Talk:Total war/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Total war != killing everyone

I originally submitted the following as a direct edit, but Irondome nixed it as "Original Research" because of the lack of references. I do not dispute that, but clearly this article needs extensive work -- as most of the entries below testify to. Please view this contribution as an attempt to provide some clarity:

BEGIN original edit (slightly proofread)

There are two, not necessarily corresponding, aspects of 'total war': first, as applied by a country or people to itself or themselves. This relates to the redirection of a large/dominant portion of peace-time civilian activity to directly support the military war effort; second, as applied to an offensive military effort which treats the opponent as if it were at total war (in the first sense). Clearly, any claim of 'total war' must satisfy very different criteria depending on whether it is meant in the first or second sense.

In the self-defined sense there must be evidence not only of a desire to mobilize the population, but also that this has in fact occurred on a scale which significantly alters the economic and social basis of the society. One would look for a drastic reduction in non-military economic and social activity which preceded the outbreak of war. One would also need to distinguish between activity which only superficially 'serves the war effort' by simply 'relabeling' -- for example, an artist stops depicting everyday subjects and begins depicting 'heroic fighters' -- and activity that represents a fundamental shift -- such as producing armored tanks instead of family cars. In this regard, it is difficult to assess the claim that food production suddenly 'serves the war effort.' After all, whether in or out of uniform, a person has to eat a square meal. It is hardly the farmer's fault (or glory) that the entity purchasing the food is no longer the individual, but the army. Much the same could be said of tailors/uniforms, etc. etc.

In the second sense, a form of warfare is waged which would be strictly unjustifiable in moral and legal terms were the attacked society not mobilized for total war. If this is not the case, then the 'total war' offensive is clearly criminal, and the assertion that the enemy population had to be so abused is little more than a flimsy excuse. If, however, this is the case, some action which might otherwise have been illegal might be permissible. But, in no case can all restraint be abandoned. Abuses occur most commonly in the grey area, between actual total war mobilization and incorrectly attributed total war. There legal arguments are often brushed aside in favor of military and political expediency.

Note, as well, that the country attacking as if it were faced with a fully mobilized enemy, need not be itself fully mobilized. Furthermore, a fully-mobilized country may not provoke its enemy to escalate to total war. Conversely, the army of a fully-mobilized nation may not engage in total war offensives. Additionally, neither concept bestows right or wrong automatically on the cause or ultimate objectives of mobilizer or of the attacker. So it is essential to keep these two senses separate and clearly in mind.

END Original edit (slight proofread)

The only indisputable application is when both sides all totally mobilized and attacking each other without restraint of any sort.

I would like to suggest that the article be organized into three main sections:

Total War, Mobilization

Total War, Attack

Total War, Mobilization and Attack

With applicable historical example for each one. From this perspective, I think it will become clear that most of the sighted examples are "anything but the sort."

(I am new to editing, so I apologize if the above is in the wrong place.)

END of Tovish Edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.216.212 (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Many of the examples of "total war" in this article do not appear to be anything of the sort. Most of them are examples of slaughter or pillage, which is entirely different.

Total was is defined, in this article, by a civilization's complete dedication to the war, and in response, its attacks against any part of a civilization opposing it in an effort to disable its ability to wage war.

Consider the bombing efforts in Germany during WWII. The RAF was tasked with night bombing German cities, with the explicit understanding that by attacking housing they would indirectly disrupt German's ability to produce goods. Some part of the German manpower would have to be dedicated to building shelter, and if that could be destroyed faster than they could rebuild it, industrial capacity would plummet. In order to carry out this campaign, the entire UK economy was devoted to the production of war equipment, and in particular, but building of an enormous bomber fleet.

This is clearly an example of total war. Both countries involved were dedicating their entire industrial capacity to the defeat of the other (although in this respect Germany was late to the game). Both deliberately attacked the opposing centers of industry, and the civilians that operated that industry. Direct military conflict was, to some degree, secondary, and in the ideal German case, to be avoided wherever possible.

Now let's compare this to the examples that are offered up as earlier cases of total war, the Mongols in Bagdad for instance. In this instance, Hulagu gave Al-Musta'sim a simple ultimatum; surrender or be slaughtered. They did not surrender. He slaughtered.

The difference seems clear. At no time was either the Mongol Khanate or Abbasid Caliphate dedicating their entire economy to war -- in fact, the very concept would be difficult to understand given the economies of the era. Nor was Hulagu killing the civilians of Bagdad in an effort to disrupt their economic output, we was carrying out a threat. Sherman seems like the canonical example of how one carries out total war in a largely agrarian society.

I think we need to look at these examples case by case and come to some decision of whether or not they really are examples.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Many of the examples are simply extreme acts of war or war against civilians. Sherman's March does not prove that the relevant economies were pressed totally into service. The Russian campaign of 1812 is an example of a desperate delaying tactic used by the Russians, not a total war action by the Russian economy. I agree more examination needs to be applied here, to trim the article down to only the most widely accepted examples. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sherman's March is commonly cited for its impact on CSA civilians & for his objective: to break the will of the Confederate gov't to continue the war, which was the crucial factor. Churchill, Lindemann, & Portal made a fundamental mistake in the "dehousing" campaign: they targetted civilians with tha aim of affecting civilian, not government, will. Sherman got it right. That said, I'd agree, examples of slaughter do not alone equate with total war. If anything, the Mongols took a very limited war approach: they offered the chance to surrender & only destroyed cities or opponents when they got real resistance. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Linderman paper was published some months after the area bombing directive. The object of the campaign was not primarily to weaken German civilian moral it was summed up in the Singleton report "If Russia can hold Germany on land I doubt whether Germany will stand 12 or 18 months’ continuous, intensified and increased bombing, affecting, as it must, her war production, her power of resistance, her industries and her will to resist (by which I mean morale)." The point of dehousing is that the houses were easy to hit in comparison with people (as they had an annoying habit of taking shelter). It had been found in the Blitz that bombing factories was not very effective, but if you made workers look around for a new place to live, have to commute further to work (taking up more transportation) etc then it was another indirect way of reducing their productivity, as were the nuisance raids carried out to deprive workers of a good nights sleep. -- PBS (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Noted. I stand corrected. The campaign is, nevertheless, often (even usually) described as aimed at civilian morale, & did have important impact. My problem isn't that, it's the utter absence of effect on gov't morale, which was in ACW & WW2, & remains, the decider. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems there is some fairly wide agreement here. Let's keep the comments coming. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Despite the seeming agreement, an attempt to delete false examples has been rv'd. Do I hear objections to deletion of the allegedly "total war" cases before the Napoleonic Era? Otherwise, I'm going to delete it again. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The article needs more nuance. There is no consensus what total war is about. Different historians emphasize different aspects. Good overviews of the controversy are given by Black [1] and Förster & Nagler [2]. The article needs to say this from the get go, and make clear which examples are more controversial. Like I said when I downgraded the article, the current sources are inadequate. Maybe if I find time this weekend... FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the page saying what total war isn't. What troubles me is the numerous examples of such obvious fails. Every act of butchery is not an example of total war. The ancient Greeks made a point of limiting their wars so they could harvest, clearly not total. (IIRC, the Romans did for a long time, too, before they professionalized the legions.) And wars that use mercenaries on both sides damn sure aren't total wars. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

FuFoFuEd thanks for those links. I think Black makes some good points, However I think that Förster & Nagler main point is way of mark. By the yardstick that they are using, the English Civil War easily matches the concept of a peoples war. The press was extremely active on both sides and to all intense and purposes gave birth to newspapers with partisan slants in the English speaking world. It was not just a war between the gentry, it included the masses as can be seen by the Levellers movement and the politicisation of the New Model Army. There are hundreds of examples of people spontaneously supporting one side or the other when their homes were threatened, e.g. the people of London arriving at Turnham Green, and the tens of thousands of London volunteers who helped to build London's modern defences. Impressment/Conscription was quite common [3] and I suspect greater than in the Federal Army in the US Civil War. Also it was common for English soldiers (not officers) to be given the choice to join the victorious side after a battle rather than be killed or imprisoned (in a civil war being sent home was an option for the gentry as they could give their parole, something non-gentlemen of that period could not do). As for industrial production, while not as advanced as the 19th century, the West Midlands was already producing iron with coke (see Dud Dudley) and using water power to drive machinery for mass production (nearly every brook in the area still contains the remnants of old mill and mill ponds that pre-date the 19th century (see for example the history of Belbroughton). "[In 1620 there were] within ten miles of Dudley Castle there be near 20000 smiths of all sorts"[4] and for example one Birmingham manufacture, Robert Porter, produced 15,000 sword blades for the Parliamentary cause,[5] (The Black Country manufactured for the Cavaliers while Birmingham did the same for the Roundheads). So while I would agree that the line to total war is blurred, I do not think that Förster & Nagler put forward a strong argument for the American Civil War being the start it was just one point on a continuum -- I suspect though including the American Civil War does help sell their book in the US market. Personally I think that all the pre-World War I stuff should be compressed into a much smaller prelude section and the two world war sections expanded. -- PBS (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It may indeed be a continuum. That said, AFAIK, before the Napoleonic Era at the earliest, total national production was not turned over to war. Nor were entire populations subject to military service. Subject to being made to contribute at need, even confiscation, but not the routine, universal demands I think of in a total war context. Nor AFAIK were most pre-Napoleonic wars aimed at grand strategic aims rather than narrower & more limited gains, nor usually fought with the absolute means of even the ACW. Put it this way: before Napoleon, before Sherman, can you name even one commander known for applying the same wanton, calculated, deliberate destruction on an enemy's civilian population with the aim of undermining support for his enemy's leadership & aims? Can you name one who did so in a civil war? The kind of havoc this wrought would have undermined the war aims of most pre-industrial armies by destroying the crops, livestock, & valuables they hoped to plunder. Indeed, many (even most) pre-industrial armies relied heavily on plunder to keep their troops in line.

I only wish I could recall where I read this... There was a really interesting PDF on 10h-14h Century armies dealing with some of this. Dyer's War & Dupuy's History of Weapons & Warfare has some, IIRC. Arms & Man (O'Connell? O'Connor?) may mention some, too (tho IIRC I disagree with a lot of his characterizations). There was also The Hundred Years' War IIRC. (Thing is, I never intended to use them as sources, so I wasn't paying much attention to where it was... :( ). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

First it is debatable if the War Between the States was civil war. It certainly was nothing like the English Civil War where things were much more mixed and destroying a region would have been to no ones advantage as much of the target population would not have been supporting the enemy. But an analogy to Sherman's march would be the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. Cromwell justified the massacre at Drogheda by arguing that "I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, ... and that it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future."[6]. However this was nothing new and the Black Prince could have taught Sherman a thing or two about going walkabout. The point I made before is that the closer one looks at this issue, the easier it is to fined elements of total war going back centuries, and because of that I do not think it possible to say that the Napoleonic wars or the American Civil War contained enough of the elements that go into total war to be called as such. While some authors do argue that these and other pre 20th century conflicts were total war, there are many dissenters. Hence the reason I support cutting back on the stuff about pre 20th century conflicts and expanding the sections on the two world wars, particularly the second, where scholars tend to agree that if anything was a total war then WWII is the prime example. -- PBS (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

PBS, there's a book about American Civil war that challenges the "total war" interpretation of it, with respect to destruction anyway [7]. Like I said before, the more controversial evaluaitons needs more nuance in this article. (The professionals reviewing this book [8] [9] generally rate it better than the "I just don't buy" it Amazon reviews.) FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

PBS, I tell you what. You're making a good argument. And I'm not easily convinced when I think I'm right. ;p I am prepared to stand back on the dating for before WW1, which I presume we can agree is total, or WW2, for which AFAIK there is no question. On the individual campaigns, the question of duration comes to my mind: does a single operation (such as the Black Prince's Irish vacation ;p ) qualify? (In which instance, then, Sherman's March, oft-cited as exemplary, also fails.) As noted, I still hope to take out all the obvious mistaken examples in the hope we can clarify what is or isn't for everyone's benefit. In which group I will include myself, at this point. :D TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Black Prince's walk about was in France circa 1355 (see Chevauchée). And "havoc" had a specific meaning back then "the order havoc!, [was] the signal for the seizure of spoil, and so of general spoliation or pillage"(OED) hence "Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war". I think total war is a phrase rather like trench warfare. As has been pointed out on the talk page of that article, (by Trekphiler among others!) the there is a difference between "war in trenches" and "trench warfare" (rather like the difference in meaning between "the end of the week" and the "weekend"). This is why I introduced the section heading into that article called Field works, to try to show that while field works have a long history, and that the trench systems of World War I drew on that knowledge (it was not all newly invented in 1914), that does not meant that trench warfare as we now understand it can really be applied to earlier wars. I think this article should be structured in a similar way, showing the history of the development of the concepts but concentrating of the two world wars. -- PBS (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

♠"The Black Prince's walk about was in France" Non parlez Francais. :( :(

♠I will agree, a section illustrating the difference could be a big help.

♠If it appears I'm arguing both sides, I assure you, that's not my intention. In both cases, I consider there are clear examples of what is & isn't on topic. The difference here is how to make them clear... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

When talking about this I before I missed out a couple of other examples. The first was William the Conqueror, who deliberately laid waste to the area around Hastings, because he knew that as the territory was in Wessex it would help provoke Harold the Earl of Wessex as well as King of England into giving battle quickly, to William's advantage and Harold's disadvantage.

While looking for something else I came across another sourced example. (I already knew about, but could not date and did not have a source to hand so did not mention it before) During the War of Spanish Succession (1701–1714):

On the 7th [July 1704] the passage of the deep, broad, and rapid river Lech was effected at Gunderkingen, and upon this the Bavarian garrison at Neuburg abandoned that important place and retired to Ingoldstadt. On the 10th, Marlborough was encamped near Mittelstetten with 73 battalions and 174 squadrons. He had now the whole of the army in the elector's country, and he announced that if that unfortunate prince would not condescend to terms he would do his utmost to ruin that country. At this moment the elector, showing no disposition whatever to treat, lay strongly encamped at Augsburg, awaiting the reinforcements which Villeroy had promised. Bread was now plentiful in Marlborough's camp; provisions were brought out of Franconia, and the soldiers helped themselves in Bavaria, plundering the poor people without mercy.

Source: Pages 168,169 of The Pictorial History of England by George Lillie Craik, Charles MacFarlane (1841)

Given this example which is most definitively in the modern age, and commonly known about in the 1840s (see the date of publication of the source), I fail to see how Sherman's march to the sea can be seen as anything but the implementation of a well known military strategy and not a unique military event the heralded the onset of total war. -- PBS (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"Given this example" Another example of being enlightened & educated by those better informed than I. :) I salute you, sir. The impression I've been left with in what I've read is clearly based on an incomplete reading or poor understanding in my own sources (&, I daresay, not helped by my own dearth of further reading... :( )

I continue to wonder, however, if there's a way to draw a line between the understood "total war" (whenever it began) & "less than total war", without getting a plague of claims for one barbarity or another being "total". (It's bad enough at trench warfare, where the examples are more limited; as brutal as Medieval & pre-Medieval war got, the number of potential claims could run into 100s. 8o ). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sherman's March and quote from Trudeau

Trudeau believes that Sherman's goals and methods do not meet the definition of total war and to suggest as much is to "misread Sherman's intentions and to misunderstand the results of what happened."

It would be extremely helpful to expand this, assuming Trudeau goes on to say what Sherman's intentions were. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Without including his definition of total war, Sherman's intentions, and the results, this is about as helpful as saying "nyah-nyah". --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Definition in lede backwards?

Recent changes have the lede begin with:

"Total war is a war in which a belligerent mobilizes its population for war production".

Yet examples of total war just below this give strategic bombing, blockade, commerce raiding and the like; this implies it's what you attack that defines total war, not what you attack with. The lede contradicts itself.

I think our examples hold true, and the first sentence is in error. For example, I think the US practiced total war in Vietnam, even though most of its population and production didn't actively support it.

Maybe the first sentence should be something like:

"Total war is a war that includes civilian resources and production as military targets".

Comments? --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Would expand slightly. "Total war is a war that includes civilian resources, the civilian labour force, infrastructure including civilian habitation and power and food supplies as military targets". Irondome (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree my version was a tad simplistic; I'm focusing more on the where the contradition is rather than the exact words. But I take it you agree the first sentence is faulty. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The first sentence should be the widest definition possible. The existing opening sentence is inadequate Irondome (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

With no dissents, I've gone ahead with reversing the sense of the lede sentence. I've combined my initial suggestion with that of Irondome to attempt to cover the "widest definition", as he suggested.

Though this now makes the lede consistent with itself, it really should have sources. With proper sources, we'll be able to improve that first sentence further.

--A D Monroe III (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing "disputed" tag

I'm removing the "disputed" tag from this article. Reading through the talk sections, the dispute seems to be about many article section details that didn't fit the definition of total war, as given in the lede. Over the past few months, it's been decided that the lede was wrong, not the details. With the lede fixed, I believe this is resolved. If anyone disagrees, please restate the dispute as you see it. Thanks all! --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"Total war is a war in whichbelligerents mobilizes their population for war production". That those populations become a target is then a secondary issue and an inevitable consequence of mobilizing the population to fight a war. The reason the British area bombed German housing was because attacks on British housing during the Blitz had proved more disruptive to production than the bombing of factories (most industrial plant proved to be quite resilient to bombing, and days lost while workers looked for new accommodation was considerable.

The argument here would imply that whether a country fights a total war or not, is not down to political decisions by the counties government to fully mobilize their nations industrial resources to a war effort, but down to whether the enemy chooses to attack those mobilized resources. By that logic the US, and Canada were not fighting a total war in the Second World War because their industrial pant not targeted in large scale attacks. This I think is not what most people understand by total war.

"I think the US practiced total war in Vietnam" not they did not they employed a small fraction of their economy and a small fraction of their population in the war.

The lead should be a summary of the article. At the moment it does not describe the content instead it goes off on its own and I think mistaken. Most of the lead need be moved in to an introduction and the lead needs to summarise the content of the article. -- PBS (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not following all the arguments here.

I don't see how mobilizing population, only, defines total war. Sources often credit Sherman as starting Total war in the American Civil War with the March to the Sea. By the mobilizing population definition, the South first started Total war by utilizing civilian resources at the start? That's not in any source I've seen.

I agree the article could use some refactoring. But the first thing it needs is better sources for the definition of Total war. My changes only addressed the self-inconsistency in the lede.

--A D Monroe III (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

'All out war'

Would the term 'all-out war' be applicable when referring to a total war? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Gas wars

I'm curious ww2 wouldn't really be a totally total war because they didn't use everything poison gases like they did in ww1 plus to all those out there who say we can't have total wars think again nucluer weapons would not destroy the world or civilisation they would just be really destructive.

First off, the grammar and spelling in this are horrible. I'm not personally attacking you, I just want to let you know it's hard to understand. Also, sign your comments. Second, to answer your question, Yes, WWII WAS total, all out war. WWII is possibly the greatest example of total war in human history. Poison gas was used very often in Nazi concentration camps, and many prisoners were taken by the Japanese for slave labor. No prisoners were taken by many Nazi battalions, millions upon millions of civilian casualties mounted up on both sides. On the commonly overlooked Eastern Front, over twenty million civilian casualties took place. POWs were massacred, millions were relocated, and the United States went as far as to use WMDs on Japanese civilians to end the war. The Second World War easily fits the criteria of:

• Strategic bombing (Widespread across the globe)
• Blockades and sieges (The Siege of Leningrad, which resulted in widespread cannibalism, looting and over two million civilian deaths)
• 'Scorched Earth' Policies (Operation Barbarossa and how the Nazi war machine completely destroyed much of Western USSR)
• Unrestricted Submarine Warfare (Thousands of Nazi and Italian U-Boats prowled the Atlantic Ocean from 1939-1945, sinking millions of tons of Allied cargo and killing countless Allied civilians)
• Collective Punishment (The Holocaust)
• Slave Labor of POWs (Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan all performed this act using whatever POWs they had)
• Giving No Quarter (Nazi Germany took absolutely no military prisoners, massacring surrendering troops instead. They did take civilian prisoners to concentration camps, however.)

Good day. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Needed to be done

I am not an expert on this subject. But for anyone claiming to be an expert on this subject, please note that you need to document your sources. I will flag all baseless claims as needing citations until you find a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCA6:67E0:E0BE:8F96:DC0D:DF04 (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Immediate attention tag

This article has a huge amount of uncited claims that haven't received any attention in months. Something really needs to be done about this. Deletion would reduce the amount of content on the page massively, on the other hand all content should be cited. I don't propose any specific way forward, just that there is a large amount of uncited material on this page that has been left for far too long and something really needs to be done about it (although I think due to the amount of information we are dealing with discussion should take place first). Helper201 (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

A condition that's years old probably may not be the best use of this flag.

This points out a (known) problem, but doesn't propose a possible solution, other than "let's do better". There are probably a million articles in this same state. The only way I know to address all these is to do the normal work of WP article improvement, which is hard to rush.

Any specific suggestions for this article are welcome, of course. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

With no actionable suggestions for several weeks, I am removing the tag, so it can be more effectively serve where it can help. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 03:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Total War and solitude

I am retired now and sometimes looking back to where have come from. In the First and Second World War there was often the phrase: Total War. I can now only conclude that a person or group which deliver itself to this concept has to face "total isolation" of which perhaps there is no return. Perhaps it is for them beneficent but it opens "the strait way to the grave". Are you able to have this?

145.129.136.48 (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

All content in this article should cite verifiable sources. Is there one for this concept? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 01:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ludendorf vs. Daudet

Haven't time to compose formal edit. Leon Daudet used term "guerre totale" in 1916 (p1 of l'action franchise 11 march) and wrote book of same title in 1916, so Ludendorff is not creator of term, just best known popularizer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user 3 March 2019‎ 107.77.218.139

Well, come up with some reliable sources and add it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Etymology

The first mention of the term "total war" in the 1770s (probably 1778) is documented by Georg Christoph Lichtenberg. Looking through his collection of material on an intended Orbis Pictus (a description of everyday customs and objects), he noticed that the operators often used the word "total" in the wrong context. As an example he cites "total war". The expression thus possibly comes from the everyday language of the common people in the 18th century. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totaler_Krieg#Begriffsentwicklung — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B40:2258:880D:A65F:D714:5152 (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Total war (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Pre-modern examples should be expanded upon

The Punic wars, for instance should really be included on there. - by Agrijavi

Yeah, I was thinking that tribes of hominids probably did 'total war' as soon as they started picking up rocks. The 'civilians' were on the front lines, no doubt. And I could imagine one tribe wiping out another, especially a smaller one. I guess it depends on your definition of war.

This article Prehistoric_warfare seems to say that the earliest good evidence of war is from about 10k years ago, and the Neolithic section describes a massacre about 5500bce, probably related to stealing women.

OsamaBinLogin (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)