Chapter 6 Chapter 1 The Age of Total War 3

3 We generally have the idea that modern warfare has always affected the lives of every man, woman, and child in the country and mobilized the vast majority of its citizens; we have always believed that modern warfare employs a staggering number of weapons and has always required the entire economy to be put into production; We also believe that the weapons of modern warfare have always inflicted indescribable numbers of casualties and completely dominated and changed the face of belligerent nations.As everyone knows, these phenomena actually only occurred after the 20th century.It is true that there have been tragic wars of destruction in the past, and there have been precedents foreshadowing the terrible wars of the modern type, such as France in the period of the Great Revolution.Until today, the most tragic war in American history is the 4-year Civil War (1861-1865). Countless men died, more than the total number of deaths in all wars that the United States participated in later, including two world wars. The Great War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War.But before the 20th century, wars that affected general social life were often the exception.During the years when Napoleon was conquering Europe, Jane Austen could sit at home and write her novels.For readers who don't know the background of the times, they will definitely not be able to guess that it was such a war-torn era, and we can't smell a trace of war in her novels.But in fact, some of the young men who appeared in Austin's pen must have participated in the war at that time.Entering the 20th century, it is really hard for us to imagine any novelist who used this style of writing to describe Britain under the flames of war in the 20th century.

Although the monster of total war in the 20th century did not start out as a behemoth, it is absolutely true that since 1914, the shape of total war has taken shape.Even on the occasion of World War I, Britain mobilized 12.5 percent of its men, Germany 15.4 percent, and France almost 17 percent.By World War II, generally speaking, the average number of mobilized people actively engaged in military missions in various countries was about 20% (Milward, 1979, p. 216).We may mention in passing that a long-term general mobilization of this magnitude is sustained by two forces: a modern, highly productive industrial economy, and a large proportion of economic activity in the hands of non-combatant populations.In a traditional agricultural economy, except for occasional seasonal requisitions, there is no capacity to supply such a large number of soldiers, at least in temperate climates.Because it is the busy season of farming (for example, the harvest season), all the people have to go out to help with farming.In fact, even in an industrialized society, long-term appropriation of such a large number of people is a huge burden on the labor force.This is why organized labor is strengthened under modern large-scale warfare.As a result, women stepped out of the family and entered the society, causing a revolution in women's employment: during the First World War, women's employment was only a temporary situation; by the Second World War, it had become a permanent social phenomenon.

Wars in the 20th century were wars on a grand scale.The number of things that humans used and destroyed in these wars has reached an unimaginable level.Therefore, German uses Materialschlacht, that is, material warfare, to describe the Western Front War from 1914 to 1918.Napoleon was lucky. At that time, the scale of French industrial production was small, but he was able to defeat the Prussian army in 1806 with only 1,500 rounds of ammunition and win the Battle of Jena.But before the First World War, France's military production plan was 10,000 to 12,000 rounds a day.By the end of the war, it was even as high as 200,000 rounds per day.Even Tsarist Russia can produce 150,000 rounds per day, which is equivalent to 4.5 million rounds a month.On such a large scale, it's no wonder that mechanical engineering operations in factories have been revolutionized.As for the production of other materials that are not of a destructive nature, let us recall that during World War II, the U.S. Army ordered more than 519 million pairs of socks and more than 219 million pairs of pants.As for the German army, under its bureaucratic tradition of red tape, in one year alone (1943), 4.4 million pairs of scissors and 6.2 million stamp boxes were produced for the stamping of military units (Milward, 1979, p. 68).A large-scale war requires a lot of production cooperation.

But production also needs to be organized and managed—even if its purpose is to kill people rationally and calmly, and to destroy human life in the most efficient way, it still needs organization and management, just like the death camps in Germany.All in all, total warfare can be said to be the largest industry known to mankind, and it requires everyone to organize and manage it consciously. This phenomenon has also given rise to new issues that have never been seen before.Since the 17th century when the government took over the permanent army (standing army) and stopped renting troops from warmongers, the military has become the responsibility of the government.In fact, armies and warfare soon became an "industry," or so-called economic association, much larger than private industry.Therefore, the large-scale private industries that emerged in the industrial age in the 19th century, such as the construction of railways and ports, often required the professional and management talents of the military.Almost all government departments have invested in the production of weapons and various war materials.It was not until the end of the 19th century that the government gradually cooperated with the professional civilian arms industry to form a symbiotic industrial alliance, especially in some sectors that required high technology, such as the research and production of cannons and naval equipment.This was the predecessor of the so-called "military-industrial complex" we all know today (see Chapter 13 of The Age of Empires).However, from the period of the French Revolution until 1914, every time there was a war, except for certain industries that would inevitably be affected—for example, agriculture had to expand the production and supply of military uniforms—basically, the wartime economy was just a peacetime economy. It's just an extension of (the so-called "business as usual" also).

The main problem on the part of the government was financial considerations: how to meet the expenditure of the war.Should I rely on loans or direct taxation?Regardless of whether it is a loan or a tax, what should be done?Under the command of raising funds, the treasury or financial unit naturally became the real commander of the wartime economy.The First World War lasted so long, far exceeding the government's original expectations; the consumption of personnel and ammunition was so staggering, of course, the wishful thinking of "business as usual" could not be carried out, and financial officials were unable to continue to dominate.Politicians were bent on winning at any cost, and the exchequer shook his head (the young Keynes was in the treasury at the time).The views of Keynes and others are naturally correct. Britain is really not strong enough to bear the burden of the two wars, and the country's economy will be negatively affected in the long run.However, if a modern-day war is unavoidable, we should carefully plan and manage costs, production—even the entire economy.

During the First World War, the government learned this experience while fighting.When it came to the Second World War, because of the careful study of the lessons learned from the previous war, everyone learned from the beginning.However, modern warfare has reached a point where the government must fully take over the economy, and the distribution of various plans and materials must also be extremely detailed and specific (completely different from the usual economic mechanism).Although the government has prepared psychologically for the wartime economy, it was not until a long time later that everyone gradually realized the depth of it.From the beginning of World War II, only the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany had some degree of concrete control over economic activity among countries.This was, of course, due to the planned economy of the Soviet Union, much like the wartime planned economy implemented by Germany in the period 1914-1918 (see Chapter 13).As for other countries, especially the United Kingdom and the United States, the organizational channels for this simply do not exist.

Strangely, despite Germany’s tradition and theoretical basis of an enlightened autocratic bureaucratic administrative system, after the two general wars, Germany’s performance in the government-led wartime economy was not as good as that of Western democracies—including the First World War. Britain and France in World War II, and Britain and America in World War II (see Chapter 13 for more on Soviet-style planning).What is the reason, we can only speculate, but the good and bad facts are all there, but no one can doubt it.On the German side, the organization and efficiency in mobilizing materials to fully support the war are not good-but at the beginning, Germany originally planned to solve the war quickly, and naturally there is no need for comprehensive mobilization-and it is not comprehensive enough to take care of the economic needs of civilians.On the contrary, the British and French people who survived the First World War by chance, the situation after the war was much better than before the war. Even though they felt poorer, the actual income of British workers increased.But Germans are hungrier and poorer than before, and real wages are lower than before.As for WWII figures, it is difficult to compare, especially because first, France surrendered immediately; second, the United States was richer than everyone else, and suffered from much less pressure; third, the Soviet Union was poorer, and the pressure was much greater. too much.Basically, Germany's wartime economy has the whole of Europe for its exploitation.But by the end of the war, Germany's substantial losses in all aspects far exceeded those of other belligerent countries in the West.Roughly summed up, although Britain’s financial resources are relatively poor, by 1943, civilian consumption even dropped by more than 20%.By the end of the Great War, the food and health of the British people were better than others, thanks to the country's wartime economy, which was able to distribute the overall resources in a systematic and planned way without excessive sacrifice of any part of society.The German approach is just the opposite, based entirely on the principle of inequality.Germany not only exploits the human resources of Europe under its occupation with all its strength, but also regards non-native races as inferior races.To the extreme—such as the Poles, Russians, and Jews—even treat them as slave labor who can be sacrificed at any time and whose lives are worthless.By 1944, foreign workers in Germany had reached one-fifth of its total working population, and the arms industry accounted for 30%.The workers in Germany are not much better. At most, they still retain the real income level of 1938.In addition, the death and sickness rate among British children continued to decline during the war.In contrast, France, which has always been famous for its abundant grain, has been occupied by Germany since 1940. Although there has been no war in the country, the average weight of French people of all ages has decreased, and their health has generally declined.

The revolution caused by the general war in management is beyond doubt.Does it also have a revolutionary impact on technology and production?In other words, whether the total war promotes or hinders economic development.The simple answer is that overall warfare makes technology more advanced and developed, because advanced belligerents not only seek military victory, but also need to compete technologically in order to develop better and more effective weapons and equipment to defeat the enemy.If it hadn’t been for the outbreak of World War II and the Western allies were worried about Nazi Germany’s development of nuclear weapons, the atomic bomb would never have appeared, and the 20th century would not have invested a lot of money in nuclear energy research.Certain other technologies developed for war are more easily transferred to peaceful uses than nuclear energy—aviation and computers are two examples.All this proves the fact that the reason for the accelerated development of wartime science and technology is mainly to meet the needs of combat and combat readiness.In normal times, such a huge amount of research funding may not be able to pass the cost-benefit calculation at all, at least in terms of attitudes, hesitations and slow progress (see Chapter 9).

However, it is not new for science and technology to serve war. The development of modern industrial economy has always been based on continuous innovation of science and technology.All kinds of scientific and technological progress and inventions will happen sooner or later, and they are not limited to war.If there is no war, the speed of development will probably be even faster (human beings do not have war? Of course, it is a dream, but for the convenience of discussion, let's assume this first).War, however, contributed to the diffusion of specialized scientific and technical knowledge and had a profound effect on the organization of industry and methods of mass production.But generally speaking, the role of war is mainly to accelerate the speed of change, not to stimulate change itself.

Does war promote economic growth?On the one hand, absolutely not.In war, the loss of productive resources is extremely serious, far greater than the loss of working population.25% of the resources of the Soviet Union before the war were exhausted in World War II.Germany lost 13%, Italy 8%, France 7%, and Britain a lower 3% (although these figures have to be offset by wartime new construction to be more accurate).The Soviet Union is the most extreme example, where the net economic benefits of the war were entirely negative. When the war ended in 1945, its agriculture was completely destroyed by the war, and the five-year plan promoted before the war was also in vain.The only thing left is a large and useless arms industry, the starvation and devastation of the whole country.

But on the other hand, the war obviously benefited the U.S. economy a lot. The growth rate during the two wars was extremely astonishing, especially in World War II. The annual growth rate was as high as about 10%, even better than any other period. It can be described as unprecedented. .The United States took advantage of both wars. Not only was its homeland far away from the actual theater of war, but it also became an arsenal for its allies.Coupled with the large size of the US economy, it can effectively expand organizational production, which is far beyond the reach of other countries.Perhaps the most long-lasting economic impact of the two wars on the United States was to give the United States a global heavyweight economic advantage in the entire decades from 1914 to 1991 when this book was written.This absolute advantage weakened its competitors and completely transformed the US economic situation. If we say that the economic impact of the war on the United States and Russia is two complete extremes (the former benefited from the two world wars, and the latter was particularly painful in World War II), as for the situation of other countries, it is somewhere between the two between.However, as far as the overall distribution curve is concerned, generally speaking, it is relatively close to the situation in Russia.Only the United States is the big winner.