1. Why, and to what extent did the First World War constitute
“total war”?
Megan Kedzlie
December 2012
No matter where you look in European history, there are few events that shook
the continent more than the Franco-Prussian War, which lead to the unification
of Germany. With this new empire and the death of Archduke Franz Ferdinand,
the façade of Europe would crumble into chaos with the sparks of the First
World War. With its numerous casualties, the increase in state control across the
continent and the effect that the war had on civilian’s displays how the First
World War was obviously a total war, yet many factors openly dispute that claim
such as ideologies stating Germany’s desire to create colonies across the globe,
or to create localized conflict to help acquire land within continental Europe.
With the implementation of a “War Economy” in the majority of powers involved
with World War One, most of the nations began implementing initiatives and
projects to help the state gain control of many aspects of life such as imports and
exports, use of cash and currency and many other facets.This often is seen as a
good thing, as a country begins to use to War to help fuel usage of all products,
rather than working at half-capacity like they may during peacetime. Murray
Rothbard put it perfectly when writing “It is in war that the State really comes
into its own: swelling in power, in number, in pride, in absolute dominion over
the economy and the society.” The creation of ration booklets and control over
supplies affected the spread of warfare, as countries began sending supplies and
primary products to be used for weaponry and army supplies instead of luxury
goods for civilians. These actions and necessities clearly show how the warfare
affects all aspects of civilian life through the manipulation of economy, a direct
effect of total war.
The loss of “luxury” goods and services were not the only effects that civilians
and non-combatants had to work through during the First World War: 1914 was
the first incidence where many women (especially in the United Kingdom and
France) began joining the blue-collared workforce instead of staying as
housewives. Gail Braybon, women’s historian, claims that for many women the
war was "a genuinely liberating experience" that helped foster a feeling of
inclusivity with the community outside of housekeeping and childcare. The use
of women in factories to create weaponry and supplies was a key influence in the
decision to give women the vote in many nations such as the UK, the United
States, and France.
With the swift surrender of the Central Powers in the final months of 1918, many
countries began declaring armistice and pulling out of the war effort after being
completely exhausted. Both the “victors” and “defeated” in the First World War
had been bled dry – Germany had lost 15.1% of its active male population from
either combat or civilian casualties. Even with these devastating aftermaths, the
Allies decided to write the Treaty of Versailles, which was described by General

2. Hubert Gough in 1920 as “we thought to establish a good and lasting peace
which would, of necessity, have been established on good will. The Peace Treaty
has done nothing of the kind.” The reparations that had been forced upon
Germany and the Central Powers did nothing to help smooth the ragged edges of
Europe after the conflict, and almost definitely lead to the start of Nazi Germany
and eventually WWII.
Even with all these views, there are still many historians who have the strong
beliefs that Germany was not aiming for a large scale warfare. Even with a Kaiser
who was not known for his military intelligence, it has to be said that Germany
should see with their placement in the geographics of Europe, and the size of the
many nations surrounding them (as unstable and imperialized as they were),
there wasn’t much of a chance that an attack from Germany would come to
much. Therefore we can understand the claims of Erdmann and Zechlin, who
place blame in Germany, and german aim’s to create a localized, limited warfare,
to help shift the balance of power in Central Europe for their own gains. Seeing
though how the rest of Europe seemed to be mobilizing (Russia was moving
troops while their country grew restless under revolution, and Austria-Hungary
was desperately holding on to their imperial roots), it was the obvious moment
for Germany to exert some sembelance of control in their localized part of
Europe.
While there are many points that clearly show the extent that the total war
raged, we can also make the point that total warfare may not have been to aim of
Germany, when they decided to mobilize against their enemies.