How Comprehensively Are the Characteristics of “Total War” Illustrated by the First World War?

Nothing exists in nature, is born, grows or multiplies except by combat”(Document 1). This helps explain that militarism was an underlying cause of the war since it states that with war, you can be rewarded with success and prosperity. James Joll, a British historian, said, “We realize that without power, without a strong army and a strong navy, there can be no welfare for us”(Document 8). This is suggesting to the reader that, without a powerful defense such as a strong army and navy, there would be no

As much as Europe’s worldwide empires had globalized the war, so too its economic linkages

The First World War was total because every area of the economy was focused on one aim -

Between the years of 1914 to 1918, the whole of Europe was locked in arms, not only for pride but mostly for survival. The years of war brought devastation upon all societies. Men were massacred in droves, food stuff dwindled, and at times an end seemed non-existent. The foundation of the first Great War, one can muse, began as a nationalistic race between rival nations. By the onset of 1914, once the Archduke Frendinad had been assassinated in Saravejo, the march for war became not just a nationalistic opinion, but now a frenzy to fight. In battle, unlike previous wars, new weaponry caused drastic alterations in strategy. No longer will armies stand to face their rivals on the plains. Now the war will be fought in trenches, hidden

Many factors contributed to the start of World WarI also known as “The Great War”. Multiple Peer reviewed articles study five of the leading causes of the war. In no particular order, it analyses short term as well as long term factors. Five of the commonly discussed contributors include but are not limited to Militarism, Alliances, Nationalism, Imperialism and the defining short term factor Assassination.

Wars have immensely contributed to human history for thousands of years, becoming highly destructive usually for the means of gain. The First World War, also known as ‘the Great War’ was a truly global war centred in Europe. The causes of one of the most destructive wars in human history are still debated to this day. Some historians have come up with a list of multiple causes of the war. However, experts have identified some of the primary causes of the war, including the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, militarism, alliances, imperialism and nationalism. The causes of the truly deadly war, sending ripples of shock throughout Europe and the world, can be summarised into four points, and the start of the war pinpointed to one bullet from a young Serbians gun.

Promptly after the First World War had ended there were many debates about who or what caused the war. Historians such as Fritz Fischer argued that Germany was the to blame for the entirety of the war but there have been many more ideas of what was the cause of the war and therefore causing peace to fail. The main ideas amongst historians for the underlying causes of the war are the different balance in power due the formation of alliances, imperialism, militarism and also the July Crisis of 1914. This essay will argue that the alliances were the main cause of peace failing as with the constant conflict of interests and increasing tension it made it almost impossible to create peace in Europe in 1914.

The Novel All Quiet On The Western Front illustrates the effects of war can be highly effective on most soldiers. In this particular novel these characters go through some many hardships and are tested to the maximum. In many ways, World War I demanded this depiction more than any war before it completely altered mankind’s conception of military conflict with its catastrophic levels of carnage and violence, its battles that lasted for months, and its gruesome new technological advancements that made killing easier and more impersonal than ever before.

The extent to which a country can establish and retain a state of ‘Total War’ inevitably leads to victory. In World War 1, the allied forces ability to achieve this resulted in their success. The production of munitions and American funding, resource allocation and the British Blockade, gave the allies a clear advantage on the home front. The utilization of the superior weaponry and manpower as well as improved tactics on the battlefront gave the allies an upper hand in this war of attrition. The final loss of German morale on both the home and battlefronts, directly influenced by allied propaganda, the arrival of the Americans and Germany’s political instability, led to the cessation of the war and thus, allied victory.

The First World War, also known as the Great War of 1914-1918, is not an event that manifested overnight; it was the result of ever growing tension among European nations. This conflict was brought about by factors such as, nationalism, militarism, and the Alliance system. An upheaval such as the First World War was witness to the emergence of the glorification of war, struggle, despair, destruction and immense loss of life. The First World War brought about a defining moment in the history of the modern consciousness. The modern world was born anew with a self-conscious awareness of plight and modern society. This awareness has been characterized by a profound sense of the differences between past and present.

The influence of various theories and concepts on the conduct World War I has generated a range of studies in an attempt to understand how and why World War I was fought. Specifically, Clausewitz’s theories on warfare have come under a considerable amount of scrutiny with regards to their influence on World War I. This scrutiny has led to the ascertation that the protracted and bloody stalemate of World War I was largely due to a stubborn reliance on Clausewitz’s theories. The question that this paper attempts to address is weather the cause of the bloody and protracted

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

The war that broke out in 1914 was one of the worst, if not the worst, wars in human history. It had left millions dead and a scar burned into European history forever. However, if we do not identify why war broke out in 1914, stopping others wars will be impossible. Clearly, we may never know the answer to this, but many sources give many interpretations. In this essay, I will try to recognise the key factors that led the outbreak of the Great War in 1914 and try to identify the most significant of these causes.

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

The First World War witnessed an appalling number of casualties. Due partly to this fact, some historians, developed the perception that commanders on both sides dependence on only one disastrous approach to breaking the stalemate. These historians attributed the loss of life to the reliance on soldiers charging across no-man’s land only to be mowed down by enemy machineguns. The accuracy of this, however, is fallacious since a variety of tactics existed on both sides. The main reason for battlefield success and eventual victory came from the transformation of battlefield tactics; nevertheless, moral played a major role by greatly affecting the development of new tactics and the final outcome of the war.