Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.

Responsive image


Home front

The "We Can Do It!" poster was widely seen on the United States home front during World War II; it became popular in the 1980s. Today, it is often associated with the cultural icon Rosie the Riveter, although it does not actually depict her.
"I am a good war hen, I eat little and produce a lot." French poster from World War I.

Home front is an English language term with analogues in other languages.[1] It is commonly used to describe the full participation of the British public in World War I who suffered Zeppelin raids and endured food rations as part of what came to be called the "Home Front".[2]

Civilians are traditionally uninvolved in combat, except when the hostilities happen to reach their residential areas. However, the expanded destructive capabilities of modern warfare posed an increased direct threat to civilian populations. With the rapid increase of military technology, the term "military effort" has changed to include the "home front" as a reflection of both a civilian "sector" capacity to produce arms, as well as the structural or policy changes which deal with its vulnerability to direct attack.

This continuity of "military effort" from fighting combat troops to manufacturing facilities has profound effects for the concept of "total war". By this logic, if factories and workers producing material are part of the war effort, they become legitimate targets for attack, rather than protected non-combatants. Hence, in practice, both sides in a conflict attack civilians and civilian infrastructure, with the understanding that they are legitimate and lawful targets in war. This military view of civilian targets has effects on the equity of applied legal principles on which the prosecution of crimes against humanity are based.

The concept of civilians' involvement in war also developed in connection with general development and change of the ideological attitude to the state. In feudal society and also in absolute monarchy the state was perceived as essentially belonging to the monarch and the aristocracy, ruling over a mass of passive commoners; wars were perceived as a contest between rival rulers, conducted "above the head" of the commoners, who were expected to submit to the victor. However even given this, in feudal societies the income of estates and nations, and therefore the wealth and power of monarchs and aristocrats, was proportional to the number of commoners available to work the land. By killing, terrorizing, destroying property and driving away a nobleman's serfs, a tactic known as chevauchée, an attacker could hope either to diminish the strength of an opponent or to force an opponent to give battle.

In contrast, since the French Revolution, the state was increasingly perceived as belonging to "the People", a perception shared—though in different forms—by democracy, communism and fascism. A logical conclusion was that war has become everybody's business and that also those not taken into the military must still "do their part" and "fight on the home front".

  1. ^ Healy, Maureen. Vienna and the Fall of the Habsburg Empire. Cambridge University Press. p. 5.
  2. ^ C. Adams, Peter. The Home Front in World War One. Archived from the original on 31 December 2021. Retrieved 2022-02-23. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)

Previous Page Next Page






جبهة داخلية Arabic Heimatfront German جبهه خانگی FA Kotirintama Finnish Arrière (militaire) French עורף (מלחמה) HE Fronte interno Italian 銃後 Japanese Thuisfront Dutch Front wewnętrzny Polish

Responsive image

Responsive image