total wars

...have there been total wars since WW2?
...in Korea and Vietnam, the US was restricted
... I would say the Iran-Iraq war was total war
...were the Arab-Israeli wars total? I have never heard of long term/major attacks on industries/etc...Israel was never ''allowed''/ operated to really destroy the Arab countries.....?
..most wars are not total and are constrained/restricted.......the objectives are restricted/restrictive/not ''total''...?

to·tal war
noun

1. 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.

 

Your definition of "total war" includes the phrase "...one in which the laws of war are disregarded." In Africa, Italy and Northern Europe, both sides generally obeyed the laws of war-with some notable exceptions. Also, the German war economy was self-restricted until, I believe, sometime in 1943. So while WW2 has been called a total war, by your definition it was a little shy of that. Certainly, it was the closest we've come to it in modern times.

 

..that's a ''controversial'' part of the definition ....and it can be interpreted....
..no, WW2 was a total war--by the definition/etc ---no doubt about that ......please explain how the defintion does not make WW2 total

 

....are you talking about the NA, Italian, and NEurope campaigns/battles? those are not wars--those are battles/campaigns in the war...the Germans ceratinly disregarded the laws of war in WW2

 

Italy in WW2

Italy?? in WW2?? you've never heard of the Ardeatine Massacre/etc?
..the Italians shot Mussolini [ and his mistress ] without a trial/etc......many atrocities in Italy WW2
..they destroyed Monte Cassino
..etc
Ardeatine massacre - Wikipedia

 

Notice that I said, "with some notable exceptions"! When the Germans fought the Western Allies the conventional laws of war were generally upheld by both sides. Prisoners were taken and mostly treated as per the Geneva Convention. So if both sides held back from a general massacre of prisoners, use of gas, etc., it means that the war wasn't a total war. Even the Soviets took prisoners and some even survived, nor did they use gas. So you see, it wasn't a total war as defined in your original post.

 

...are you really saying WW2 was not a total war? !!??
..either they followed the laws or not---if they committed one violation, that's not following the rules
...how about thousands of Japanese and Germans civilians dead? Desden, Hamburg, Tokyo, etc etc
''some'' ???!!
..how about the Russians raping German women?
....you're not even close--the US murdered Japanese that were helpless in the water
...there were atrocities from all sides.....gee, I would say 20 million Jews murdered was an [ hahahahah ] exception
..how about the Bataan Death March? the Japanese executing Americans for no reason? etc etc
....'''some'' ???? wrong = many, many many exceptions
do I need to list all the rules of war that were disregarded?
..how about unrestricted sumbarine warfare?

 

As I stated before: I don't think it quite came up to total war as per your definition. Atrocities are committed in all wars. Hell, war is an atrocity. However, even though atrocities were committed on both sides in Vietnam, it couldn't be called a total war-at least on our side, anyway.

As a matter of fact, I don't consider the Holocaust a "war crime". A crime of horrible magnitude, yes, but not a war crime. It was simply a case of ethnic murder, pure and simple. The only difference between it and many other "ethnic cleansings" was its scope and industrialized efficiency. It was made possible by the war but largely done outside the area of the fighting.

Only in the last year of the war could it be called a total war, with the advent of things like the Volksturm, kamakazis, and Japanese civilians given pointed sticks. Oh yes, then there were a couple of atomic bombs dropped.

 

1. war is not an atrocity if you go by the definition
-a. and it's just part of what humans do
2. it doesn't matter if the Holocaust was a ''war crime'' or not to make WW2 total or not......the Holocaust was part of the war....jesus christ, a lot of the atrocities were done outside the area of fighting !!!!yet they are still war crimes !...that's [ outside the fighting area ] what makes them war crimes, usually
....if they were done inside the fighting area, then they probably would not be war crimes = example: blowing up an abbey [ like Monte Cassino ] with civilians inside

 

thanks--that is very interesting
''the Jewish liquidation commandos'''----o, boy ....sounds like the same MSM 180' turnaround stuff we read today

...yes--closing of shops/restaurants/etc....much less food/clothes/electricity/....longworking hours..digging air raid shelters/spending nights in the shelters/dying in the shelters.....black markets...
....the Germans didn't ''feel'' the war as much in 39', 40' and 41 as they did later .....

--just like Japan --Total War

 

..did they have an similar amount of women [ per capita of course ] work for the war as much as in the US? ..
..I'm sure no one likes/wants total war - that means there are big problems....Japan kept a lot of defeats/etc secret = they didn't want the people to know there were big problems
..a lot of the German people were not stupid...once they had to go to a ''total war'' footing, the German people knew there was a big problem = hitler/etc [ to put it mildly ] '''screwed up''

 

War is CERTAINLY an atrocity. Don't believe me, ask anyone who fought in one!

 

Not stupid when the enemy is at your doorstep and air raids in Germany proper are a daily occurence.

As OP stated above German women were not called to service the homefront in war production in any way near the capacity of the Allies...especially compared to the U.S. By the time they were it was too little too late.

 

..even if they used them all, from 1939, Germany still would not have and did not have the industrial capacity to stop the Allies
..a lot of Germans knew before the major raids and before 1944, that Germany would probably lose the war--or at least had a major problem

 

...did they need or could even use ''a lot'' of German women --that much? I thought they used a lot of foreigners/slave labor for production such as the Mittelwerk plant??