

was added. This section doesn't define third generational warfare (1G - sticks and small family groups 2G - stones and tribes 3G - metal weapons and multiple tribes 4G - metal projectiles and societies 5G - chariots & mobile cavalry ???, ... Sun Tzu was designing for 10G warfare :-) and doesn't really fit fully to a section which is already discussing types of warfare during a break in total warfare (such wars, obviously are not total war, there's no need to restate it).

Mozzerati 07:02, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

I do not think that third or fourth generational warfare should be mentioned. It is a very US concentric view of the world and quite controversial. William S. Lind doesn't seem to recognise colonial warfare ever took place (Northwest frontier and all that), and doesn't seem to know that the guerrilla originates in the Napoleonic wars, or that there were ever any troubles in Ireland, his definition of a start with the Peace of Westphalia is right in the middle of the English Civil war! But this is for discussion for the Fourth Generation War page...

The Iraq wars hardly warrant a sentence. As a rough rule of thumb I think that a more than 50% of the GNP of both antagonists would have to be spent on a war for it to be a total war. The USA is only spending a fraction of this amount on its total military budget at the moment.

The point of Neutron bombs or other tactical weapons is not their use but the complications the give a potential aggressor. It is widely assumed that to win a conventional war on the ground it is necessary to concentrate armour to make a break through. The concentration of armour is a very good target for a tactical nuke. So how the problem for the planners of a blitzkrieg type attack, is how does one plan for a victory over an enemy without being able to concentrate armour? Neutron bombs were only a political tool, because understandably the Germans could not see the difference between being ploughed under by dirty tactical weapons instead of strategic weapons. Warsaw Pact planners had to assume that NATO would be more likely to use neutron bombs earlier than a dirty tactical weapon (for political reasons), so it made their planning more complicated. Whether one's enemy would be willing to sacrifice their capital by retaliating to a tactical strike with a strategic strike (and receiving a strategic strike in return) was judged by NATO to be unlikely as early as the 1950s. etc, etc (MAD). Philip Baird Shearer 12:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your Country Needs You

I do not think that this poster is appropriate because it was aimed at volunteers. It was only after the slaughter of the men who responded to this poster at the Battle of the Somme that as men became less interested in volunteering that conscription was brought in. There had been a lot of similar propaganda in both the Napoleonic wars and Boer War (which was only 10 years earlier and involved a British army of nearly half a million men). Perhaps a poster asking for war bond donations or the WWII poster of "wall have ears" might be better. Philip Baird Shearer 10:16, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Notwithstanding technical issues, I think that culturally, Kitchener's image is recognized as iconic of the demands made during the First World War. Anyway, no big deal, see:

File:USPosterKeepEmComing.jpg

119 14:42, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mention the Punic wars!

There is no mention of the punic wars at all in the article, and yet most historians consider them the first real example of full on total war in human history. These were the first wars in human history that included millions of combatants, do they not deserve a mention?!

Problems with the article, and a solution

I wanted to point out a few issues with this article, and suggest a solution.

• The largest concern I have is that this article uses an almost arbitrary definition of "total war." Certainly a war involving the entire nation is a collequial meaning, but the original sense comes from General Erich von Ludendorff and, of course, Clausewitz. In this tradition, total war was the opposite of limited war - that is, war freed from any constraints. Clausewitz actually argued that such an approach was preferrable to limited war. Neither Clausewitz nor von Lundorff is mentioned, and my attempts to figure out how to do so pointed out the second concern...
• Basically everything here is original research, most glaringly the post-total war section. This article develops a bunch of assertions about the nature of total war, and has no references to provide support. Who says this stuff? Where is coming from?
• Due to lack of a clear definition, this article seems to use the definition of high levels of mobilization as determining what makes a total war, at least for the examples. This doesn't make a lot of sense, isn't developed earlier in the article, and leaves out many militarized societies.

My solution is to cut the first three sections "Development of the concept of total war," "Consequences of Total War," and "Post Total War," and rewrite them, which I will vounteer to do. Then I think we need to go through the examples to see if they fit. Alternately, if someone would provide sources, that would be helpful. Thoughts? --Goodoldpolonius2 04:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I would throw out anything before WWI because none of them fit the definition of total war, which involves mechanisation both of the battlefield and the means of production to the maximum extent possible FOR BOTH SIDES.

I would not modify the first three sections to a large extent. Just because there are not many references in the article does not mean that it is "original research" (that phrase is such a bludgeon). Much of it is not controversial and so does not need to be referenced. Which parts do you think you have never seen before is novel and counts as "original research"? --Philip Baird Shearer 08:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Philip, I appreciate your response, but there are a number of true original research problems

That bludgeon "original research" again! Ask for references if you like, but just because you do not know the source for something does not make it original research. There are no "novel narrative or historical interpretation" in this. If original research was as easy as you imply then we would all have PhDs.

NO SOURCES are given. The article appears to draw on a single page from the BBC. The opinions of the page are not based on any material I have read, and you have not pointed to any. This qualifies as original research, and I justified this assertion below, I did not use it as a bludgeon. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Where are you getting your definition of total war ("mechanisation," etc.)? The whole development of the concept makes no reference to sources, and seems to be entirely arbitrary, the article seems to call World War I and World War II as total wars, and nothing else.
  • Name a war pre-1914 which was a total industrialised war, where more than 50% of GDP of the combatants on both sides was spent on war? Here is a source which broadly states what is stated here BBC: Stephen Badsey tells the story of the birth of 'total war' "World War One was the first mass global war of the industrialised age, a demonstration of the incredible power of modern states...What made World War One so different was the long-term impact of the Industrial Revolution, with its accompanying political and social changes. This was the first mass global war of the industrialised age, a demonstration of the prodigious strength, resilience and killing power of modern states".
    • Yes, but the problem again is the lack of any sourced definition. 50% GDP? Where are these coming from? The only reference to total war in the article you cite is "Known at first as 'People's War', this idea developed in the 19th century as part of a growing sense of national identity. By the middle of World War One it was known as 'Total War' - the organisation of entire societies for war in a social, economic, and even spiritual sense." Nowhere does it give a clear definition. This is what I mean by original research, you are extrapolating, not citing. Some definitions military historians have used are below, and some are close to what you are proposing, but they sometimes include other wars (like the Prussian Wars, or Civil War) in their definitions as well. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • No reference to history of the concept (or Clausewitz and its desirability)
    • I agree that the mention of Clausewitz is not enough
  • No reference to military strategies built around it
    • Well one good reason for that is that the overall policy is in the hands of civilians not the military, so the decision to fight a total war is a political one not a military one.
      • But the concept gave from military strategy, not civilian concepts, again, this reflects the lack of any source. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• The whole consequences section is original research:
  • Who says "The most identifiable consequence of total war in modern times has been the inclusion of civilians and civilian infrastructure as targets in destroying a country's ability to engage in war?" Weren't civilians targeted in many wars?
    • No they were not. For many centuries civilians and their property was not targeted as a means of destroying the enemy's ability to wage war. If one reads the 1907 Hague conventions "Article 25: The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited." there were also rules on how bombardment was/is supposed to be carried out. At sea the "cruiser rules" prohibited the sinking of merchant shipping without putting the crews into life boats etc[5] which is what made the sinking of the Lusitania such a shock at the time[6]. The accepted norm during wars in the 19th century was not to target civilian infrastructure which is why Sherman's march to the sea stands out. In the 20th century after the start of World War I, it was not until the advent of smart munitions and GC Protocol I that this stopped being the norm. To quote Churchill's quote on the page ""...There is another more obvious difference from 1914. The whole of the warring nations are engaged, not only soldiers, but the entire population, men, women and children. The fronts are everywhere. The trenches are dug in the towns and streets. Every village is fortified. Every road is barred. The front line runs through the factories. the workmen are soldiers with different weapons but the same courage...". The application of statistical analysis overseen by Professor Lindemann and his seminal paper to the British Cabinet recommending that German workers houses be targeted, was using scientific methods to influence grand stratagy, something never done before in warfare. The whole branch of science called operational research can trace its origins back to the development of statistical and other mathematical tools to help the C20th military.
      • This is just false, they certainly were targeted in the wars of Genghis Khan and Timur. And more recently, from the 19th century. From Shutting the Gates of Mercy: The American Origins of Total War, 1860-1880,Lance Janda, The Journal of Military History, Vol. 59, No. 1. (Jan., 1995), pp. 7-26. "But if total war is defined as 'military force against the civilian population of the enemy,' then the Civil War stands as a watershed in total war theory." From On the Road to Total War: The American Civil War and the German Wars of Unification, 1861-1871 Stig Forster; Jorg Nagle reviewed by Brian Holden Reid in The Journal of Military History, Vol. 62, No. 3. (Jul., 1998), pp. 631-632."Certainly by the standards of the Pennisular War, the depridations inflicted on civilians in 1861-1865 appear meek and mild. Yet total war is a relative concept..."
  • "Total war also resulted in the mobilization of the home front. Propaganda became a required component of total war in order to boost production and maintain morale. Rationing took place to provide more material for waging war." Rationing and mobilization of the home front long predated the late 19th century.
    • Which war before total war resulted in the mobilisation of the home front and rationing? The point which you seem to be missing is that other wars in other times have had some of the facets of total war, but they did not combined into a total war until 1914 and there had not been another total war since the end of World War II. If there had of been then it would involve the use of nuclear weapons.
      • • You are confusing the concepts of total war with world war, from your own BBC article: "More than a century before, the French Revolution of 1789 had seen the first attempts to harness citizenship and patriotism to a national war effort. In the ideology of revolutionary France, young men were conscripted into the armed forces as part of their duty as citizens, but the remaining population was also expected to make personal sacrifices for the war, blurring the distinction between civilian and soldier." Again, a definition would help. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Who says "Another consequence was the expansion of the peace time military... To justify the huge expenditure, populations had to become accustomed to thinking of the most likely potential enemy, as an enemy, which helped to foster war hysteria and jingoism."? Jingoism and standing armies and potential enemies all pre-dated total war, and have little to do with it, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
    • This is not controversial and is perceived wisdom neg "the German navy joined Britain in the race to create a new navy organised around this powerful new type of battleship. It seemed that the outbreak of war between Britain and Germany was inevitable; it was only a question of when."[7]]
      • This source addresses nothing about jingoism being generated to support investment, try again. This is why I keep bringing up original research, this is exactly what it is, cite a source please. Goodoldpolonius2 02:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• The post total war section is original research:
  • The post Total War section generally makes little sense, as the concept of total war still exists, and there were total wars (by any definition) fought between Iraq and Iran, and between Israel and various Arab states, etc. You are defining total wars as World War I and World War II, in this case, which is not supported.
    • They were not total wars because the countries are not industrial powers and in all cases the objectives on one or both sides were limited. Any total war today would involve the use of nuclear weapons. See International Court of Justice General List No. 95 Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons 8 July 1996 "66. Some other States, which assert the legality of the threat and use of nuclear weapons in certain circumstances, invoked the doctrine and practice of deterrence in support of their argument. They recall that they have always, in concert with certain other States, reserved the right to use those weapons in the exercise of the right to self-defence against an armed attack threatening their vital security interests. In their view, if nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945, it is not on account of an existing or nascent custom but merely because circumstances that might justify their use have fortunately not arisen." See also the UK Declaration made upon signature of GC Protocol I - 12/12/1977 under reservations "(a) It continues to be the understanding of the United Kingdom that the rules introduced by the Protocol apply exclusively to conventional weapons without prejudice to any other rules of international law applicable to other types of weapons. In particular, the rules so introduced do not have any effect on and do not regulate or prohibit the use of nuclear weapons.".
      • Again what source says this? This is all your own opinions. The ICJ says nothing about total war. Iraq and Iran had limited objectives? Egypt and Syria had limited objectives? In the Iran-Iraq war, the goal was conquest, and every member of Iraqi and Iranian society suffered, and both countries were industrialized. This makes no sense, and again is unsourced. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • "As the tensions between industrialized nations have diminished, European continental powers have for the first time in 200 years started to question if conscription is still necessary. Many are moving back to the pre-Napoleonic ideas of having small professional armies" - huh? who had conscription until recently? Why is this pre-Napoleonic?
    • Military_of_France, levée en masse#The French Revolutionary Wars but there are others in Europe who have been thinking of it and may have implemented it.
      • Again, you are missing the question, who had levees until recently? Who are these others? Where is this coming from? --Goodoldpolonius2 02:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • "Since the end of the Cold War, some industrialised countries have been involved in a number of small wars with strictly limited strategic objectives which have motives closer to those of the colonial wars of the 19th century than those of total war;" I would totally dispute the tie to the motivations of colonial wars for the interventions in Timor, or Kosovo, etc.
    • I persume that you would agree that all the wars mentioned they were "wars with strictly limited strategic objectives". We can argue the toss about whether they are similar to some of the colonial wars of the previous century, but why for example did the America occupy the Philippines?
      • Huh? Was Kosovo or Timor a war of occupation? --Goodoldpolonius2 02:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This just feels like it was written as an essay on warfare, not as anything related to the concept of total war. I am readding the rewrite tag. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • So what in your opinion is a "total war"? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Rather than opinion, here are some sources:
        • • Total war is an ideal of warfare, not an actual achievable aim, since all warfare is in some way limited by politics, according to Clausewitz
          • Chickering's definition is closest to yours: "Total war is distinguished by its unprecedented intensity and extent. Theaters of operations span the globe; the scale of battle is practically limitless. Total war is fought heedless of the restraints of morality, custom, or international law, for the combatants are inspired by hatreds born of modern ideologies. Total war requires the mobilization not only of armed forces but also of whole populations. The most crucial determinant of total war is the widespread, indiscriminate, and deliberate inclusion of civilians as legitimate military targets." From Anticipating Total War: The German and American Experiences, 1871-1914 Manfred F. Boemeke; Roger Chickering; Stig Forster in The Journal of Military History, Vol. 64, No. 1. (Jan., 2000), pp. 217-218.
          • According to Abraham Lincoln, John Pope, and the Origins of Total War by Daniel E. Sutherland in The Journal of Military History, Vol. 56, No. 4. (Oct., 1992), pp. 567-586: "Historians who credit Grant and Sherman with launching some strategic form of "total war, include Russell F. Weigley, Towards an American Army: Military Thought from Washington to Marshall (1962; Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1974), 79-99, and The American Way of War: A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy (New York: Macmillan Company, 1973), 128-52, though with some modification in his essay "American Strategy from Its Beginnings to the First World War," in Peter Paret, ed., Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986); Herman Hattaway and Archer Jones, How the North Won: A Military History of the Civil War (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1983), 501-33; John Keegan, The Mask of Command (New York: Viking Press, 1987), 219-21; James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 721-22, 808-10; and Gary W. Gallagher, ed., Struggle for the Shenandoah: Essays on the 1864 Valley Campaign (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1991), 6-7, 13-15. A few historians have begun to challenge this interpretation of the war. Mark Neely, Jr., admits that the contest "approached total war in some ways" (his emphasis), but he insists that the doctrine was "uncharacteristic" of most of the war and never applied "systematically." See Mark E. Neely, Jr., "Was the Civil War a Total War?" Civil War History 37 (March 1991): 5-28. Neely's distinction is sensible in some ways, but he makes too much of it and defines "total war" too narrowly. Archer Jones, whose earlier work with Herman Hattaway downplayed "modern" elements in the war, endorses Neely in Civil War Command and Strategy: The Process of Victory and Defeat (New York: Free Press, 1992), 241-43, 306; but Jones's historical examples of earlier "total" wars (from the Middle Ages and seventeenth century) seem weak. In any case, both Neely and Jones neglect the circumstances under which the new policy, whatever its degree of success and extent of application, was introduced. James M. McPherson also questions Neely's narrow definition of total war in "From Limited War to Total War: 1861-1865," a paper read at Mid-America Conference on History, Springfield, Missouri, September 1991. Thanks also to Professor McPherson for commenting on an earlier version of this article. Charles Royster contends that Americans were willing to wage "destruc¬tive war" from the very start of the contest, and that Sherman receives too much attention as its originator. Still, Royster does use Sherman as the symbol of the new warfare and stresses the traditional timing of its evolution as policy. See The Destructive War: William Tecumseh Sherman, Stonewall Jackson and the Americans (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991), 106-19, 142-43, 321-47."
          • Robert M. Utley argues that the frontier wars with the Indians were total war
      • In any case, you should not continue to remove the tag. The article clearly needs rewriting and clean-up, even you admit that many of the cases in the article are not total war, and that the definition and history of the term are lacking. Your continued removal of the cleanup tag serves no purpose, given this, except to imply that the article is in great shape. I will add it a last time, if you remove it, I obviously will not re-add, so as not to violate 3RR, but I would expect this to not be a problem. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

History

Soviets moving factories: This is a persistent myth. Most of the factories had already been moved when the Germans attacked. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.64.135.19 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Japanese internment: I'm embarassed to admit, Canada interned about 22 thousand Japanese (mostly native born) beginning in 1942. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.64.135.19 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Strategic bombing: RAF efforts were aimed more at breaking civilian morale than stopping production, despite propaganda at the time (and since).The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.64.135.19 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.64.135.19 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Who is K. D. Faber? -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverted edits by 70.64.135.19

I reverted the edits by 70.64.135.19 because of errors in facts for example this paragraph:

Britain and Germany made a distinct attempt to destroy the other's ability to produce war materials. They did this by the use of strategic bombing campaigns upon each others' cities. When the United States entered the war, it executed similar campaigns against both Germany and Japan.

Was changed to

Germany made a distinct attempt to destroy Britain's ability to produce war materials, by the use of strategic bombing against British cities. Britain countered by nighttime efforts to break German morale, when bombing factories in daylight proved untenable. When the United States entered the war, it executed "precision" daylight strikes against both Germany and Japan, initially with as little success as Britain; ultimately, area fire raids destroyed Japan.

The Germans attempted to break British morale as well as target war production. The British likewise targeted war production and hoped to break German morale but after the failure of Operation Gomorrah and the Battle of Berlin (air) none but the most dedicated air war proponents in Britain thought that the German could be knocked out of the war by breaking their morale and the directives (orders) issued to Bomber Command during the war reflected this. The use of precision in inverted commas is questionable. And the statement "area fire raids destroyed Japan" is not true. Parts of Japan were destroyed but not the whole country or its will to fight on. -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Orientation

I'm going to agree with comments above that this page obsesses over World War II and the industrial age to a too great extent. I've seen the Punic Wars described as total wars (salt sprinkled on Carthage and all that). Indeed, the wars of early civilizations were almost necessarily total: the entire population was mobilized around the effort and defeat meant oblivion. Marskell 18:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Total war as a strategical concept and wartime policy however is decisevely modern. While parts concerning Sumerians, Greeks, Romans, and whatnot could be included, the focus ("obsession") should remain on modern wars because of the fact that total war is a strategical concept developed within the last couple hundred years and as such should be described in that context. It would be like if the imperialism article spent as much time talking about Roman expansion policy as British imperial policy. Imperialism is a modern concept and was not the policy of the Romans. Likewise, total war is a modern concept and was not the actual policy of Romans, Carthaginians, etc.I would like to see something about Mao Zedong and Chinese strategic thought, however. And is there some way to get it to send the term Total War to the strategic concept instead of the video game? - Anonymous, 16:24 GMT 5 November 2005

I fixed the videogame forward program, as for the rest, I think it is up for discussion. As I said earlier, most scholarly articles list the Civil War as the earliest potential total war, and I would generally agree with cutting out the early stuff. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Which Civil War? BTW thanks for fixing that videogame title it has been annoying me for months. Philip Baird Shearer 22:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

American Civil War, sorry. But, in re-reading the article, I don't think it talks too much about ancient wars, can Anonymous explain better? --Goodoldpolonius2 22:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I think what Anonymous wrote is clear. He does not think that the focus should shift from the the "last couple hundred years" and I would agree with him. Personally I do not think that the Amircan Civil War was a total war (at least for the North) any more than the Second Boer War was a total war for the British Empire. Both wars contains some elements of what would be seen in the industrial wars of the 20th century, but in many ways they were not total wars. In fact I am not sure that the USA has ever fought a total war althought of course they/it has been involved all of them. For example any country which can afford to hold a general election in the middle of a war is not fighting a war by all means available.

In contrast it is only in the last few years, that Southwark Park in London recived new gates because along with a lot of the iron fencing throughout Britian during the war they were removed for melting down for use in war production. All over London one still sees gaps where the cast iron fences were removed during the war and never replaced. Philip Baird Shearer 23:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Unconditional surrender

Philip,

I think this article (Total War) is becoming a catch all for nasty wars, rather than a definition and interpretation of total war as a concept. There is definite drift in the article, particularly in the examples (much of which should be pulled for clarities sake). In particular, I would argue that unconditional surrender in World War II does not have much to do with the concept of Total War in general. Unconditional Surrender has more to do with Grand Strategy rather than Total War, which is more operational. What do you think? Stargoat 19:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When the US announced that a war aim was unconditional surrender, it came as a surprise to the other two powers at the Casablanca conference. It is very unusual and has only been used as a stated war aim in two conflicts and in both of them it caused the loosing side to fight long after they knew that they would loose, in the hope that something would turn up, TINA (as Mrs T would say). For a victors to impose such a burden on themselves would only be done in a total war. The Japanese despite two atom bombs with more to come refused to accept it. The allies agreed to a conditional surrender from the Japanese because to insist on unconditional surrender would have prolonged the war needlessly. It undoubtedly lengthened the war in Europe, the German resistance could not guarantee to potential recruits that they could offer a future better than Hitler's, as they would be lying prostrated at the feet of their conquers hoping for mercy. A popular German saying towards the end was "Geniesse den Krieg denn der Frieden wird schrecklich".

I would agree with you that "surrender terms" and war aims in general belong in "Grand Strategy", but specifically "Unconditional Surrender" was an element in making World War II a total war. Philip Baird Shearer 23:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The last two sentences of this section of the article are speculation, althouigh highly probable. If it is someone's opinion, please say so. Also, an explanation is also due why would US declare this: did they really wanted to get more Jerries and Yankeys killed thru this "increased the determination and the ferocity of the defence" or they were simply dumb not to forsee it? Mikkalai 01:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess the political advantages outweighed the political disadvantages. For the Americans using the phrase was like the Russians calling the war the Great Patriotic War, it had a resonance for the Americans and thanks to its use in World War II one sees it asked in every war that Britain and the US have fought since. Eg Troops surrender at Port Stanley

There are dozens of examples on the web and other sources which list various people on the Axis side looking to negotiate surrender terms other than unconditional. Some of the best documented are those of the Japanese over the status of the Emperor. The attitude on the Axis side to this is summed up in the cynical popular German phrase which was used a lot in the last few weeks of the war "Geniesst den Krieg, der Friede wird schrecklich!" --Philip Baird Shearer 17:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I would say that this section is not only perhaps lacking in factuality but maybe a NPOV violation(?) It seems to almost be anti-Roosevelt. Some historians, notably S.E. Morrison, say that the other allies, especially Churchill, were delighted by the announcement, and that the Axis were already resolved to fight to the bitter end and the Unconditional Surrender proclamation did not extend the war a day. He also notes that even after this declaration, Italy's surrender was highly conditional and even the terms finally granted to Germany and Japan were not as harsh as Roosevelt's words might have made one suspect they would be. Granted, Morrison was a close personal friend of Roosevelt's, but he was also a higly respected historian even before the war, as well as a firsthand participant in it, and his thoughts should hold some sway. ThirtyOneKnots 14:48 10 Dec 2005

It is only anti-Roosevelt if you think that given that the demand for Unconditional surrender was going to extend the war it was a foolish think to say. If on the other hand you take the view that only by destroying the regimes which started the war was the only way to secure lasting peace then it is not anti-Roosevelt but pro-Roosevelt. For example if the war had ended on terms it is extremely unlikely that there would have been war crime trials or a United Nations as we know it. What is not in doubt is that the war continued even when it was obvious to everyone that the Axis powers had been defeated in the field, precedence with major internatial wars particularly in Europe suggests that this was highly unusual. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting point you make but I guess I was specifically referring to the implication that Roosevelt's declaration caused unneccesary death and suffering, though I'm not quite sure at the moment how one might better word this. I'll give it some thought though. ThirtyOneKnots 4:30 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Recent additions / Napoleon

Total war describes an international war in which countries or nations use all of their resources to destroy another organized country's or nation's ability to engage in war.

The Napoleonic wars do not fit this criteria. Do the other recent additions? Philip Baird Shearer 08:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's a very good argument that Napoleon is the father of total war, on a modern scale and under a generally modern political system: mobilizing the political and economic system, and citizens (not just professional soldiers) to wage wars; and making the waging of war the principal goal of the nation. Whether it fits the exact definition or not, it belongs in a discussion. Sadly, that's not what's there now - rather than the Revolution, it should discuss what are generally called the "Napoleonic wars", the attempted conquest of Europe. flux.books 02:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Definition

So which is it going to be: mobilizing all the resources of your own country (which the article states at the moment as the definition); or including civilian and industrial targets, that is, waging war against the enemy's capacity to wage war (which many of the examples allude to?) Perhaps it needs to be both; that is, the former definition might have been the first use; but it may have also come to have the latter definition. The article would need to be reorganized to make it clear, whether the answer is either, or both. As it stands the definition goes one way, and many of the examples go the other way. flux.books 15:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

WWII Germany

It seems to me that the scope of this section is limited, and it is demonstrating a single school of thought - that germany was not in total war until late WWII - which is not necessairily agreed upon. Perhaps a neutral POV flag is appropriate? Moshe Gordon 20:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Orwell

Hello, I am new to this subject. Does anyone think that George Orwell should be mentioned somewhere in the article? Spebudmak 06:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Conscription and After World War II

The second paragraph of the section "After World War II" seems factually inaccurate and is unsourced. It claims that English-speaking nations didn't have conscription outside wartime, but Britain had it from World War II till 1960 and New Zealand until 1972. Contrarily, the article suggests that European nations "have started to question if conscription is still necessary", but most west European nations have already abolished it (if the entry on conscription is to be believed).

I presume you are referring to:

As the tensions between industrialized nations have diminished, European continental powers have for the first time in 200 years started to question if conscription is still necessary. Many are moving back to the pre-Napoleonic ideas of having small professional armies. This is something which despite the experiences of the first and second world wars is a model which the English speaking nations had never abandoned during peace time, probably because they have never had a common border with a potential enemy with a large standing army.

It comes from articles like this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1682777.stm. The British hung on to conscription after World War II because of various colonial wars it was fighting and the cold war. But it was not liked (especially by the professional armed forces) and was abolished within a relatively short time because it was seen as a short term expediency. This is very different from the attitudes to conscription in counties like Germany, France etc, where conscription was viewed as necessary and a good thing by most of the political classes for well over 100 years. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Scholars under Heaven

Agreeing with above mentioned, it is highly speculative to state total war in modern history, without mentioning Genghis Khan's war machine which actually went further than what Alexander's total war achieved. We do not even know where war itself began......Carl von Clausewitz is a theorists, where as all theorists has to observe some sort of writing to explain their concept, unless they are prophets. It is not uncommon for modern military school to study all books on warfare - east/west even so-called barbarians/tribal warfare.

Industrialization of the horses by the Mongols would never be considered industrialization by modern day institutional agendas and textbook understandings. The composite bow manufacturing process are overly simplified, as was the Damascus steel.

Never mentioned once were the crusades, where the Vatican banking system was actually formed due to the deficits and bankruptcy facing the powers of Europe.

"Post Cold War

(Perhaps the western world has professionalized their armies, but I don't see Myanmar doing this, nor N. Korea, nor the eastern views)

(Highly recruited - trained in technology, it not uncommon to see recruiters at shopping malls searching for uneducated youths - compared with forcing doctors/engineers/carpenters/school teachers/ to bring their trade i.e. ww2)

(Wouldn't this connectivity be more of a reason for total war? instead of a nation counting on itself to produce everything, a nation can focus on one thing and have their allies focus on another, this is much more efficient then 20th century world wars, Germany eventually lost to Britain because of Britain's populace, U.S. supplies and manpower, soviets, EU rebellions, and of course, Germany's underlying agenda.)

Nowadays, Venezuela can produce AK's for any revolution, Iran can supply oil, China can give capitalistic non-interference for consumer goods negating sanctions, N. Korea can keep the west politically deadlocked, Russia can continue expansions under the word democracy & sit high on the UN. This is not mobilization on all home fronts? But the same can be said about all sides (Islamic, Democratic, Communistic capitalism), everyone is guilty of preparing for a total war, hogging resources, and using resources, by ways of *limited warfare. The future's possibility of large scale developments is not unlikely.

User:Abel 05:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Politics

This article could use a section on the political effects of total war. Seano1 22:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If someone could find enough info on it, I would definitely support the idea. Anyone else? Powerfulmind Powerfultalk Powerfuledits 20:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Modern Global Terrorism

This is an obvious example of a modern "Total War" being engaged up on the first world by various radical militant groups that consider anyone not a part of their cause, against it, or an enabler, thus 9/11, thus countless terrorist bombings in Baghdad and around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.23.88 (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Post Cold War

I have removed the subsection entitled "Post Cold War" as not relevant to the topic. The interdependence of national economies and the costs of war were as important in 1914 and 1939 as they are today, and we see all the good that did. PKKloeppel (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Scorched Earth?

I deleted the last paragraph in the "Soviet Union" section because population transfer in that concrete case has no relation to the scorched earth policy: Chechens, Kalmyk and Crimean Tatars had been transfered after the Germans had been pushed west. Therefore, it is illogical to speak about scorched earth in that case. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Factual Error

In the last paragraph concerning world war one, the page mentions that "Germany failed to introduce rationing."

This is not true, and as such I have modified the phrase as follows:

Before: "The Royal Navy's blockade of German ports prevented Germany from importing food and the Germans failed to introduce food rationing. German capitulation was hastened in 1918 by the worsening food crises in Germany."

After: "The Royal Navy's blockade of German ports prevented Germany from importing food and hastened German capitulation by creating a food crisis in Germany." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatlasb (talk • contribs) 01:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Roman general Agricola and the Battle of Mons Graupius

In the Total war#Early history section, it claims that the Ancient Romans practiced total war in Caledonia (now Scotland). However, neither Gnaeus Julius Agricola#Governor of Britain nor Battle of Mons Graupius confirm or even allude to these claims of noncombatants being killed. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 01:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither wiki article on the battle or general mention this either - I'm taking it out. If someone wants it back, please provide a source and correct the linked articles as well. 65.30.177.186 (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Lacking any cohesion

The article really seemed to be lacking any cohesion. So I did a rewrite. Have at it. Stargoat 17:28, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is disputeable that the examples given (Vietnam, Six Day War, Afghanistan) were wars by proxy. It doesn't take much research to find out that the US was actually fighting itself in Vietnam. Some of the African wars are much better examples, where US and Soviets send 'advisors' or funding to each side of a war. DJ Clayworth 21:53, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I thought about that, but Soviet and Chinese advisors were helping the North Vietnamese, as were American advisors were in Afghanistan. And these are three of the five major intensity conflicts that defined the Cold War, Korea and Yom Kippur War being the other two <ducks and watches the flames rise on this one :) >. So, the United States in Vietnam was battling the proxy of the Soviet Union. Basically, it just seems like a real pain to have to explain the wars in Africa when these three examples are so readily available and in the public consciousness. Stargoat 22:16, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with their accessibility; I guess I think the African wars demonstrate the principle much better, when both sides are supplying 'advisers' and leaving the bulk of the fighting to the locals. For Vietnam and Afghanistan only one side was fighting by proxy. However I'm not going to argue. I'd actually not thought about the Americans being the proxies in Afghanistan. DJ Clayworth 04:28, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello there, The definition of Total War still seems at odds with what is claimed under the heading "Post-war Era". 'A conflict of unlimited scope' was existing in the Korean war, and also debatably in the Vietnam and Soviet-Afghan war. That it would amount (from a US or Soviet viewpoint) to a War by Proxy has no effect it had on day to day life in these nations: all available resources to South Korea, North Korea were used, as were national policies directed at such in North Vietnam and Afghanistan under the Mujahedeen.

137.224.252.10 (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

---

From a dup, useful maybe:

"Total War is a type of war between nations that mobilizes all of the resources of the nations at hand: Political, social, and economic, as well as military. This is in contrast both to the features of national warfare before industrialization, which had more of an emphasis on mercenary units and relatively short, decisive battles rather than mass conscription and long-term front lines, and modern warfare, which combines high mobility with a massive scale and precision of force and has rendered total war obsolete.

Total war arose out of industrialization. With weaponry producable on the large scale, and transportation no longer an impediment to conducting war with the growth of the railroad, nations were now able to put more resources behind their military adventures, working their economies to the maximum in order to survive. This encouraged the development of nationalism and mandatory conscription, and the effects of these institutions may still be seen today.

The two most famous total wars in history were World War I and World War II. Following World War II the rapid development of nuclear weapons effectively ended the chances of another total war breaking out between leading world powers; either the conflict would end peacefully or the world would be quickly blown up without any significant national mobilization taking place."

Stan 07:57, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dresden quote

I'm really not sure about that Dresden quote both on this page and the main Dresden bombing page, about it being a munitions works or whatever. While the statement is obviously a real statement, what about the veracity behind the statement itself? Has it even been proven? Consensus amongst most historians is that Dresden was just what it was, a place of high art which produced mostly cigarettes and China. No doubt that some production there aided the war effort (glass for eye goggles and so on) but to label the city a "munitions works" is probably going a bit far in terms of justifying what was one of the most questionable actions by the Allies in WWII. [[[User:Darkfalz]] 03:27, 9 Jan 2005]

User:Darkfalz you can sign you comments on talk pages by putting four tilders "~~~~" at the end of your postings. Your comments are reflected in the fuller quote by Harris:

"The feeling, such as there is, over Dresden could be easily explained by a psychiatrist. It is connected with German bands and Dresden [china] shepherdesses. Actually Dresden was a mass of munitions works, an intact government centre, and a key transportation centre. It is now none of those things."

The "munitions works" is covered in detail on the article Bombing of Dresden in World War II. Try HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE 14-15 FEBRUARY 1945 BOMBINGS OF DRESDEN Prepared by USAF Historical Division Research Studies Institute Air University, II. "Section ANALYSIS: Dresden as a Military Target, paragraph 9." In addition to its geographical position and topography and its primary importance as a communications center, Dresden was, in February 1945, known to contain at least 110 factories and industrial enterprises that were legitimate military targets, and were reported to have employed 50,000 workers in arms plants alone.⁸ Among these were dispersed aircraft components factories; a poison gas factory (Chemische Fabric Goye and Company); an anti-aircraft and field gun factory (Lehman); the great Zeiss Ikon A.G., Germany’s most important optical goods manufactory; and, among others, factories engaged in the production of electrical and X-ray apparatus (Koch and Sterzel A.G.), gears and differentials (Saxoniswerke), and electric gauges (Gebruder Bassler).₉

Footnotes

8 Dresden, Germany, City Area, Economic Reports, Vol. No. 2, Headquarters U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, 10 July 1945; and OSS London, No. B-1799/4, 3 March 1945, in same item.

9 Interpretation Report No. K. 4171, Dresden, 22 March 19145, Supporting Document No. 3.

Unfortunatly the full "Strategic Bombing Survey" does not appear to be on line but the Summary Report is.Philip Baird Shearer

I suggest any further thoughts on this subject are posted to the page dedicated to the issue: Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II --Philip Baird Shearer 14:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am greatly dissapointed at the person who acctually belives whatever that quote says! Dresden a munition works? Dresden was "occupied" throughout the entire second World War by an Army of Pictures. Pictures worth more then anyone could immagine. The worth of those pictures in the Museums is so high that if I am not totaly mistaken, no Insurance company wants to cover them (Don't quote me on this) If the Nazi's hadent taken all the pictures out of the Town just a few days before the attacs all of these very famous pictures would have been lost forever. Then the Queen of England oppens a monument to the very gernal who lead the british participation in that very attac! Where is this World going to! The definiton of a lie is: An intentional misleading statement. Who ever says that Dresden was a munition work is forfilling that definition to its very core!

I wonder if any of them were plundered from across Europe by German soldiers, probably not, most of those just disappeared....Willski72 (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Limited War

Why is there an article on Total War, but nothing on Limited War? An article on limited war would be a good foil for this article, and a Limited War is in ways more important to know about than a Total War, because they're much more common. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kvn8907 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Late answer, but better than never: In clausewitzian terms all wars are limited wars, in contrast to his dialectic concept of absolute war, which in theory can't exist as wars are fought by civilizations or political entities, which will apply limits because it's in their nature to do so. --Ukas (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Belligerent is an adjective

See above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.9.196 (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The largest problem with this article is...

It's largely the work of uneducated editors who add things that they have seen on TV or read in books. There are no critical assumptions, analysis or synergies of evidence.

This article is mostly poorly written prose and facts. Just because there was a massacre doesn't make it "total war". The concept that this article is meant to be examining is both social, political and of course military; warfare is but one part of the equation.

Take the early histories section, it jumps from the Greek city states to the Mongols. There is no mention of the Punic Wars, Persia, or the Germanic Tribes. Sic the Franks or the Visigoths.

No mentions of the Mayans or the proto-Incan people either....or the Zulus; probably the most militaristic society ever to exist.

I can tell that most of the article has been written by North American college students because there is hardly any cultural assessment outside of the US or Europe and there is no analysis of what "total war" means to differing ethnic groups i.e. conquest, booty, battle honours, genocide.

I make these points after seeing the edit that I did a week ago that was reverted because as the knuckle-dragger noted, "der it sounds right but it's unsourced". You don't need to source things if an in-line link takes you to an article where the point you are articulating is already referenced. That's what is known as cross-referencing.

Why do you think WP has in-line links and not just a search box??

In a nut shell, I would seriously and drastically delete most of this page and then pray to god, that someone with a history doctorate would take the time and do a better job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.70.116 (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

The nature of the 1936-9 Spanish Civil War means that it should be added to this page. The obvious example of this is the bombing of Guernica, and other bombing of civilians by both the Republic (with the aid of the USSR) and by the Francoist forces (with the aid of Italy and Germany). Similarly, the mass killings of Republican sympathisers in territories taken by Francoists were characteristic of total war. Domkeitero (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Show the textbooks or expert sources which describe that conflict as total war. Most civil wars are not total war, as both sides wish to make use of the land. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Definition revisited

I've got a problem with that. My understanding's always been the distinction between previous wars and total war beginning with Sherman is targeting of civilians specifically, per the March to the Sea, with the object of bringing their governments to surrender. Before that, civilian casualties were inflicted in passing & damage to civil property as a consequence of foraging (or pillaging), not as a deliberate action. Only when industrial production & conscription made civilians as important as soldiers were they targeted deliberately. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 20:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read Harrying of the North and Chevauchée. More recently the Duke of Marlborough also used similar tactics to force the French to fight him rather than sit inside fortresses. Although I have picked three English examples, many have used such methods for different tactical reasons from time immemorial. -- PBS (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

USA wasn't under total war between 1941 and 1945

The article claims that USA was under total war, between 1941 and 1945.In fact, it wasn't.The fact is that during World War II average life of americans, became far better.Less than 1% of american army died in all World War II, against the majority, in former USSR and in nazi Germany.Rationing in the USA was small and limited to some articles.Agre22 (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)agre22

You have to come up with much better arguments. Read Ludendorff's definitions first. Best if you read the whole book. Total war is not just how a particular war was fought by a certain party or if a country "was under total war", but a concept, a theory. I'd say USA definitely fought a total war. --Ukas (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most countries that fight total wars dont come out of it better off than when they went in, but thanks to a mixture of things the US did. It did not suffer the damages of total war as much as did other countries (cities being carpet bombed etc), but it did still change large sections of its industry to munitions and turn millions of men into soldiers etc.Willski72 (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll buy that the US involvement in WWII was a form of "total war" in concept, because entire sectors of the economy were dedicated to it, and every person was enlisted to "do your part", but some of the statements of "fact" in this article seem to be derived backwards from that. That is: if it was "total war" then that must mean that "all" resources of the country were devoted "entirely" to the war effort. Which is nonsense. Life was hugely disrupted, to be sure, but for most people life went on without the war being their primary day-to-day focus. Not every movie made was a propaganda piece. Not every article of clothing made was for the troops to wear. Not every flowerbed was converted into a victory garden. Stockings were still made for housewives. Jazz bands still performed for salesmen. Comics were still published for schoolchildren. Accountants still balanced the books of haberdashers. Hookers still did quickies for cabdrivers. None of this directly contributed to "the war effort". They recycled metal and got by without butter and bought war bonds, but Most Americans could - and did - maintain much of their day-to-day lives and livelihoods during WWII. Claiming otherwise is revisionist. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A thing which people from the UK noted time and again in their wartime diaries was the lack of a blackout. That this was not needed because of lack of a bomber threat does not cover the problems caused by the lights of coastal towns on the eastern and southern seaboards which aided the German U-Boats in their Second Happy Time -- PBS (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

French and Indian war

Britain in the seven years war and Jeffrey Amherst's conquest of Canada was the first example of modern total war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voucherman (talk • contribs) 19:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Unereferenced coatrack?

This article is completely unreferenced until the WWII section. Granted there are a few citations, but none of them mention the concept of "total war". It seems that this article functions mostly as synthesis or at best a coatrack for wars throughout history that may have had lots of civilian casualties but not necessarily meet the definition of "total war" (whatever that is). The Dictionary of Sociology by Gordon Marshall defines "total war" as "A form of warfare, characteristic of modern industrial society, involving the maximum mobilization of social and economic resources of a country for armed conflict, usually entailing the exposure of the civilian population and economy to enemy attack. Distinct therefore from regional or local war, and from nuclear as distinct from conventional conflict". Not exactly something that would fit anything prior to at least the French Revolution. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree. AFAIK, no serious historiography puts "total war" as we understand the term today before the American Civil War. Wars before that simply did not have the industrial aspects, & in much of the Middle Ages were, in fact, consciously not total. They were designed to gain advantage or territory, or were limited by the condottieri used by both sides (as a way to minimize their own casualties & maximize profitablity). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a fair amount of sources that claims it originated during the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars: 1, 2, 3. But that is as far back as I have been able to trace it in reliable sources. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Within the "Nation in Arms" concept, agreed. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have downgraded the class of this article to Start, and have made a few fixes. That anyone would consider this article adequate in coverage or suitably referenced is rather amusing. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Vietnam War & Iran-Iraq War

Why are these wars not included? Both Vietnam and Iran used "human waves" against the invading armies. These were mass rushes of tens of thousands of civilians toward enemy machine guns. By the end of the wars, over a million Vietnamese had been killed fighting the Americans and nearly 600,000 Iranians had been killed fighting the Iraqis.72.198.79.196 (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Warring States Period

Professor Peter K. Bol of Harvard University has pointed out that the first time all of the human and material resources of nations at war was during the Warring States period of Chinese history (475 BC - 221 BC). It was the first time that armies larger then 400,000 men were mobilised. A feat not seen again until the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. Surly this pre-modern development and use of total war is deserving of a mention in this article? --Discott (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Etymology of Total War

Under the etymology section, it mentions: "The phrase can be traced back to the 1836 publication of General Ludendorff’s World War I memoir Der Totale Krieg ("The Total War")"

However, I believe the work mentioned was published in 1935. Moreover, General Ludendorff was only born in 1865 (notwithstanding the fact that World War I occurred long after 1836). Am I misinterpreting the sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betwixtsleepeth (talk • contribs) 01:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Having not actually read the book, I'd guess it meant 1936. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"Early history"

I've removed the section covering everything from Qin to the Thirty Years War. Please help keep this kind of information out if it is not properly supported by reliable historical literature. This is not a place to dump information about generally devastating warfare, nor one's favorite large-scale military ventures.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We need more discussion before a substantial deletion like this. PatGallacher (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I happen to agree with deletion. Not every act of vicious behaviour is an example of total war. Moreover, most people are unaware just how vicious wars could be in the pre-industrial era.... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There has already been discussion as far as I can tell. No actually seems to be defending speculation about pre-modern "total war", and this is still content is very obviously unreferenced with reliable sources. It's been templated since July without any sign of improvement and is a clear-cut case of original research. The burden of proof lies on anyone who wants to keep the material at this point as per WP:V.

If you want to have a look at an academic opinion of the concept of "total war", then have a look at Bell The First Total War, particularly the introduction. Just the title is enough to establish how historians define the issue.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe so, but could you quote what Bell actually says on this issue? PatGallacher (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can. But more importantly, I can summarize his points. He clearly states that the idea of the total war is intrinsically tied with notions of political ideology, mass conscription, militarism, nationalism and other aspects of modern society that did not exist. As do other historians that he discusses. It's quite succinctly spelled out in the introduction. The rest of the book is a more detailed argument about why the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars were the first total wars in history. For example, the creation of a military society that was distinct and separate from civilian society in a way that had not existed before the French Revolution.

But the burden of proof is still not on me [and] Trekphiler in this case. You are the one reinstating material without backing it with any reliable references. The references that are cited are webpages[8][9] that either don't mention the concept (the former) or are clearly anonymous, lacking references and obviously unreliable. So why do we need to discuss it? What's your support for upholding content that violated two vital policies like WP:OR and WP:V?

Peter ^Isotalo 06:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"the burden of proof is still not on me Trekphiler" Don't hang that on me. I agree with you. And I'm happy to know Bell agrees with my (incompletely sourced) understanding of what total war is & isn't. It appears he agrees with Dyer & Dupuy (which IIRC is where I got it). Just at a glance, the proposition that an army of 100K (out of a population of, what, 10 million?) is "total war" is prima facie preposterous. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I accidently forgot the intended "and" in my reply to Pat (added now). I see how it appeared to alter my point. I agree completely otherwise. I'm happy to contribute additional refs and views of historians, but certainly not as a requirement to remove misleading content.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"I accidently forgot the intended 'and'" No worries, it happens. ;p

AFAIK, removing content doesn't require sourcing, just good reasons...& enough support to keep it out. ;p Which doesn't mean I oppose good sources. 8o :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Without getting into suggestions on specific content, I agree that this article really needs the context of the pre-industrial era. Especially regarding the fact that indifferentiation between civilians and combatants is not new by any definition. History is littered with incidents involving the wholesale slaughter of civilians and combatants alike including the Crusades and Mongol invasions, tribal Africa and various other conflicts. This article begs for that kind of context. DesertPhox (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)