Total War II.

This is coolbert:

Total War II.

Consider this extract on total war from another web site:

"A useful distinction here is between absolute war and total war. Absolute war describes the deployment of all of a society's resources and citizens into working for the war machine. Total war, on the other hand, describes the absence of any restraint in warfare. Moral and political responsibility becomes problematic for proponents of both absolute and total war, for they have to justify the incorporation of civilians who do not work for the war effort as well as the infirm, children, and the handicapped and wounded who cannot fight. Supporters of absolute warfare may argue that membership of a society involves responsibilities for its protection, and if some members are literally unable to assist then all other able-bodied civilians have an absolute duty to do their part. The literature of war propaganda relates well here, as does the penal morality for those who refuse and the definitional politics of the wide range of people who may not wish to fight from conscientious objectors to traitors."

The author seems to want to make a distinction between the concept of total war and the definition of "absolute war" as defined by Clausewitz.

Clausewitz defined aboslute war as being:

"a theoretical 'standard' to 'judge all wars by.'
A nation or ruler seeking to approach this ideal-type method,
Clausewitz stated, needed to wage war "without respite
until the enemy succumbed," that is, with all available
forces and resources until one side dictated political terms to
the other."

There seems to be a reversal of definitions here.

"The two terms, absolute war and total war, are often confused. Christopher Bassford, professor of strategy at the National War College, describes the difference, 'It is also important to note that Clausewitz's concept of absolute war is quite distinct from the later concept of 'total war.''"

Go here to see a good description of "total war" and the contradiction between the terms "total war" and "aboslute war".

Total war as understood by myself would seem to be the harnessing of all a nation's industrial and manpower capability to the war effort. An inclusion of all elements of a societies institutions into the war effort, to the exclusion of other considerations.

Absolute war would refer to the manner and means by which the war is fought. The inclusion of all weaponry, tactics, "with all available forces and resources", "without respite until the enemy succumbed". This suggest a ruthlessness and implacability of resolve. A scorched earth-kill em' all-no holds barred-death to the enemy type of warfare. Invade the territory of the enemy, defeat his military, break the will of the enemy populace to further resist. AND use whatever means are necessary to do.

Again, according to Clausewitz, such a state of "perfect" absolute war is NEVER achieved. Due to a variety of reasons, such as:

"'absolute' ideal was tempered by 'extraneous matters' such as friction, inertia,
inconsistency, imprecision, and the timidity of man.'"

[the theories and ideas of Clausewitz of course were in keeping with the experience of the times that the man lived in. Wars of what were called First Generational Warfare [the earliest stages of black powder warfare] were wars of limited duration, using mostly small professional armies, and generally fought for discrete, limited reasons.]

Historical warfare by and large does not show us examples of absolute warfare.

Even the savage and to the modern observer barbaric wars of conquest carried out by Genghis Khan did not reach the stage of "absolute" war. Genghis did desire conquest. And did carry out war in what would seem an absolute manner. Genghis, however, like all conquerers, did NOT desire to obliterate his adversaries. He did want them to submit and become his subjects, paying tribute and "ten percent of everything". Genghis wanted dominion, but NOT obliteration! Something of a very absolute manner would happen to you if you did not submit to Genghis, but by and large Genghis wanted surrender and conquest, booty and tribute being the main objective. NOT obliteration!

[some would suggest that this is not true. It is reputed that the Mongols killed as many as 30 million Chinese peasants to clear the land for the grazing of sheep!!]

coolbert.