Transition To Total War

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

In the history of war there are many different aspects and some similarities. The Great War introduced the “automatic” gun and the idea of trench warfare. The Great War had more casualties by artillery and it was said “No flesh or a bone could live above ground in the battlefield”. Everything was fought across “No man’s Land”. Many advancements led to soldiers hiding behind a wall of dirt in the ground which really changed up the game. Fighting this way seemed more dangerous due to the automatic guns and it was more effective than the U.S. Civil War where everything was fought face to face only a few yards away.

France had a general distrust of Germany. There was a great fear that if more serious measures to stop Germany were not made then the next generation would be seeking a war of revenge. The French public opinion earnestly desired a just peace, and would not take up arms again until compelled by a clear threat.3 This pacifism played an extremely important role in French policy. "Whether from ignorance or misunderstanding, many of the French people were apathetic, or just did not care enough to want action."4 The people were divided into two forces, the Left and Right, the Right favoring

In the recurrent wars Blainey brings up the long-time altercations between the Russians and the Turks, Blainey calls this type of war “enduring rivalries”. Short-wars were very popular in the years between the battle of waterloo and the first world war, Blainey infers that the advance in mechanical technologies had a lot to do with making the wars shorter. David wood compiled a list and during this time most wars were over in less than a year. Long-wars were most in the late 18th century to 19th century, in this time there were seven wars that lasted seven years or longer, this is attributed to the wars being dragged on and being less deadly. Wide-wars was the last of the wars that Blainey describes and it deals more with wars between multiple state actors and most likely spread out when other nations get brought

A total war is a conflict which involves bringing together resources; this includes both industrial and military resources aiming at having an output that the enemy will not overcome at all (Castellano, 2016). The biggest difference that exists between a total war and a normal war is that there is really zero difference between those fighting in the same war and the civilians in this period; all these people are considered an enemy.

Wars are often glorified in tone to give praise and respect for those on the battlefields. There is an overall understanding that there are sacrifices needed in order to accomplish a larger goal. Excluded from this understanding is the realization that the effects of war

The term ‘war’ as defined by the Oxford Dictionary is explained as “a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country” (Oxforddictionaries.com, 2016). The concept of war has created contrasting views on the relationship between war and genocide as well as the effect that war has on genocide. The term ‘genocide’ literally means ‘the killing of a race’ and is arguably the most atrocious crime conceivable (Gunter, 2011). It is a specific term that refers to crimes that are committed against groups with intent to destroy their existence (Ushmm.org, 2016). There are various motives and numerous reasons as to why genocides may occur, however this paper will seek to address the extent to how, if at all, the concept of war being a necessary condition for the occurrence of genocide, as well as looking at correlations between war and genocide using specific examples to determine whether war is a necessary condition or not.

“War. War never changes”. This is a semi-iconic quote from a video-game based in a future world where War has lead to worldwide destruction. However, one does not have to be hundreds of years in the future to understand that the art of war has a pattern. The Civil War and American Revolution, while having great contrasts and a time gap of 78 years, had many similarities. Among these are causes, strategies, and even outcomes.

Set-up - Warfare is constantly changing, for the tools of war are always evolving, as do the societies that wage war. Between 1400 and 1918, western warfare went through four periods that saw such profound change that it can fairly be said that a "military revolution" occurred. According to historians MacGregor Knox and Williamson Murray, military revolutions "fundamentally change the framework of war" and "recast society and the state as well as military organizations." While all of the military revolutions studied in H100 were important in the evolution of warfare, one clearly stimulated greater change than the others.

‘War’ as defined by Webster’s Dictionary is a state of open and declared, hostile armed conflict between states or nations. Voltaire—the human personification of the Enlightenment period—says the following: “Famine, plague, and war are the three most famous ingredients of this wretched world…All animals are perpetually at war with each other…Air, earth and water are arenas of destruction. Defining war has been a political issue for centuries, and it poses a philosophical problem. Most philosophers will agree on war being a clash of arms, or a state of mutual tension between nations or states, distinguishing it from open rebellions, riots, and personal violence.

There are moments in our history where the citizens of the world stand up and for their beliefs, their honor, and themselves. They come together to reform the existing government that is holding them back from achieving their desired lifestyle. When this occurs, most likely, war is inevitable to follow. When war comes to a country, death and destruction is destined. Leaders and rules change, but the pride of its citizens prevails and becomes

Given that many plants need to be sown and then reaped when fully grown, the metaphorical conceptualization of people as plants may, accordingly, be elaborated to include a reaper, more specifically a conceptualization of death as the Grim Reaper (Lakoff & Turner, 1989, pp. 16, 75):

Clemenceau helped the French through the trying times of World War I through his quality of being patriotic and showing his vigorous support for his countries well being. First, Clemenceau was highly acquainted with French life and its people. During the War Clemenceau addressed, “Everything for France bleeding in its glory. The hour has come to be French and simply French, with the pride to say that suffices”, said Clemenceau (Cohen 61). The upmost important factor for Clemenceau was nationalistic pride. Clemenceau knew what was best for his country and he proposed that the French step up at this specific time. He was faithful and determined to serve his people. This clearly shows his positive influence on French society during the war. Next, in Clemenceau’s

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

with it. Wars have evolved from a contest of strength to a show of potential. Previously wars were