WW1 AND WW2 Flashcards
How did Ideology cause WW1?
Ideology caused WW1 through the pre-eminence of nationalism, particularly in the Balkans.
The collapse of the Ottoman Empr, couple with the increasing threats to the A-H Empire created a sequence of events by which localised nationalism resulted in the emergence of world war
The First and Second Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913 stoked the fire by which, particularly Serbia, began to express the desire to exist as an independent nation
That this led to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo is, of course, of paramount importance, but it was the expression of this pan-Slav nationalism that allowed such an event to happen
This ideological cause was incidental and crucial
How did Ideology Cause WW2
Hitler’s Nazm was an ideology that prioritised war as a key element, as best evidenced by the foreign policy pursued by the German state through the 1930s in Austria and eventually Poland.
This could not be said of Pan-Slav nationalism in the abstract, whereby the contrast Hitler’s aggressive and radicalise Nazism desired war and expansionism by design
How did the role of Women show that WW2 were a total war?
Shift from female motivation in WWI to societal propaganda (total war in WWII but not in WWI?)
Signs of a total war due to the constant urge of wanting to involve women due to the sheer mass and numbers needed: a group that were conventionally viewed as inferior and incompetent in helping in the war efforts prior to WWII.
(In the USSR) over 800,000 women served in the Soviet armed forces during WWII
USSR use women due to communist ideology + belief they should have equal treatment for war
Women made significant contributions to Britain’s war effort, however faced discrimination in terms of wages –> significantly lower than their male counterparts
180000 women working at radar stations, erecting barrage balloons + working with anti-aircraft artillery
What did Hastings Say regarding, How the role of Women show that WW2 were a total war?
Hastings “Every nation sought to elevate + glamorise the role of women war workers, as a stimulus to recruitment”
Hastings “An unprecedented range of countries became battlefields” –> Sheer volume of women in USSR is same for both wars (however a clear shift towards physical labour, particularly in Russia (overall).
Counter Argument to regarding how the role of Women shows that WW2 were a total war?
(Counter argument) However, no clear sign of a total war through the mobilisation of women as they were not in fully-fledged combat.
What was the role of women in Germany during WW2
No Total War in Germany as even within a world war, they refused to mobilise half of their population due to the concerns of male trade unions about pay cuts.
December 1916 ‘Auxiliary service for the Fatherland’ law. ‘shift workers from civil to military industries and to mobilise more of the population by requiring all adult males between…17 and 60 to perform “war work”’ (Daniel, 1917) ‘ultimately excluded women’ due to trade unionists (Grayzel).
Women forced to work in internment camps in German colonies in Africa ‘in order to transport supplies’ (Grayzel)
Germany was unwilling to largely compromise their traditional values, and therefore had low rates of significant female participation in the war. Therefore suggesting they did not have a total war
What was the role of women in Britain during WW2
Women’s paid employment increased by 400,000 in Britain (WWI)
The British were willing to mobilise women in industry, but not in combat. Therefore suggesting they were largely in the vicinity of total war, but it was not fully committed
Across Europe, other women took over small family businesses or ran farms’ (Grayzel)
What was the role of women in USSR during WW2?
Russian women mobilised on the front lines, but only voluntarily ‘Women such as Flora Sandes and the members of the Russian Women’s Battalions of Death experienced combat first-hand by choice’ (Grayzel)
The percentage of women in the Russian industrial workforce grew from 26% to 43% between 1914 and 1917.
The Russians were willing to do whatever was necessary, including mobilsing women who volunteered, to the front-line. Therefore suggesting they had a total war
Economy as evidence for total war.
WWI:
Defence of the realms act 1915: Government could requisition any land or buildings deemed necessary for the war effort.
1915 ‘Shell crisis’ (lack of shells to use in conflict) lead to greater autonomy of the economy by the government.
David Lloyd George ordered constructions of factories able to construct 800 tonnes of Cordite a day, whereas others nationalised and retooled for artillery shells. Britan’s production of shells increased 1000%.
Rationing for both sides introduced in 1914 (prior to war), showing awareness of future conflict.
Ministers and departments took control of economic production, determining production targets, allocating manpower and resources.
Resources such as ships, trains, and cars commandeered for army use.
In 1916, Hindenburg and Ludendorff took control of ‘silent dictatorship’. Producing the oberster kriegsmat (Supreme war office) which dictated all war activity, including economy.
What did Saint Amour say about Total War?
‘Total war is a war where all resources …are committed’.
Roger Chickering
“Study of total war might begin with the premise that total warfare, the scourge of the first half of the 20th century, did not fall from the skies in 1914. Its political, military, economic, social and cultural origins lie in the 19th century, if not earlier. The Wars of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars fundamentally altered the course of military history. For the first time since states had established monopolies over the use of armed force, mass mobilisation and broad social support became the basis of warfare. The great Prussian military analyst von Clausewitz was so impressed by this military revolution that he later wrote: ‘Suddenly war again became the business of the people – a people of 30 million, all of whom considered themselves to be citizens.”
Why could you refute arguments saying that there was Total War as evidenced by the economy?
Idea of total war in WW1 could be refuted, as in France, war-time distribution left to groups of privately owned companies, each responsible for own wartime need (ie shells or rifles). This worked in principle, however, not as well as places which did fully nationalise, such as Germany
Economy as evidence for total war.
WWII:
Again, rationing again began in 1939 for both sides, before war began, suggesting economic awareness to situation.
The major powers devoted 50-61% of their total GDP to munitions productions. Allied has far more in munitions than axis (around 3 times more)
Ovary-’No man in 1942 would have guessed the eventual outcome of the war’, based off the economic factors between both sides, and how Germany was able to do so well, even without sparse economic backing which the allied had.
Clear to mention that Germany and Japan were still economically strong, not were greatly outweighed. This means that to maintain military strength need to take ownership of it.
Germany ideals of expansion outwards could be fuelled as desire for raw resources. As an isolated nation, had to take over territory to harness the goods available in wartime effort. However, this is difficult with the time it takes to establish factories etc. Could explain why USSR were able to win Barbarossa, due to position of factories in comparison to Germany.
1942 was a great drive of mobilization across America, which greatly fuelled the allied efforts.
Atlantic charter of 1941.
In Germany, total war wasn’t established until 1943 by Albert Speer. Shows inequality between Britan and Germany, and that Germany only turned to total war when desperate.
What was the relative importance of war on the land in determining the outcome of WW1?
The war primarily developed into a war of static “positional” warfare, what we know as trench warfare, which as a result made WW1 a war of attrition if anything –> Surely more men meant that there was a higher chance of success by running down the enemies –> General Haig, surely not right.
Development of technology of ground combat is evidence that success in ground troop combat was necessary to winning the war.
Artillery was responsible for 70 percent of all causalities and was a technological development to attempt to punish positional warfare
Tanks developed in 1916 and were a technological development to develop new tactics to make a move against the enemy.
Chemical weapons and machine guns made it easier for people to hold positions.
Battles such as Marne, Somme and Verdun had tactics comprised fully of Ground troops and as a result caused a rapid increase in causalities. (Verdun – 800,000 casualties. Somme – 650,000 German casualties and 194,000 French casualties)
What was the relative importance of war on the land in determining the outcome of WW2?
Still highly dependent on ground troops, especially earlier on in the war for the Germans. (Developed tactics such as “Blitzkrieg” or “Lightning War”, pincer attack with Panzer tanks for quick and decisive victories, like what the Japanese also adopted when they decided to start their conquest in Southeast Asia)
One factor that allowed the Soviet Union to succeed against Nazi Germany in the 1940s was the sheer number of men they had to put on the front lines.
However, there was more a steer toward the use of aerial crafts to help either side succeed in the war.
Air can stop navy –> Stops supply –> Stops men being able to fight –> The victory of land troops is dependent on aerial superiority.
Aerial superiority on land against troops –> Due to development in technology of aerial warcrafts –> CAS (Close air support) used to take out hostile enemies that are near friendly forces –> More of a use in WW2 –> Troops more dependent on that, possibly even deciding the fate of the war.
Some instances even show that land-based combat not even required –> Nuclear bombs against Nagasaki and Hiroshima –> America decided to use these against Japanese as an alternative to Land-based combat, presumably would result in more troops lost due to Japanese resolve and determination to never surrender –> Victory sometimes doesn’t even require men.
