Exactly which wars in history can be so labeled is a nuanced debate with no final answers, but WW2 is generally seen as a clear example. Other candidates include the U.S. Civil War. Although the Thirty Years’ War (1618 - 1648) and WW1 have some aspects of total war, both were ended by negotiation.
It can be argued that some wars are asymmetrically total: The Korean War, starting in 1950, may have been a total war for North Korea, but not a total war for the United States. It is left as an exercise for the reader to determine which it was for South Korea.
Wars which are not total wars allow the civilian life of the belligerents to continue for the most part normally, tend to have more rules of engagement to limit the destructive potential of combat, restrict direct attacks to military targets, and are often susceptible to negotiated endings by means of treaties. The phrase ‘limited warfare’ describes such wars.
Does the peace following a total war differ significantly from the peace following other types of war?
It is noteworthy that WW2, frequently accepted as the prime example of total war, gave rise to good and friendly diplomatic relationships between the United States and Germany and between the United States and Japan. Similar conviviality is seen between the U.K., France, and Italy. The Soviet Union would, of course, constitute an exception to this trend.
Shockingly cruel warfare gave rise to shockingly good diplomacy for 80 years — and counting.
By contrast, a limited war with a negotiated settlement can give rise to a tenuous and short-lived peace. The negotiated ceasefire of 23 January 1973 in the Vietnam War was so flimsy that it never took full effect, and warfare resumed quickly.
The armistice of 27 July 1953 effectively ended the Korean War, but the tension between the two nations still prevents any diplomatic relations, and small fire still occasionally erupts along the DMZ. No peace treaty has yet been signed to officially end this war.
The numerous wars between a half-dozen or more nations in the Near East are so numerous and frequent as to constitute one long continuous war. Negotiated settlements and ceasefires are short-lived; the animosities are enduring.
Why would the horrific and inhumane nature of total war lead potentially to a deeper, lasting, and more sincere peace? The societies of Germany and Japan were substantively changed by WW2. American society probably was, too. The underlying oppositions which began the war were erased along with the old form of society. The new form of the society wasn’t the generator of the conflict.
The paradoxical conclusion is plausible: that the worst form of war might produce the best form of peace.
