The Age of Extremes

Q1) a) In what ways does Hobsbawm describe the period of the two World Wars
as the age of Total War? What are its characteristics?

When speaking of the period of the two world wars, Hobsbawm is quite direct
about the hostilities present throughout the 20th century. He talks about how, as
a result of both world wars in the course of one short century, the entire period
seemed to revolve around war, and was shaped by it. This is evident when,
speaking of this period, he says, “It lived and thought in terms of world war,”
which gives us a clear picture of the magnitude of the effect of both wars, due to
their nature as being “total wars.”
Throughout the chapter, Hobsbawm outlines how the traditional ideas values of
war have changed since before the two World Wars, and about the move
towards the concept of “total war.” Total War in itself, according to him, would
entail the need for a complete takeover of a region. This differs from the
traditional concept, as Hobsbawm points out how the aims and objectives of war
itself had changed. This is made clear when he mentions how, the aim of war
shifted from simply needing to create mass destruction in enemy territory, to
wanting total surrender of civilians, and an absolute takeover, as he states,
“unconditional surrender.”
On this note, civilians in society played a vital role in creating this concept. It
must be kept in mind that the concept of Total War includes that any and all
civilian-based resources are put to use in the course of the war. And so, in the
beginning of the chapter, Hobsbawm talks about the state of women in Belgrade,
showing us how war impacted their lives. Why this is important and what this
tells us is that the new concept of war also involved that the friendly civilians-
including women and children- were targeted by enemy forces. This brings us to
the vast desensitization that was experienced in this period, quite clearly as a
result of the world wars. Mass deaths and general loss was taken easier than it
would have in the much peaceful times before 1914, as he points out, having
been “the only time” when peace could be found. “We have grown accustomed to
the mass casualties of civilians and soldiers over time,” and this may well be an
expected part of human nature, although it managed to have a vital role in
creating what, today, we call Total War. This desensitization led various forces
into viewing mass destruction as, not only necessary, but part of their objectives,
in times of such war. It is also important to note the very sudden and drastic
changes, as Hobsbawm writes, between the period before 1914, and after. As
these included changes not only in technological advancements and thought, but
societal values as well, it allowed for the same kind of sudden change within the
values of war.
On the subject of technological advancements, the use of newer devices, brought
by the feat of industrialized- mainly European- nations, allowed for the
totalitarian destructive quality of the new total wars. This is because nations
were now carrying out air raids, and these instruments, more often than not,
resulted in vast collateral damage. Coupled with the fact that such vast collateral
damage was taken almost with ease, and the growing industrialization of
countries, such as Russia, was ruinous. Alongside these new methods of warfare,
the two world wars were in fact the first time in which many of the great powers
were involved in hostile combat, crossing borders and limits that, it can be said,
the world had not seen before in any war. Hobsbawm makes references to
previous wars, before 1914, and how the involvement of the great powers was
always comparatively much less.
Thus, we were able to see the changes in the concept of war itself, and the way
that war managed to become, from something, which leaders or revolutionaries
looked upon, to something, which, with the concept of total war, no one would
dare to even witness.

Anushe Khan 10- D