As some of you may know, I was fortunate enough to have been invited to give a lecture at a recent meeting of the Canadian Federation of University Women in Mississauga. I'm thrilled to report that the evening was splendid, and my talk was very well received. In light of that, I'm presenting today an abridged version of the subject I spoke upon, the notion of total war, and how it benefited Canada's social development.
In order to best understand how the
First World War affected people beyond those responsible for fighting
It
would be the Industrial Revolution which would enable the conditions that
define total war. Increased capacity for
production and improvements in transportation not only increase availability
and access to consumer goods; these also provide the means to produce in a
large capacity for military purposes, and allow for the efficient
transportation of mass armies. The term
“total war” itself and as a defined concept were not applied until after the
experience of World War One.[2] This may be due to the notion contemporary at
the time that such a war would not be possible.
Ironically, the very things- advances in manufacturing, engineering and
transportation- which would facilitate the waging of a total war were initially
seen as the advantages necessary to wage a successful “limited war”; the
antithesis of total war. Namely, putting
a large, overwhelming military force into the battlefield more quickly than an
adversary would be capable of, and therefore bringing any conflict to a quick
conclusion, with little collateral loss and thus demand for only minor
concession from victor to vanquished.
The
one problem with waging the First World War as a quick and limited campaign was
that neither side had a clear advantage.
In terms of military strength, the Entente had a 1.28:1 advantage over
the Central Powers. Historian Paul
Kennedy took comparative statistics[3]
to formulate a “Measure of Industrial Potential.” Using Kennedy’s model it’s
found there’s an industrial advantage of 1.5:1 of the Entente over the Central
Powers.[4]
While these advantages may seem clear, they are by a far margin away from being
the military ideal of tactical advantage which is, even today, 3:1. The closeness of military and industrial
strength indicate two things- why the war maintained a sense of stalemate so
quickly and for so long; and why, in order to continue the war to a satisfactory
conclusion, the elements necessary to define a “total war” are put in
place. Those elements, according to
economists Engerman and Gallman, are within three qualifying questions.[5]
1. What is the magnitude of the nations’
commitment to the war?
On both sides armies in the strength of millions
of men are raised, trained and equipped- seeking a numerical advantage on the
battlefield. This in turn requires the
economy and industry to increase output to sustain such a large effort, drawing
upon a large demand for civil participation.
2. What
are the strategic intentions?
First, it is to break the deadlock of
trench warfare. With resources in men
and materiel so evenly matched this proves difficult and costly, with wastages
needing to be replaced in order to continue this aim.
Also it’s attempting to gain an
advantage beyond the fighting front.
In following the German notion of “Materlialschlacht”
(battle of material) “The objective is to defeat the enemy by means of
quantitative and/or qualitative superiority,”[6]
this means not only out-producing the enemy, but taking direct action against
the enemy’s ability to produce. During
the war, the Royal Navy puts a strong blockade in effect against German ports,
preventing import of raw materials while Germany directly attacks shipping
intended for the UK in a similar purpose.
Neither is entirely effective, but shortages on the homefront,
particularly in foodstuffs begin to involve the civil population to the
suffering of war.
3. What
are the war aims?
In total war, this includes the right to
“reshape dramatically the future of the opponent if victory is won.”[7] As the war drags on and the cost,
particularly the human cost, becomes ever higher, the only resolution
envisioned by those effected by the war, (which, due to the fulfillment of the
first two questions now involves both the military and civil population) is one
in which the justification for the high cost is a complete capitulation of the
enemy and to be in such a position to dictate the terms of defeat, especially
towards imposing large restitutions.
With these checks in place, it becomes
clear that the First World War, while not begun as such but by the nature of
having no clear advantage to either side developed into a total war.
Total war is ravenous.
This increase in demand
for production, balanced against the need for men to participate in the
military pursuit of the war created a profound shift in the demographics of the
civil workforce. “Canadian
women (formed) the "Suffragists' War Auxiliary", designed to provide
women to do the jobs of men to free them up for overseas duty. Over 30,000
women worked in munitions factories, more than 5,000 were employed in the civil
service, thousands more worked in banks, offices, factories, and on farms.” [8]
Participation in the
war effort for non-combatants, went beyond those on the farm or factory floor.
Great numbers volunteered to provide for the soldiers overseas in a more direct
way, through the YMCA, or the Salvation Army who established rest camps and
‘canteens’ for soldiers behind the lines on the Western Front. Additionally, “Over 3000 (women) received
training with the Voluntary Aid Detachment, Red Cross
This investment of
effort, money and lives would be a large part of what inspired the social
changes that became part of the post war world. Within
these were the “promises of the Great War for real democracy, fair wages,
social justice and change in favour of the majority of people.”[10] None of this had been predicted as the outcome. In 1914, the war had been seen as a
preservation of society established as it was.
At the beginning of the war, it was understood that “The war would be
won…if all Canadians ‘did their bit.’ Men,
women and children would, of course, do their best ‘bit’ if they performed in
their own spheres.”[11]
The scale of the conflict prevented from this status quo from being maintained.
Part of that shift was within a large part of the population
which would be heard for the first time.
To secure
a majority government, and thus the ability to ensure the Military Service Act
would remain in place, special voting privileges would be enacted. Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden had said "Our first duty is to win at any cost the coming election
so that we may continue to do our part in winning the war and that Canada be
not disgraced." On September 20, 1917, Parliament adopted not
one, but two election acts, though Borden had to use closure to push them
through.
The
Military Voters Act extended the franchise to any member of the Canadian
military, regardless of residence prior to the war. This greatly increased the possible number of
votes the Conservatives might receive. By
its broad definitions the MVA also enfranchised the 2,000 Canadian women
serving as nurses overseas, making them the first Canadian women eligible to
vote in a federal election. The second
act, the War-Time Elections Act “had a
dual purpose: to increase the number of electors favourable to the government
in power and decrease the number of electors unfavourable to it. The law
conferred the right to vote on the spouses, widows, mothers, sisters and
daughters of any persons, male or female, living or dead, who were serving or
had served in the Canadian forces, provided they met the age, nationality and
residency requirements for electors in their respective provinces or Yukon.” It also restricted the franchise of those who
by birth or descent had ties to enemy countries, conscientious objectors and
others who were found to have violated the Military Service Act of 1917. [12]
These Acts were a
surprising step forward and were seen as a victory to the suffragist
movement. Once something had been
permitted, even as an emergency measure or for an ulterior purpose, it would be
hard to argue against full enfranchisement for women in the future.
This may
have reflected well in a large sense, but it does little to give insight to how
women were making changes within society.
Professor Susan Grayzel states: “Cultural change may be the hardest to gauge.
Certain norms of Western middle-class femininity all but disappeared, and
women’s visible appearance before 1914 and after 1918 markedly differed....but
expectations about family and domestic life as the main concern of women
remained unaltered.”[13]
What
seems to be not often understood is that the war wasn’t entirely futile and the
results of the conflict were in some regards to the benefit of advancing
society. If the cultural and historical
significance of an event is not fully understood, it makes little sense to
place an effort on commemorating it. We
are obliged to take the lessons of these consequences as a clear understanding
of cause and effect and apply them as objects in investigating where humanity
stands today.
[5] Förster, Stig, Jorg Nagler (ed) “On
the Road to Total War: The American Civil War and the German Wars of Unification,
1861-1871” Cambridge University Press
2002
[13] Grayzel, Susan R, Changing lives: gender expectations
and roles during and after World War One,
www.bl.uk/world-war-one/articles/changing-lives-gender-expectations
No comments:
Post a Comment