Suss, ‘The War of the Future’ (Alix B)
In this chapter, Suss describes the time of war in the introduction of aerial bombing and aerial warfare that started in the 20th century during the First World War. Suss describes the different ways people felt towards the changing of war life as we know it, some people were excited whilst others terrified and fleeing from big cities.
He firstly discusses the type of aerial warfare used specifically the germans use of Zeppelins to attack the enemy in their homeland. The attack on London from Germany was the first time Britain was attacked on home soil and this riddled fear and panic amongst civilians. The use of aerial bombing during the First World War was proven not to be the main factor in winning the war but it was definitely significant in effecting the emotions and the moral of citizens in large cities especially with munitions factories being a main target. Suss discusses how the people of Britain for the first time did not feel some on their home soil, that an attack like that could happen again at any time and fighting on the front line wasn’t enough anymore.
Suss also discusses the difference in strategies to bombing that Germany and Britain had. The German bombing was described as inhumane and barbaric due to it hitting a high populated place of civilians whereas Britain’s retaliation in the same way with intent to kill civilians was declined by the government. Instead large factories and industrial areas were to be hit instead as Britain seen themselves creating a state of ‘total war’ if they retaliated in the way of killing innocent civilians. Aerial bombing now put forward what the future of wars would look like describing it as a miracle of warfare.
The pilots were seen as honourable and noble men fighting a clean war, the were called ‘the Knight of the Skies’ in comparison to the bloody soldiers that were in the battle fields below and being labeled as murders the pilots watched from above and were idealised as heroes.
Suss then moves on to the inter-war period in Britain and in Germany. He notes that wars in the future would change as fighting each other on the front line in battle was not enough, the victor of any war would be the nation with the best military, economic and civilian resources and being able to wipe out enemy resources in their own territory not in a battlefield. In Britain it was made sure that when aerial bombing was discussed the morale of the civilians and keeping it high was the main priority so when it was discussed it was made inhumane so it didn’t sound like innocent lives being lost it looked more like just a number to them than a human being.
I found it disturbing that British morale was affected immensely after the London attack but Britain was using the same type of attack on the colonies against protesters and tribes who they weren’t even at war with.
However, in Germany after the First World War and the Treaty of Versailles now in place it banned the possession of military aircraft. Germany recognised how important air defences was becoming as they knew something much bigger was to come and prepared the people of Germany in better air attacks resulting in a higher moral in comparison to British morale.
Suss ends the chapter by saying neither Britain or Germany wanted to be the first to start the aerial warfare but if anything was to happen the RAF had the go ahead to succeed with maximum effectiveness, but, the only thing that happened was a false alarm on the day war was declared in September 1939 which was accidentally set off by two British pilots. Suss notes that for the reminder of the time London and Berlin both reminded quiet.
Glienke, ‘The Allied Air War’
In this chapter, Glienke discusses Air Warfare in the Second World War and the huge effects which it had on German society and the German population, both directly and indirectly. He points out two main approaches of historians on the impact of air war on Germans with Groehler who believed that it only really effected a specific portion of German society, and Heinl who argues that the impact of air war was far reaching as he puts forward the psychological perspective of this aspect of war. Glienke views seem to align more with Heinl’s.
The direct impacts of air warfare on Germany are seen more in the targeted cities through the destruction of houses and other buildings, which had huge consequences. With this destruction came problems such as poverty and homelessness, which were severe problems as by March 1944 there were 1.5 million homeless people in Berlin alone. Along with these issues, the need for units to put out fires, set up emergency medical care and find emergency accommodation became overwhelming. There were also Armed Forces Units sent to clear unexploded bombs and save those who had been buried in the explosions. All of these jobs required labour which there was a shortage of, therefore they resorted to the use of convicts and concentration camp prisoners, who also required guards to be present putting a further strain on the country.
Glienke also discusses the indirect impacts that people all across Germany experienced as a result of the bombings. Even if they were not living in a city, which were often targeted more, the fear and anxiety of being bombed or their loved ones being bombed was hugely impactful on the lives of Germans. The lack of sleep due to the sirens or anxiety led to a decrease in production from workers which had an impact on the economy. The main concern of Germans was the victims of these bombings, however propaganda focused on the destruction of German cultural monuments and architecture in order to encourage more hatred towards the allies. With no information on the deaths and victims, people began to find their own sources through friends, relatives etc, which caused for a lot of rumours being spread. For example, the raid in Wuppertal in 1943 had left 1800 dead, but in the rumours being spread this number was 10,000-12,000. Glienke makes a clear argument that the air raids effected all Germans not just specific segments of the population, just in various ways as individual regions had different fears.
Chickering and Forster, ‘Are We There Yet?’
In this article, Chickering and Forster explore the definition of ‘total war’ in relation to WW2. This is achieved through their examination of the nature of this war in comparison to two previous major wars: the American Civil War and WW1.
Chickering and Forster explore “total war” through Gordon Wright’s definition of the “ideal type”. This emphasises the importance of civilians in the war, as workforce for the war efforts and as targets. They go on to explain that with “total war” the distinction between soldiers and civilians doesn’t exist as civilians became the preferred targets of military attacks. This emphasis on the importance of civilians as targets can be seen in the comparison between the number of soldiers killed in theatres of war, which is 15 million, to the number of civilians killed sitting at 45 million. Civilians were central to the fight in WW2 which was not previously seen on this scale.
Chickering and Forster explore WW1 in relation to “total war” and conclude that it lacked key features of “total war” as it was limited in scope due to the stalemate and in the military violence against civilians. However, they state that “total war” was partially the product of WW1 due to the essential role of the mobilisation of civilians which is a critical feature of “total war”. Air Warfare is also something that separates WW2 from WW1, as it was crucial in the attacks on civilians.
However, Chickering and Forster also discuss the limitations of WW2 in it’s totality. While WW2 was fought on a global scale, it was mainly concentrated in one area which is not a typical feature of “total war”. It was also limited in it’s totality as women were excluded from combat roles. Chickering and Forster also state that German life on the Home front was not as disrupted as in WW1, which would limit the war in it’s totality also.
Thanks Alix and Erin for these summaries. As I said earlier, I’d like to see more colleagues from the class dropping by to leave their comments.
You’ve both picked out key ideas here that I think are important to think about or explore further. The colonial context, as noted by Alix, is important: I wonder if we can point to it as an area of experimentation for bombing technology? The same could be said of Germany’s participation in the Spanish Civil War.
I agree, Erin, that Glienke sides with Heinl. There is perhaps an argument that he spreads his understanding of the impact of bombing too far and it would be interesting to read this along side Stargardt, Germans at War, for example. I also find a more historicised definition of total war to be interesting to probe, namely that a particular idea of total war emerged after WWI (as you point out) as a response to WWI. This is a slightly different way of approaching total war than simply applying our own concept to it.
I think Suss’ work does a good job in describing the inter-war feeling, it’s almost like there was a preparedness for ‘total war’ which I found quite surprising. I agree re the importance of air defence, I think this is evident with the foundation of ‘Reich Air Defence Association’ (p. 35), and I think Suss argues that the Nazi regime used air defence as a means to integrate the German population whilst also indoctrinating them.
Glienke’s chapter encourages us to reflect on the mayhem faced by German civilians during the war, whilst also drawing on some of the direct/indirect impacts of aerial bombardment. I like your mentioning of the point about civilians losing sleep due to anxiety because of the bombardments, and I think it makes us reflect on the psychological impact of aerial bombing.
I think this is a good summary of Chickering and Forster’s chapter. I struggled to understand it compared to the other readings as it took on a rather more theoretical approach. Nevertheless, I found it intriguing, and I think it encourages us to be careful in defining ‘total war’. I think it’s a hot debate between historians. Personally, I think this was, as mentioned in the chapter, an era which commenced in WWI and reached ‘totality’ in WWII (p. 13), particularly in Eastern Europe and the Pacific.
Overall, I think all of the summaries make good points about the idea of ‘total war’. I think from all three the discussion of ariel bombing is key when looking at the development of ‘total war’ as it was used not only on military targets but also increasingly on civilians and I think this attack on civilians on such a large scale is a really key factor when discussing total war. Ariel Bombing also arguably expands the battle field to the sky, countries were no longer just concerned with controlling territory but also air space.
However, I agree with the notion that the idea of ‘total war’ needs to be carefully dealt with as it can be described as Eurocentric and it is important not to over generalise.
I think that ‘Are We there Yet’ explains the definition of total war really well. The authors go into much detail about how the definition of total war is more than just the enormity of its scope and impact, but also the mobilisation of industrial economies in the war effort and the systematic erasure of distinctions between soldiers and civilians. It goes further to describe the Second World War as an example of total war and how the conflict was a perfection of both the First World War and the American Civil War. It witnessed the ultimate features of modern warfare such as aerial bombing which had a huge impact on civilians. Although they debate that the Second World War did not remove every restraint of combat, I consider that due to certain areas of the war such as airpower and the colossal destruction of civilian life and property, it can in fact be defined as total war.
Completely agree with the summaries here, thanks for posting! The role of aerial bombing in the development of total war is a really interesting concept
When it comes to ‘total war’ as a concept, Chickering & Forster’s tracing of the concept back to WW2 and even the US Civil War is thought-provoking and something I definitely agree with. It made me think of ‘total war’ as the transformation of warfare through modernity, integrating the various new developments in industry, infrastructure etc. into warfare and through this extending its scope onto all of society.
I found Chickering and Fosters article to be interesting and their definition and ideas surrounding total war easy to understand and follow. I liked the explanation that a total war is defined by the lack of boundaries between soldier and civilian and i also agree with their suggestion that WWI was not fully considered a total war but was the starting point of total wars of the future. However, i do believe that some aspects of WWI could be considered a total war should it be based on the idea of a poor boundary between the public and military as the new more hostile and violent style of occupation that became common in WWI led to the military to commit violent acts against the occupied and the military also ransacked and destroyed their homes . This was common activity amongst the German, Russian and Ottoman armies.
The Blog posts this week were very informative. Growing up, I was never taught much about bombing in the first world war and nothing on bombing of civilians.
It is also very important to emphasise the effect the bombing during the war had on civilians because that would also effect the government and the way the country was run as well.
Britain has been portrayed as the “good guys” when it came to the use of aerial bombing; with the fact that they nly targeted munitions factories etc and not civilians. This can be seen as a way of legitimising their actions, where in fact they still targeted civilians, just in a calculated way