Total War: The Cost of Unlimited Conflict

War, of course, has always been destructive. But until the late eighteenth century, practical constraints limited its scale and the devastation it caused. The emergence of modern society, which allowed nations to overcome so many traditional limitations, freed them from most of the old constraints on warfare as well. When World War I erupted in 1914, people were unprepared for what was to follow—over four exhausting years of carnage in the very heart of the “advanced” world. When analyzing the after-effects of World War I, the focus should be not just on the immediate cost to the losers—or the winners—for the impact of total war cannot be measured solely by the number of the dead and the defeated. Total war deeply affected the living and the victors too, and in ways far beyond their immediate losses. The economic, social, psychological, and moral effect these wars had on those who survived them must be taken into account, along with the legacy they left to all who came after them later in the twentieth century.

The war consumed unprecedented quantities of funds too, and hard-pressed governments appealed to their people for wartime loans to finance soaring budgets. France, known for its artists, benefited from their help in launching poster campaigns in 1915 to bring this appeal to the masses. Soon other governments followed suit, using propaganda posters like the ones we looked at in class and on this blog last week, to raise funds, solicit enlistment, and boost morale. The document I would like you to read now helps to explain why such measures were needed in order to sustain popular support for the war. Taken from the final dispatch written by the head of the British Expeditionary Forces on the western front, Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, at the war’s end, it outlines the overall scope and nature of the conflict (you can read this document by clicking here). Often called “the butcher of the Somme” because of his willingness to expend so many forces in that battle, Haig here details the enormous needs of an army fighting a modern mass war of attrition.

Field Marshal Haig’s final dispatch, as commander of the British Expeditionary Force, offers a broad assessment of the first total war. As Haig explains, by 1916 and 1917 the war had lapsed into a series of “indecisive battles” waged only to “wear down” the enemy through attrition. What did he find so unique about this war, leading him to think that Britain’s “existence as an empire and civilization itself…were at stake?” Think about the “factors peculiar to modern war” that he lists, as well as his comments of the “mechanical contrivances” introduced in the war and the complications occasioned by the size of the armies. What is Haig referring to in those remarks? His remark about the way women bolstered “our declining man power” merits attention too. Women gained the vote in England and other democratic nations right after the war. How might total war have hastened this change? Your thoughts…