General Grant believed that total war was a military strategy that aimed to completely destroy an enemy's ability to fight by targeting not only military resources but also civilian infrastructure and morale.
This strategy aimed to demoralize and disrupt the enemy's population and economy, making it impossible for them to continue the war effort.
While effective in achieving victory, total war can have devastating consequences for civilians and infrastructures, as seen in the American Civil War and World War II.
Targeting civilian populations and infrastructure can result in significant loss of life, destruction of homes, and lasting trauma for affected communities.
In my opinion, total war is not an appropriate war strategy in modern times. The principles of just war and international humanitarian law seek to protect civilians and limit the destruction of infrastructure.
Therefore, it is necessary to consider the human cost of any military action and seek to minimize harm to civilians and infrastructure. While war is sometimes necessary to protect against aggression, efforts must be made to protect innocent lives and minimize destruction.
Learn more about term total war here
#SPJ2
Answer: help
Explanation:
I could answer I just don't have my book!
Effects of the Crusades
The Crusades kept all Europe in a tumult for two centuries, and directly and indirectly cost Christendom several millions of lives (from 2,000,000 to 6,000,000 according to different estimates), besides incalculable expenditures in treasure and suffering. They were, moreover, attended by all the disorder, license, and crime with which war is always accompanied. On the other hand, the Holy Wars were productive indirectly of so much and lasting good that they form a most important factor in the history of the progress of civilization. The effects of the crusades influenced: