Talk:Total war

Short description purpose

For this article's WP:Short description, I gave Including civilians as warfare matériel". This was rejected by Beyond My Ken with the comment "Sorry, the new description does not capture even a small part of the essence of total war", who then replaced the SD with Warfare in which the entire resources of a nation are involved, including the civilian population and mass conscription.

What the two have in common is civilians are involved. So we're agreed on that; the difference is how they are involved.

According to the article lede, civilians as targets are a feature of the subject. This is missing from the latest SD, and present in the first. Being incomplete and much longer (which per SD guidelines should be as short as possible), I see the second version markedly inferior to the first.

Remember that the point of the SD is not to define the subject, but to distinguish it from similar subjects, such as found in mobile searches and "See also" sections.

1:Including civilians as warfare matériel

2:Warfare in which the entire resources of a nation are involved, including the civilian population and mass conscription.

!vote and comment, or new suggestions? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 04:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Civilians as targets is indeed associated with some total wars, but it is not definitional. Definitionally, the use of all the country's resources, civilian involvement in matériel manufacturing and mass conscription are the basic hallmarks. Circumstances and necessity may well result in civilians being targeted -- although most nations prefer to hold to the dogma that civilian deaths are incidental, and that military places are what's being targeted -- but one can have total war without that, whereas one cannot have it without total involvement of the nation's resources and mass conscription. (BTW, "materiel" does not mean what you apparently think it means - it has nothing to do with civilians being targets, it means "military materials and equipment".)

The purpose of "total war" as a designation is to distinguish that kind of war from the warfare that went before, i.e. set battles between relatively small professional armies with little or no involvement from the nation as a whole. The transition to mass armies, fighting throughout the year (ie. not going into "winter quarters"), and the taxing fo the nationals infrastructure and economy to support the war created a whole new kind of warfare. It didn't arrive all at once, pieces of it came little by little, until the middle 19th century, when the Crimean War and the U.S. Civil War -- both of which have been referred to as the first total war -- occurred.

Your description "Including civilians as warfare matériel", is not only innacurate (per the meaning of "matériel"), but even when understood correctly only deals with a small part of what total war is. It's total because everything and everyone was involved in its prosecution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk page of WikiProject Military History. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment of the situation by BMK. His short description, although longer than the one proposed by AD Monroe, better matches the content of the article as well as that of WP:RS such as:

Total war, military conflict in which the contenders are willing to make any sacrifice in lives and other resources to obtain a complete victory, as distinguished from limited war. Britannica

Total warfare a war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded. Oxford reference

or even this academic paper (which quotes a different Ocford publication): from JSTOR

Total war, by the standard definition, is a conflict from which nothing and no one is exempt: “a war to which all resources and the whole population are committed."

Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not married to my wording, if someome has something better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer some variation of the Oxford quote, which Ken's language was alluding to. I agree civilians are not "materiel". -Indy beetle (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Short description aren't meant to be definitions. per WP:SHORTDES

• ... should be as brief as possible. A target of 40 characters has been suggested, but this can be exceeded when necessary
• ... should focus on distinguishing the subject from ones with similar titles rather than precisely defining it.
• ... should not be a full sentence unless absolutely necessary
• ... is intended to be used in conjunction with the article title, and should be written as though it follows the title. Duplication of information already in the title is to be avoided.
• ... is not required to provide an adequate definition of the article subject.

So, I would suggest something far more brief, like "Utilises and targets all of society and its resources". (Hohum ^@) 13:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I say WP:SHORTDES is just a suggestion and I don't see why it should prevent us providing a helpful definition. The three examples above are are maybe a bit long for this, but they do this to avoid making any major omission; they also directly follow the title. We should just rewrite them a bit to avoid close paraphrasing. Maybe "[Total war], conflict in which all of a nation's resources are employed"? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be the only decent guidance we have for using short descriptions, so ignoring it would be ridiculous. On the other hand, your suggested phrasing isn't too bad. I tried to succinctly point out that total war isn't only about employing the nations resources and people, but also targeting the enemy's. (Hohum ^@) 19:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ccnflict in which all of a nation's resources are employed works for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Distinction between total and hard wars

"Hard war" redirects to this page, but no mention is made in the article and no distinction is made between the two phrases. Imagine Reason (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I've never seen the expression "hard war" used. What does it mean? Is it the opposite of a "soft war" which is fought by diplomatic, cultural and financial means, with a negligible military component, or none at all? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no distinction between the two terms. "Hard war" is simply General Sherman's own name for the style of war he favored (in marked contrast to his fellow generals) -- using all resources and targeting civilian infrastructure that supported the enemy war effort, epitomized by his March to the sea. Later historians identified this as the first modern example of what is now called total war. I'm not sure if this merits a specific mention in the article, or where it might go. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Added hard war to article in this edit. So, Done. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 18:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Lede image

Like most articles, this one could use a lede image -- something to quickly indicate to the reader that they have the right article (or to quickly indicate they don't if they had the wrong idea about the title).

I added one for the mushroom cloud over Atomic bombing of Nagasaki, but this was reverted by Beyond My Ken with the comment A-bombs are not emplematic of total war. Obviously, I think the a-bomb, as extreme in war effort expended to develop, and most extreme in targeting non-combatants, thus better fulfilling our definition of warfare that includes any and all civilian-associated resources and infrastructure as legitimate military targets, mobilizes all of the resources of society to fight the war... than anything else I can think of.

Comments? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The A-bomb image will give the reader the wrong impression, that "Total war" is essentially about larger munitions, when it is actually about using all the resources of a nation to fight the war, not just the professional military. Thus mass conscription is an example of total war, the use of an nation's entire industrial capacity is an example of total war, the area bombing of civilian cities is an example. So, yes, the dropping of the atomic bomb is part of total war, but it not eseential and emblematic of it, since total war starts to ramp up with the Civil War and then World War I, neither of which involved nuclear weapons. A lede image would be fine, but one which properly represents the subject matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Ruins of Warsaw's Napoleon Square in the aftermath of World War II

So, we agree on having a lede image, and that it properly represents the subject matter. Again, the purpose of the lede image to assure the reader, getting them pointed in the right direction. It cannot somehow perfectly define the subject; that can only be done in the text.

The lede's definition of the subject emphasizes targeting enemy civilian infrastructure more than using available resources. Besides, targeting enemy civilians only makes sense if they are being utilized for the enemy war effort, so is implicit if they are targeted. Plus, destruction is a lot easier and impactful to portray than utilization.

I offer the image here on the right. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I support the use of this image. (Hohum ^@) 08:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree--it's a good image. Rjensen (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, all. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of the legal and moral opinions on the total war

The article completely lacks the discussion of the moral and legal status of total war. Not trying to push any opinion by myself, but there must be a lot of discussion about the tension between the total war and the idea that the sole legitimate objective of the war effort is to eliminate military strength of the enemy. Or the relationship between the just war and the total war. Ceplm (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Sherman

I am not a fan of this page's use of Sherman's campaign as examples of total war. There is a pretty significant difference between Sherman's March to the Sea and total war. Sherman targeted military objectives—farms, railroads, factories, and suchlike—but did not indiscriminately burn everything in his path. These were targeted with the precise purpose of stripping Robert E. Lee's troops of resources and were not done to punish noncombatants in the South.

The idea of his campaign as total war originated after World War II, and modern historians have fought back against this perception for the aforementioned reasons. Mark E. Neely explains it well in the cited source.

In other moods and in different circumstances, Sherman could sound as mild as Robert E. Lee. "War," the alleged inventor of total war wrote on April 19, 1863, "at best is barbarism, but to involve all-children, women, old and helpless-is more than can be justified." And he went on to caution against seizing so many stores that family necessities were endangered. Later in the summer of 1863 when General Sherman sent a cavalry expedition toward Memphis from Mississippi, General Grant instructed him to "impress upon the men the importance of going through the State-in an orderly manner, abstaining from taking anything not absolutely necessary for their subsistence while travelling. They should try to create as favorable an impression as possible upon the people." These may seem hopeless orders to give General Sherman, but his enthusiastic reply was this: "It will give me excessive pleasure to instruct the Cavalry as you direct, for the Policy you point out meets every wish of my heart."

Pretty much every historian arguing that it's total war is before 1965 and did so in the wake of WWII, when scholarship had a motive to make sense of the war. We should be careful citing this as an example of total war because it can play into the Lost Cause myth that Sherman caused "untold suffering" upon the South, when he was just cold and calculated. Think about agreed upon examples of total war—the Nazis in Russia for example—and compare Sherman's campaign; the analogy falls flat on its face. The term "total war" did not even exist in Sherman's time; applying modern terms to historical events, especially when such an example is not fitting, is bad historiography.

An exception would be something like Caesar's Gallic campaign, which was indisputably total war; some even argue it was genocide. If we are to have Sherman as an example in the list at the top of the page, we should really append the fact that it's disagreed with by modern historians and do so with every mention of Sherman. Delukiel (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Sherman introduced the concept of total war in the sense that it was a dramatic change from the consensus of military experts in the mid-19th century. The generals had all been taught their mission was to defeat enemy armies. No said Sherman, we need to defeat the enemy society's will to resist. The historians generally credit Sherman for this "heresy": Lance Janda, “Shutting the Gates of Mercy: The American Origins of Total War, 1860–1880,” Journal of Military History 59, no. 1 (January 1995): 7–26; the WW2 usage is somewhat different--to destroy the enemy's economic ability to fight. Sherman attacked only a small sliver of the Southern economy but weakened the entire Confederacy's will to resist. Rjensen (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this source. I'll give it a read. That said, I will have to point back to the source I cited:

The essential aspect of any definition of total war asserts that it breaks down the distinction between soldiers and civilians, combatants and noncombatants, and this no one in the Civil War did systematically, including William T. Sherman. He and his fellow generals waged war the same way most Victorian gentlemen did, and other Victorian gentlemen in the world knew it. That is one reason why British, French, and Prussian observers failed to comment on any startling developments seen in the American war: there was little new to report.

Likewise,

The first application of the idea to the Civil War came, then, in Confederate propaganda. Though it may not be a sectional interpretation now, it was an entirely sectional idea in the beginning. Its origins give perhaps the best clue to the usefulness of the idea in describing the Civil War. Total war may describe certain isolated and uncharacteristic aspects of the Civil War but is at most a partial view. The point is not merely semantic. The use of the idea of total war prevents historians from understanding the era properly

Jefferson Davis himself advocated for such violence on the Union side when he was still in the Senate. Not to mention what Confederate generals were up to:

In 1863 Quantrill's band rode into Kansas to the hated Yankee settlement of Lawrence and murdered almost every adult male they found there, more than 150 in all. A year later Bloody Bill Anderson's gang took twenty-four · unarmed Union soldiers from a train, shot them in the head, then turned on a posse of pursuing militia and slaughtered 127 of them including the wounded and captured. In April 1864 the Missourian John S. Marmaduke, a Confederate general (and later governor of Missouri), led an attack on Union supply wagons at Poison Springs, Arkansas, killing in cold blood almost as many black soldiers as Nathan Bedford Forrest's troops did at almost the same time in the more famous Fort Pillow massacre in Tennessee.

I'm not sure I believe that Sherman alone had an idea of a brutal war. I also added two more sources to the page for further context, only for it to get reverted; I would suggest looking at those. Delukiel (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Massacring prisoners or civilians is not "total war" --it does not help in the goal of winning the war. Rjensen (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

This very page uses "collective punishment," punishing a hostile populace, as an example of total war; also does it mention "taking no quarter," the practice of massacring prisoners. The Confederates punished Unionists for, in their (mistaken) mind, forcing them into secession and prolonging the war. They also routinely massacred any Black soldiers they captured. Not to mention Joe Wheeler's Confederate calvary, which plundered homes and stole valuables, rations, and suchlike to feed their army and strike fear into the Union. All of this can be employed to help win the war. My point here is that Sherman's march was not anything unusual. Neely labored to show this.

To be clear, I am not totally opposed to Sherman being mentioned on this page at all, but I don't think solely putting his march on the page as an example of total war without accounting for these facts is the way to do it. I am also not trying to pull a whataboutism here; both sides in the Civil War fought a brutal, nasty war. America still faces the concomitants of this. But Sherman's strategic targeting of economic infrastructure is not a great example. His army (regular Union troops that is—not to speak of the so-called "bummers") did not execute prisoners, indiscriminately destroy homes, or any such things. They destroyed infrastructure that aided the Confederate war effort, so I think "hard war" is a perfect distinction. Delukiel (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)