Tuesday, January 04, 2011
A Totally Total War
Read Gilbert 265-280 and respond to/question/or comment on the following 3 questions: (1) We know a lot about Hitler, but less about Stalin. Based on the reading, what do we know about Stalin and/or the intentions of the USSR? (2) World War II was entirely brutal, but the Eastern front was particularly horrific. Why? (3) Were both World Wars considered "total wars"? Please explain your reasoning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What facinates me about Stalin was his relationship with Churchill and FDR. He was rather the outsider at Yalta, just as Russia was the outsider of the three Allies. Russia was a communist nation, with different ideals than the other two counties, and was never as close politically as the other two.
ReplyDeleteI think the utter disregard of both sides for human life on the Eastern front was what made it so horrific. Both sides wanted to win, at whatever cost, and had no qualms with mass killings.
I think WWI was less of a "total war", as it wasn't as socially and milliarialy exhausting and horrific as WWII.
I think that stalin did anything that he could to keep germany from winning the war once germany invaded. he didnt care if he was loosing supplies as long as germany couldnt use it either. its smart but also seems like a childish tactic to me.
ReplyDeleteWhat made the eastern front so bad was the fact that both germany and the soviets hated each other and didnt care what happened to eachother. the germans let the soviets starve and freeze to death and didnt follow the common curtesies of prisoners of war and the soviets didnt feel sympathy for the germans who were not prepared for the harsh winter.
i think both were total wars but WWII was more developed and therefore seems more total than WWI
1) i felt like stalin was all about revenge, i mean he did give orders to kill Leon Trotsky. And i think a lot of this revenge came from him not feeling welcome at Yalta.
ReplyDelete2)The easter front was particularly horrific because thats where everything seemed to be taking place. There was wholesale destruction, mass deportations, and immense loss of life variously due to combat, starvation, disease, and massacres. The Eastern Front was also the main site of extermination camps,and death marches.
3)I don't think both wars were "total wars" only because WWI did not cause as much distruction. It definitly didn't cause as much economic and social atrocities.
I was intrigued by what Melissa said about the relationship between Stalin and FDR. So I just quickly researched it and I was surprised how many conferences were held between FDR, Stalin, and Churchill.With such conflicting ideals the documents depicting the meetings actually calm strategy.
ReplyDeleteI think what made the Eastern front so horrific was just the full-out offense. I mean Stalin in June ordered for anything even remotely related to the Germans to be destroyed. And then German was destroying masses of people all at once. There was no holding back on the Eastern front.
As far as either war being "total", I am taking it as "well rounded," because you can't deny such numbers of soldiers being killed and destruction not being a war. But WW2 was much more "total" because of the strategy, the advancements, and the develop of a overall military organization/education.
The reading described several things that Stalin did that were interesting to me. First, he ordered the execution of 15,000 Polish soldiers because he 'didn't want Polish leadership to emerge after the war.' It's interesting that he worried that those soldiers would become leaders, rather than other Poles. Also, he ordered the murder of Leon Trotsky, and the execution of any 'active Trotskyites in the camps.' You would think that the murder of Trotsky would be a demoralization to the other 'Trotskyites', but apparently that wasn't good enough for Stalin, so he killed them all. Third, the 'scorched earth' policy was a very drastic move by Stalin, because he was so afraid that the Germans could use their resources against them. It really is a good idea, but it's intense.
ReplyDeleteIn one part of the reading, it said that Hitler ordered the killing of people with 'merciless harshness.' I think this concept was what made the Eastern front so horrific - the leaders of the various warring countries wanted to win, no matter the cost. Hitler also encouraged deliberate starvation and brutality of prisoners, and denied them elementary rights that are supposed to be given to prisoners of war.
I think that WWII was more 'total' than WWI, due to the advancements in strategy and technology compared to WWI. Like Melissa said, WWII was more exhausting and horrific than WWI, which qualifies it as being more 'total'.
Also, I have a question about something Stalin did. On page 277, it describes that he signed a list with 170 people on it that needed to be killed. One of them was Christian Rakovsky, who was a former Soviet Ambassador to Britain, and had avoided execution three years earlier. I'm wondering why Stalin wanted these people killed? They were people in his own country, some of which were already captured or in camps. Why would he want them dead? It did say he 'found time to settle old scores,' so were they just people he didn't like?
I definitely agree with Anna that WWII was more "total" than WWI; in WWI, there was no one side to completely blame for anything. There was no real bad guy because nobody had done anything to warrant being given the title of "bad guy." In WWII, there were two potential bad guys, the most prominent, of course, being Hitler; the other was Joseph Stalin. Despite their differing beliefs - one was Fascist and one was Communist -they don't really seem that different to me. They both wanted to bring their countries out of the turmoil they'd faced. They both wanted to spread their respective ideaologies as much as they possibly could. They both got rid of the opposition, or those whose deaths they would benefit from or find some satisfaction in - in Stalin's case, the Poles and Leon Trotsky. In Hitler's case, his political enemies and anyone else who opposed him in any way. I think that if the roles had been reversed - if Hitler had been on our side and the USSR against us - then Stalin could be the one now hated by the entire western world. After all, he didn't really do things much differently than Hitler, from what I can tell. Who knows what would've happened if our tensions with the USSR had boiled over and turned to conflict?
ReplyDelete1) Stalin used his absolute power to push through his own motives. Once Trostsky was assassinated, he ordered more than a hundred Trotsky followers killed. While this number isn't very significant compared to the other deaths of the war, it was interesting to me because of the specific political motivation behind the action.
ReplyDelete2) I agree with what everyone else has said about why the Eastern front was so brutal. Hitler and Stalin hated each other and were desperate to do as much damage to the other force as possible.
3) Each of the world wars was a total war for its time. WWI was as destructive as it could possibly be with the technology of the period. The technology of WWII had advanced, and so it was another total war, just more destructive.
Basically Stalin's intention for the USSR involved a resistance of Germany, it wasn't so much that they agreed with the western allies ideas as Melissa said, but more like they shared a common enemy and that was the factor that brought them together.
ReplyDeleteI believe what made the Eastern front so horrific was the fact that there was no common courtesies, civilians were murdered and guerrilla warfare took over, which basically meant total chaos. Both sides wanted to win at any cost, which led to desperation.
Both World Wars were total wars, but WWII was more so than WWI. Total war meaning that every aspect of a nation is involved: economics, social life, the workforce, government, rationing, propaganda, the involvement of women. All of these aspects were much more extreme for many more countries during WWII as compared to WWI.
At the time of WW2 I think that a lot of the connections between people was not because you actually liked each other and were agreement in everything, but more so that you shared a common enemy or were against a certain belief. Well although the US was not a fan of communist Russia they still supported them over Hitler's Nazi Germany. There was a strong enough agreement between the two to at least have some connection.
ReplyDeleteI think the western front of WW2 had a plan, there was a tactic to attack and it wasn't just mass killing. The Eastern front was not planned and it was just about how destructive you can be. And going back to yesterday's post, I think that was one major part of how WW1 evolved into WW2, the technology and the use of it provided the Eastern front to be more destructive and random. There was much less courtesy and respect towards each other on this front and it definitely showed in the mass killings.
Personally I think WW1 was much more a total war than WW2. I mean WW1 got so much more international involvement and it had a greater effect on all aspects of life. This may be because it was the first World war, but still WW2 did not reach out to the world like ww1 did. On the other hand in the sense of destruction, WW2 was just off the charts. It caused mass deaths and there was much less respect for human life.
The biggest thing about Stalin that I think has been made clear in the last couple readings is that he was really very paranoid. In the 1930's he was already afraid of a German invasion, and in 1938, tried to enter an alliance with Great Britain against Germany. When Britain turned this down he was then afraid that this meant that Britain was conspiring with Germany against the Soviet Union, a fear that was heightened with the Britain-Germany agreement in Munich the same year. And like Alysa said, revenge always seemed to be a priority, or if not revenge, at least, a certain amount of provocation and alienation from people he thought to have wronged him. The Soviet Union spent the late 1930's really freaking the Allies out by taking over parts of Poland, invading Finland and taking over the Baltic States, and threatening fascist domination of Europe definitely didn't help their fragile relationship with Germany either.
ReplyDeleteThe Eastern Front was the site of nearly half of the war’s casualties for a number of reasons. A significant one is that, it was the central location of the Holocaust, being that the majority of the concentration camps were located in Poland and Germany. Also, the battles that happened on the Eastern Front during World War 2 constituted the most violent military confrontations ever. They included unprecedented destruction and casualties due to fighting, starvation, disease and massacre. I think that the reason the Eastern Front got so violent was in part due to the ever-escalating conflict between Germany and the Soviet Union based on ideological differences. Germany had expressed its anti-communist sentiments in the Anti-Comintern Pact with Italy and Japan, and the issue had come up again when Germany and the Soviet Union took opposing sides in the Spanish Civil War. Both Hitler and Stalin’s fierce beliefs in the superiority of their ideology was a recipe for coming conflict. Also, due to Hitler’s propaganda, German soldiers had been receiving endless information on the horrors of Communism and the atrocities committed by Stalin on his rise to power. Similar information about the evils of Hitler and Fascism was given to Soviet soldiers, increasing the readiness of both armies’ soldiers to fight violently and desperately against an opponent that they viewed as inhumanly evil. They were willing even, to carry out their leaders orders of “merciless” killing.
Total war is definitely significantly more relevant in World War 2 than in World War 1. Great Britain dedicated its entire society to war, using all of its factories for war manufacturing and evacuating children from major cities. The United States response was similar in their dedication to war manufacturing, as well as the encouragement of popular support with Victory Gardens, war bonds, rubber and metal drives and the participation of not just male soldiers but also female factory workers and nurses. This kind of involvement was not possible during World War 1 because there was not the popular support, nor the umbrella of the common cause of preventing Hitler’s global takeover. Germany also had a total war policy in Blitzkrieg, where all resources and technology were focused on creating an entirely mechanized force that could quickly and easily defeat their opponents. This was a real contrast to World War 1, during which, most citizens were not even informed of what was really happening in the war. The Soviet Union also, played on public support, maintaining a command economy that supported war production, as well as promoting a nationalistic love of “the Motherland”, even allowing the reopening of the Russian Orthodox churches in hopes of creating a national unity.
Once Germany attacked the USSR I think Stalin's main strategy was just to attack hard and do everything he could to stop them. Like Sarah said, it didn't seem particularly sophisticated. I think this all-out offensive was also part of what made the eastern front so horrific. I think it was expected to be over quickly so people went at it much more fiercely. Also, I think both WWI and WWII were total wars. They were both extremely destructive, as much as current technology would allow them to be. They reached scales never before seen or imagined.
ReplyDeleteStalin and the soviet union were always considering themselves over anything. They didn't just want to stop Germany, they wanted to stop Germany and put themselves in a good position. The eastern front was particularly brutal for many reasons. First, the fighting was fierce for both sides. Also, the conditions in the Soviet Union, especially during the winter, were nasty and made for a difficult fight. I think that the second world war was more of a total war than the first one. In WWI, there was fighting but everything wasn't destroyed. In WWII, cities were bombed and supplies destroyed just to keep them out of the hands of the enemy. In WWII, each country was doing anything, no matter how brutal, to win.
ReplyDeleteI think that Stalin's intentions were to hold a defensive front. He annexed territory prior to the war to create a bigger cushion between himself and Germany, and as we've seen in the past, when Germany came, Russia retreated, all the way to Moscow. I think the murders of Britishmen may have had to do with the amount of support Stalin was receiving. True the US and Britain were giving immense aid, but in weaponry, and aerial assault, I think Stalin would have expected his allies to get troops over there and help his cause.
ReplyDeleteI think the Eastern front was totally brutal because Hitler had never before fought Russia to win, in WWI Russia surrendered. Additionally Hitler was attacking the nation he had made a pact to remain peaceful with. I don't doubt this created hard feelings in Russia.
I think both wars were total wars because of the way they involved everything and everyone.
Even America in a time of neutrality made choices influenced by the war.
To my understanding Joseph Stalin was very protective and secretive of what he was doing in Russia during WWII. Not even churchill even knew what he was doing most of the time. The reason why the eastern front was so horrific was because of the extreme hatred Hitler and Stalin had for each other so they concentrated most of their troops in the eastern front. Both wars can be considered to be total wars since they both suffered high casualties.
ReplyDeleteTo me Stalin seems like a very childish and unstable person, focusing more on revenge then saving the millions of people fighting for him. I do understand that he probably wasn't ready for the attack from Germany, but from the reading last night I know that he refused to believe it when he heard reports that Germany WAS going to attack.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Eastern front was so brutal not simply because war itself was that different there, though someone had a good point about the lack of strategy adding to the destruction. Russia/The Soviet Union is a very harsh environment to begin with, add lack of supplies and lack of knowledge about the area and you have sickness and death, probably nearly the same number of soldiers died from sickness then battle (just a guess, correct me if I'm wrong).
In my opinion the idea of "total war" is more the environment at home rather then the conditions of the actual war, and in that case I'd say that WWII was more a total war. All the propoganda posters and things that I've seen are all from WWII, especially the ones in the US, mostly because the US homefront was suppling a large portion of the Allies supplies. But if you take total war to mean the atmosphere in the actual war, I'd almost say that WWI is more of a total war because although there was significantly more destruction and deaths during WWII, during WWI a war of that scale had never been seen before.
Stalin was desperate to avoid defeat by the Germans, no matter the cost. I think that his "scorched earth" policy highlights this perfectly; exactly what he was willing to do to keep the Germans from gaining anything in the USSR. This in part was what made the Eastern front so brutal. Both the Soviets and the Germans had no hesitations about fighting, and that made the front particularly deadly. Even when surrounded and outnumbered, the Soviets fought vicously to protect their homeland from the Germans. I think that such destruction seen by both WWI and WWII marks them as total wars, though moreso the second. WWII was much more destructive, and that boiled down to more destructive technology. Nonetheless, both wars entailed such wartime death that the world had never seen before.
ReplyDelete1) For some time, the Eastern front of the war was 'sandwiched' between Germany and Russia. From Poland, the States between Russia and Germany, extending down even to Greece, any one country would have to face a two-front battle in the worst of conditions. Many Polish and Finnish soldiers and thousands of Russian soldiers died by freezing to death. Both the constant control by Soviet Russia and Germany combined with the harsh climate proved to make the Eastern Front particularly brutal. Finland held off the Mannerheim line to make it especially difficult for Soviet forces to push through Finland. Russia's offensive often took a high toll for war, many times through numbers of men.
ReplyDelete1) My question is: If you were Stalin, and you knew that Hitler was a strong force, that every time you and he attacked, his forces lost fewer numbers, and that he was also a growing force, would you want to mess with him? Now he's invaded your country, he's taking out Jews by the thousands. He's having babies and small, cute little children thrown into pits with their dead parents, left to starve. You, as a leader, cannot let that go on. How would you be able to? Stalin's acts were bold though relentless. He ordered that everything of Germany's that could be destroyed be destroyed. Hitler pushed on through Stalin's forces. The U.S. and Britain gave aid to the USSR with supplies, risking everything. Russia had to be desperate.
3) I think, to some extent, that WWI was not a total war. It consisted of trench warfare and stalemates. Most of the countries involved in the war were European besides Russia, the U.S., and Japan. Technology was at a low, because it was very under-developed. In contrast, WWII was fought more with purpose. I feel like WWI was caused because of the high tension in Europe due to the Balkan wars and imperialistic conflicts. WWII was fought because Hitler wanted revenge, he wanted war. WWII was a total war because tanks, submarines, planes/bombers, trains, ships, any form of transport was used to harm the opposition in war. Men and their equipment were utilized better to accomplish more and to do more damage. Also, the war was fought in the Pacific and across the Atlantic in Europe, Russia, extending down to Greece.
Holy what! My comment got deleted, so it's not like anyone is reading this but whatever:
ReplyDeleteI think the main thing that became clear about Stalin throughout the last couple readings is the Stalin was a really paranoid guy. He never trusted Hitler and in 1938, he tried to enter an alliance with Britain against Germany. And then, when Britain refused this idea, he got super paranoid that this meant that Britain was conspiring with Germany behind his back, an idea that was reinforced by the Munich Agreement in the same year. Also, I agree with Alysa that revenge was a big focus for him. Or maybe not even revenge so much as alienation and some kind of feeling of superiority over anyone who wronged him. He took out all of his political opponents, anyone who had doubted him on the way up. And as his competition with Hitler heightened, he continued adding on territories, such as Poland, Finland and the Baltic States, to prove that Communist influence was going to be a power in Europe as well.
The Eastern Front was more brutal than the rest of the war for several reasons. First of all, most of the concentration and labor camps were located in Eastern Europe, so statistically it already had a large percentage of the casualties of World War 2. Secondly, this was an area with existing racial and ideological tensions, where fighting went past defense and became a personal vendetta against competing groups. Both the Aryan, fascist Germans and the Slavic, communist Soviets wanted to prove that their way of thinking was superior, and they truly had a score to settle. Not only that, but this was nearing the end of the war, people were getting desperate and it had already gone on too long. The war had already evolved to the point of the most destructive technology and the most liberal ethical practices, allowing maximum brutality.
Both World War 1 and World War 2 were total wars because of how completely society was involved in them, but World War 2 was definitely total war on a larger scale. Britain dedicated all manufacturing to the war, and evacuated children from all major cities. The United States’ economy was also dedicated to war production, and popular support led to things like Victory Gardens, rubber drives and the selling of war bonds, as well the inclusion of women in the war effort in factory jobs. Germany’s Blitzkrieg policy is also an example of total war because it dedicated all resources to creating a concentrated force that could quickly and easily destroy their opponents. The Soviet Union went even further, enforcing an even stricter command economy and encouraging nationalistic love of the “Motherland” and even reopening Russian Orthodox churches to increase support of the war effort.
We know that Stalin knows how to fight like most Russian leaders; give the invader some land and when winters come annihilate them. We also know that the USSR intended to win the war because of the amount that they were winning to sacrifice to win.
ReplyDeleteThe Eastern Front was more gruesome then other fronts because it had more conquest and control. Nations would conquest an area then try and convince the locals to support then by mass killing those that did not. This was then repeated over and over again and resulted in many people dieing.
I think both wars were "total wars" because although the situation in WWII was more desperate then in WWI, in both wars a lot was sacrificed in order to win.