How long can you wage total war?

Redbeard

Banned
As others have already pointed out, GB in WWII is a good example of a nation reaching its mobilisation limit in a total war. By 1941 GB alone (excl. trhe Empire) was producing more than Germany, Italy and Japan combined, but then stagnated, and when Germany went to war econmy from 1942 Germany superceeded GB.

France from late 18th century and until 1918 was drained for more than was reproduced.

But there would be great differences between nations in how big a portion of production is needed to reproduce. In India, China or WWI Russia each individual would need very little, but the low degree of industrialisation and productivity would mean that very little is left for warfare when reproduction has taken its share. By WWII each Russian still accepted to survive on very little but the forced industrialisation of the interwar years had provided a huge surplus capacity for warfare. In comparison a modern western nation has a tremendous and unsurpassed technical/material capacity to wage war, but the population, feeling safe and comfortable, rarely is willing to accept any sacrifice. From this also follows however, that the most stupid thing you could do would be seriously pissing off the western world. The Kaiser, Hitler, the Politbureau, Saddam and Osama never understood - and paid/are paying the price.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Britain didn't stagnate, it plateaued becuase it had allocated everything it could. The only options it had left were loans/lend lease and robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Germany easily outproduced Britain when it went to a total war footing because it was a considerably larger economy, and it's conquests added productive capacity. This slow move to total war production was probably the reason Germany lost the war, the results of 1944 were what Germany was capable of doing, and possibly hold that level for a few years like Britain did.
 
I would call the Soviet-German theater of war a regional total war not a total war on the grand sense like the one in The Years of Rice and Salt was.

Why differentiate? If the Russo-German war had all the elements of a total war, and so did the conflict in YOSAR, then they're both total wars.
 

Rockingham

Banned
I remember someone on this board saying that, in general, a society wil stop functioning upon losing 20% of its population(at least I think it was 20%). I'm not sure of the accuracy of that statement.

So, if it is so, its a matter of how long a society can wage total war without suffering casualties on that scale-which requires a definition of total war, among other things. IIRC, the USSR came dangerously close to suffering those kind of losses, and they were one of the more populous states of the world....depdnding on the combatants, and the period in and technology with which the war was fought, 12 years might be the reasonable limit.
 
Assuming nukes are out of the picture, terrain comes into it as well.

For example, in an India vs China scenario the terrain prevents huge sweeping blitzkreig attacks- it would just be battle after battle of attrition trying to claw for control of each Himalayan pass and valley- the real mobile campaigns would be in the East Indies and even there terrain doesn't offer too much opportunity for mobility, just more titanic battles for control of chokepoints and ports.

So long as neither side manages to gain control of the sea routes through the Indies to mount an invasion of the other side's home territory, the war could continue indefinitely so long as morale at home didn't collapse.


Wouldn't the Indians win in a mountain combat scenario? I mean they pretty much are the best at mountain combat of any of the great powers.
 
Top