Evolution of Warfare from 1790s to 1930s - Essay Example

Evolution of warfare from 1790s to 1930s Introduction The crucial idea of any war is expansion of power over a larger number of territories. Wars can be either civil, or between neighboring countries, or international. However, they all are always related by several elements such as army, or human resources who are the moving force of the war, the areas of the opposing parties and the mechanism of struggle – methods and means of war. On the other hand, while war refers to the process of staging conflict, warfare is also about partys “attitude” towards military actions. Thus, besides ways and techniques of waging war, warfare also refers to external factors, among which, for example, political situation of the country, social reaction towards existing conditions, the level of economical development, ideological basis, etc. All these aspects directly or implicitly influence success or failure of the armed conflict, even determine the probability of its occurrence. When people, dissatisfied with current social obstacles, gain a strong leader (or, vice versa, a person with particular idea receives the support of majority), revolution may start. In case, this dissatisfaction is fortified by certain technological achievements, war between different countries may unleash. In fact, technological progress has the most essential impact on the warfare. On the one hand, producing of new, more powerful weapon contributes to the efficiency of the combat and, as a result, leads to the victory of those who possess it; on the other hand, mass-production of arms allows to conquer greater territories. Finally, technological advancements change the way of peoples thinking as well. Once machinery processes replaced mans labour, many people found themselves unemployed. Contrary to this, people received a chance to work for salary or move to the cities, which had a meaning of “freedom” to them. As to the French Revolution of 1789 – 1799, all mentioned factors took place there. Weakness of monarchy, outspread of early democratic principles, heavy taxes paid by ordinary people, industrial progress resulted in revolution, which gradually led to Napoleonic wars, that indirectly effected the First World War. To investigate the relation between these events is the purpose of the current paper. The paper aims to analyze the development of warfare in the mentioned periods, its social, political and economical aspects, the interdependence between events occurring in each period and its impact on the evolution of warfare in general. From “Sovereign Democracy” to “Nazism”: analysis of idealistic bases for the warfare justification from the end of 17th to the beginning of 20th century A particular idea is a decisive factor in the view of warfare. The task of idea is to unite people so to create a moving force of combat process. In different epochs the grounds for imposing new ideology were slightly altering, though having some resembling features as well. What has been noticed is that in regard to war an idea is always related to morality, calling to peoples high moral intentions. While in times of French Revolution (1789 – 1799) Maximilian Robespierre appealed to people focusing on their “virtue”, Adolf Hitler, referring to German people, used the notion of higher race in contrast to “lower, colored races” (Brophy et al. 515): “one race”, “pure race”, “Aryans”, etc (Brophy et al. 514-16). M. Robespierre noted that virtue is “the fundamental principle of the democratic or popular government”, where the term “virtue” was determined by ones “love of country and of its laws” and by “love of equality” (Halsall). However, the development of democratic society based on virtue would be a failure in case it was not enforced by terror, which is a struggle against the enemies of democracy: “If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is... a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our countrys most urgent needs” (Halsall). In general, terror can be defined as physical violence, which may also include extermination, directed against civilians. Nevertheless, in Robespierres words he act of terror was not only justified, but also represented as high mission – “libertys despotism against tyranny” (Halsall). The tyranny was related to the power of monarchy and aristocracy. As a result, whatever awful the nature of terror was, it received mass support of citizens and contributed the main goal of revolution, which was the destruction of monarchy. Besides using the justification of terror as an embodiment of virtue, Robespierre positioned those who accepted it in the light of true “choice”: “We must smother the internal and external enemies of the Republic or perish with it... Subdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic... Society owes protection only to peaceable citizens; the only citizens in the Republic are the republicans. For it, the royalists, the conspirators are only strangers or, rather, enemies. This terrible war waged by liberty against tyranny...” (Halsall). On the other hand, Robespierre depicted so-called “enemies of revolution” as people standing against liberty, thus, against the countrys citizens: “all those who in their hearts contemplated despoiling the people and all those who intend to let it be despoiled with impunity... and those who have embraced the revolution as a career and the Republic as prey... so many ambitious or greedy men... have abandoned us along the way because they did not begin the journey with the same” (Halsall). Robespiere appealed mainly to the verbal enforcement of revolution, what today we may define as “propaganda”. During the time of French Revolution a new type of military recruitment, caused by necessity to involve greater number of people in the armed conflict, appeared. It will be analyzed in more details further in this paper. Gradually, the achievements of French Revolution led to Napoleonic wars, strengthening of civil legislation laws and emergence of utopian socialism ideas. In fact, in this time no big chances occurred in the evolution of warfare as mainly the advancements of Revolution were used. The main changes belonged to the sphere of evolution of philosophers attitude towards the grounds of society structure. Again, the ideas of utopian socialism, represented, for example, by Robert Owen in England, did not consider issues on military struggle but those of reforming capitalist economy. Nevertheless, they laid a foundation for the development of socialism at the end of 19th century where the revolution of proletarians was viewed as ultimate goal. French Revolution, however, catalyzed the development of democracy in Europe. Once democracy became a common condition it could not be the reason for struggle any more. On the other hand, the rapid development of industry permitted to establish the wide production of weapon and contributed to the development of military infrastructure. The consequences were the expansion of the area of war: the character of war moved from local to international. As a result, the consolidation of the whole nation was required. At the end of 19th – beginning of 20th century the theme of national identification became the leading in philosophical and literary searches. Thinking over the situation in Italy, writer Guiseppe Mazzini pointed out: “A Country is not a mere territory; the... territory is only its foundation. The Country is the idea that rises upon that foundations; it is the sentiment of love, the sense of fellowship, which binds together all the sons of that territory... Votes, education, work are the three main pillars of the nation; do not rest until your hands have solidly erected them” (Brophy et al. 387). Describing the events of First World War, Ronald Doregeles wrote: “No more poor or rich, proletarians or bourgeois, right-wingers or militant leftists, there were only Frenchmen” (Brophy et al. 276). Thus, at the “knuckle” of 19th and 20th centuries “going to war seemed to satisfy a yearning to surrender oneself to a noble cause: the greatness of the nation. The image of the nation united in a spirit of fraternity and self-sacrifice was immensely appealing” (Brophy et al. 275). Along with the appearance of “national identity” thought, the idea of eulogy and uniqueness of a particular nation developed. This idea is closely related to Pearsons understanding of social Darwinism, according to which the process of evolution is a constant struggle between different races and nations, where only the fittest can win. As Pearson admits, once the struggle is over, the world will face the times of stagnation (Brophy et al. 231). The idea of nations perfectness has reached its radical apogee in the politics of Adolf Hitler resulted in the most horrible and murderous wars of all times. Hitler declared the purity and sophistication of Aryans, to whom, he believed, German people belonged. Others nations, especially Jews, were considered “the lower” and unclean peoples. Hitler explained that when the blood of higher race mixed with the blood of the lower, the “culture bearer” nation ceased to exist. Referring to Hitlers thoughts expressed in his book “Mein Kampf” (“My struggle”), one can conclude that Adolf Hitler aimed to “clean” the world from “dirty” nations and to establish society without venereal diseases, intellectual degeneration, mentally and physically strong and beautiful. He managed to organize a sweeping system of propaganda and consolidate almost the whole nation around his ideas. Hitler assumed that the purity of the nation was not possible in the sense of one country as, otherwise, there was always a possibility to contact with another races. This determined the international character of his goals. As we can see, the same as Robespierre, Hitler used the mechanism of total propaganda, appealing mainly to the feelings and emotions of ordinary paper as well as speculating on the unfavorable social conditions of the time when some radical changes were not desired but necessary and inevitable. Common people and technological progress in the warfare processes Human resources and weapon belong to the moving forces of any armed conflict. Based on this aspects, for example, the terms “total war” and “industrial warfare” appeared. Industrial warfare is principally characterized by utilization of progressive weapon – the achievements in the sphere of arms manufacturing. This period covered the end of 18th – the first part of 19th century, so French Revolution and further Napoleonic wars are considered as industrial warfare conflicts. French Revolution (1789 – 1799) has marked the end of early modern history of warfare and signalized the beginning of industry warfare era. It was the time when caliber and machinery arms became more widely used and vast changes in the organization of army took place. For example, French Revolution stimulated the emergence of general requisition, or “levée en masse” as it was written by French National Convention, which was not used before. In his time, Napoleon utilized this military “issue” as well. Though further levée en masse was abolished, it was considered a revolutionary move of the time. Levée en masse declared general conscription. Before passing this act, the practice of involving common people in the army was not applied. The monarchic government relied on the specially trained soldiers, to whom war and states security were the main work. However, with the beginning of revolution and outer wars with Prussia, Austria and few other countries, more men resources were required. Thus, general mobilization was proclaimed. According to Levée en masse, all “unmarried citizens or childless widowers from eighteen to twenty-five years” were conscripted (Brophy et al. 288). Manufacturing infrastructure was transformed to serve the needs of army, while women, children, married and older men were involved in providing support for war in the interior: “the married men shall forge arms and transport provisions; the women shall make tents and clothes, and shall serve in the hospitals; the children shall turn old linen into lint” (Brophy et al. 288). The responsibility to facilitate army partially laid on the shoulders of farmers and managers: “In order to collect supplies in sufficient quantity, the farmers and managers of national property shall deposit the produce of such property, in the form of grain, in the chief town of their respective districts... Owners, farmers, and others possessing grain shall be required to pay, in kind, arrears of taxes, even the two-thirds of those of 1793, on the rolls which have served to effect the last payment” (Brophy et al. 288-89). The interaction of all these factors has benefited to the successful ending of the revolution, after which the new period in military history of Europe has started. Although there were cases of desertion and not all citizens were satisfied with the new government, the majority has endorsed the policy and helped to overcome the challenges of the time, which largely contributed to Frances future military success in armed conflicts. As it has been mentioned, the ideological basis for war campaigns at the end of 19th – the beginning of 20th century depended dramatically on the idea of national identification. It caused the change in common peoples approach towards war. The was was viewed with excitement and agitation. R. Doregeles wrote: “Suddenly a heroic wind lifted their heads. What? War, was it? Well, then, lets go! Without any signal “Marseillaise” poured from thousands of throats, sheafs of flags appeared at windows... mobs... yelled themselves hoarse on the refrain from the great days, “Aux armes, citoyens!” (To arms, citizens!) But this time it was better than a song.” (Brophy et al. 276). Without considering that war is always about deaths and devastation, people were attracted with it as with a kind of celebration. And even after experiencing all the fear, scrutinies and grief of First World War, many still attended Hitlers call to fight. The main reason is, as was said, was perfectly organized system of propaganda and social conditions of time. Technically, the warfare of this period was much wider in scale compared to 18th century. The invention of military machines and long-run guns moved the area of war from battlefield when two armies encountered each other “face-to-face” to the streets of cities and towns. In his book “The storm of steel”, Ernst Junger wrote: “Artillery fire of a hitherto unimagined intensity rolled and thundered on our front. Thousands of twitching flashes turned the western horizon into a sea of flowers. All the while the wounded came... huddled into the ditches by the gun and ammunition columns that rattled past” (Brophy et al. 475). In this paper the theme of evolution of warfare within the period from French Revolution (1789 – 1799) till the 1920s was disclosed. Among the constituent elements of warfare development the ideological and political approaches were analyzed, the key changes in military equipment were described and the attitudes of common people towards war in different period were compared. Thus, the period from the end of 18th till the beginning of 20th century has marked the process of emergence and top advancement of the modern warfare. In this time, fire arms became widely used, the area of war moved from battlefield to inhabited places such as cities and towns, and propaganda turned to be the crucial stimulating factor in peoples enforcement to carry on war. Works Cited Brophy, James, Joshua Cole, John Robertson, Thomas Max Safley, and Carol Symes. Perspectives From the Past. vol. 2. 5th ed. Norton, 2012. Print. Halsall, Paul. Modern History Sourcebook: Maximilien Robespierre: Justification of the Use of Terror. Aug. 1997. Fordham University Library. Web. 4 Aug. 2014. Read More