On War

This article is about the treatise on military strategy. For the manga series, seeNeo Gomanism Manifesto Special - On War.For the 2008 film, seeOn War (film).

Title page of the original German editionVom Kriege,published in 1832.

Vom Kriege(German pronunciation:[fɔmˈkʁiːɡə]) is a book onwarandmilitary strategybyPrussiangeneralCarl von Clausewitz(1780–1831), written mostly after theNapoleonic wars,between 1816 and 1830, and published posthumously by his wifeMarie von Brühlin 1832.It is one of the most important treatises on political-military analysis andstrategyever written, and remains both controversial and influential onstrategic thinking.

Vom Kriegehas been translated into English several times asOn War.On Waris an unfinished work. Clausewitz had set about revising his accumulated manuscripts in 1827, but did not live to finish the task. His wife edited his collected works and published them between 1832 and 1835.

His ten-volume collected works contain most of his larger historical and theoretical writings, though not his shorter articles and papers or his extensive correspondence with important political, military, intellectual and cultural leaders in thePrussian state.On Waris formed by the first three volumes and represents his theoretical explorations.

History

Clausewitz was among those intrigued by the manner in which the leaders of theFrench Revolution,especiallyNapoleon,changed the conduct of war through their ability to motivate the populace and gain access to the full resources of the state, thus unleashing war on a greater scale than had previously been seen in Europe. Clausewitz believed that moral forces in battle had a significant influence on its outcome. Clausewitz was well-educated and had strong interests in art, history, science, and education. He was a professional soldier who spent a considerable part of his life fighting against Napoleon. In his lifetime, he had experienced both theFrench Revolutionary Army's (1792—1802) zeal and the conscripted armies employed by theFrench crown.The insights he gained from his political and military experiences, combined with a solid grasp of European history, provided the basis for his work.

A wealth of historical examples is used to illustrate its various ideas. Napoleon andFrederick the Greatfigure prominently for having made very efficient use of the terrain, movement and the forces at their disposal.

Clausewitz's theory

An operational map forNapoleon's military expedition to Italy, 1796. Map from Clausewitz:Vom Kriege,1857.

Definition of war

Clausewitz argued that war theory cannot be a strict operational advice for generals.Instead, he wanted to highlight general principles that would result from the study of history and logical thinking. He contended that military campaigns could be planned only to a very small degree because incalculable influences or events, so-calledfriction,would quickly make any too-detailed planning in advance obsolete. Military leaders must be capable to make decisions under time pressure with incomplete information since in his opinion "three quarters of the things on which action is built in war" are concealed and distorted by thefog of war.

In his 1812Bekenntnisschrift( "Notes of Confession" ), he presents a more existential interpretation of war by envisioning war as the highest form of self-assertion by a people. That corresponded in every respect with the spirit of the time when the French Revolution and the conflicts that arose from it had caused the evolution of conscript armies and guerrillas. The people's armies supported the idea that war is an existential struggle.

During the following years, however, Clausewitz gradually abandoned this exalted view and concluded that the war served as a mere instrument: "Thus, war is an act of violence in order to force our will upon the enemy."

Purpose, goal and means

Clausewitz analyzed the conflicts of his time along the line of the categoriesPurpose,GoalandMeans.He reasoned that thePurposeof war is one's will to be enforced, which is determined by politics. TheGoalof the conflict is therefore to defeat the opponent in order to exact thePurpose.TheGoalis pursued with the help of a strategy, that might be brought about by variousMeanssuch as by the defeat or the elimination of opposing armed forces or by non-militaryMeans(such as propaganda, economic sanctions and political isolation). Thus, any resource of the human body and mind and all the moral and physical powers of a state might serve asMeansto achieve the set goal.

One of Clausewitz's best-known quotes summarizes that idea: "War is the continuation of policy with other means."

That quote in itself allows for the interpretation that the military will take over from politics as soon as war has begun (as, for example, theGerman General Staffdid duringWorld War I). However, Clausewitz had postulated theprimacy of politicsand in this context elaborated: "[...], we claim that war is nothing more than a continuation of the political process by applying other means. By applying other means we simultaneously assert that the political process does not end with the conclusion of the war or is being transformed into something entirely different, but that it continues to exist and proceed in its essence, regardless of the structure of the means it makes use of [...]."

According toAzar Gat,the "general message" of the book was that "the conduct of war could not be reduced to universal principles [and is] dominated by political decisions and moral forces."These basic conclusions are essential to Clausewitz's theory:

• War must never be seen as having any purpose in itself but should be seen as a political instrument: "War is not merely a political act, but a real political instrument, a continuation of the political process, an application by other means."
• The military objectives in war that support one's political objectives fall into two broad types: "war to achieve limited aims" and war to "disarm" the enemy: "to render [him] politically helpless or militarily impotent."
• All else being equal, the course of war will tend to favor the party with the stronger emotional and political motivations, especially the defender.

Some of the key ideas (not necessarily original to Clausewitz or even to his mentor,Gerhard von Scharnhorst) discussed inOn Warinclude(in no particular order of importance):

• thedialectical approachto military analysis
• the methods of "critical analysis"
• the uses and abuses of historical studies
• the nature of the balance-of-power mechanism
• the relationship between political objectives and military objectives in war
• the asymmetrical relationship between attack and defense
• the nature of "military genius"(‹See Tfd›German:der kriegerische Genius) - as exemplified particularly in Frederick the Great and in Napoleon Bonaparte
• the "fascinating trinity" (Wunderliche Dreifaltigkeit) of war
• philosophical distinctions between "absolute or ideal war," and "real war"
• in "real war," the distinctive poles of a) limited war and b) war to "render the enemy helpless"
• "war" belongs fundamentally to the social realm, rather than to the realms of art or science
• "strategy" belongs primarily to the realm of art
• "tactics" belongs primarily to the realm of science
• the essential unpredictability of war
• simplicity: Everything is very simple in war, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate.The strength of any strategy lies in its simplicity.
• the "fog of war"
• "friction"
• strategic and operational "centres of gravity"
• the "culminating pointof the offensive "
• the "culminating point of victory"

Clausewitz used a dialectical method to construct his argument, which led to frequent modern misinterpretation because he explores various often-opposed ideas before he came to conclusions.

Modern perceptions of war are based on the concepts that Clausewitz put forth inOn War,but they have been diversely interpreted by various leaders (such asMoltke,Vladimir Lenin,Dwight Eisenhower,andMao Zedong), thinkers, armies, and peoples. Modern military doctrine, organization, and norms are all still based on Napoleonic premises, but whether the premises are necessarily also "Clausewitzian" is debatable.

The "dualism" of Clausewitz's view of war (that wars can vary a great deal between the two "poles" that he proposed, based on the political objectives of the opposing sides and the context) seems to be simple enough, but few commentators have been willing to accept that crucial variability.They insist that Clausewitz "really" argued for one end of the scale or the other. Some prominent critics have interpretedOn Waras an argument for "total war".^[a]

The book has been blamed for the level of destruction involved in the First and the Second World Wars, but it seems rather that Clausewitz (who did not actually use the term "total war" ) had merely foreseen the inevitable developments that started with the huge, patriotically motivated armies of the Napoleonic era.These developments resulted (though the evolution of war has not yet ended) in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with all the forces and capabilities of the state devoted to destroying forces and capabilities of the enemy state (thus "total war" ). Conversely, Clausewitz has also been seen as "The preeminent military and political strategist of limited war in modern times".

Clausewitz and his proponents have been severely criticized by other military theorists, likeAntoine-Henri Jominiin the 19th century,B. H. Liddell Hartin the mid-20th century, andMartin van CreveldandJohn Keeganmore recently.On Waris a work rooted solely in the world of thenation state,states historian Martin van Creveld, who alleges that Clausewitz takes the state "almost for granted", as he rarely looks at anything before the 1648Peace of Westphalia,and mediaeval warfare is effectively ignored in Clausewitz's theory.He alleges that Clausewitz does not address any form of intra/supra-state conflict, such as rebellion and revolution, because he could not theoretically account for warfare before the existence of the state.

Previous kinds of conflict were demoted to criminal activities without legitimacy and not worthy of the label "war". Van Creveld argues that "Clausewitzian war" requires the state to act in conjunction with the people and the army, the state becoming a massive engine built to exert military force against an identical opponent. He supports that statement by pointing to the conventional armies in existence throughout the 20th century. However, revolutionaries likeKarl MarxandFriedrich Engelsderived some inspiration from Clausewitzian ideas.

English translations

• 1873. Graham, J.J. translator. Republished 1908 with extensive commentary and notes byVictorianimperialistF.N. Maude.
• 1943.O. J. Matthijs Jolles,translator (New York:Random House,1943). This is viewed by some modern scholarsas the most accurate existing English translation.
• 1968. Edited with introduction byAnatol Rapoport.Viking Penguin.ISBN0-14-044427-0.
• 1976/1984.Michael HowardandPeter Paret,editors and translators.Princeton University Press.ISBN0-691-05657-9.
• 1989. Michael Howard and Peter Paret, editors and translators. Princeton University Press.ISBN978-0-691-01854-6.

See also

Concepts

• List of military theorists
• Philosophy of war
• Realpolitik

Books

• Achtung - Panzer!byHeinz Guderian
• AnabasisandHellenicabyXenophon
• The Art of WarbyNiccolò Machiavelli
• Commentarii de Bello GallicobyGaius Julius Caesar
• Epitoma rei militarisbyPublius Flavius Vegetius Renatus
• Infanterie Greift AnbyErwin Rommel
• Mes RêveriesbyMaurice de Saxel
• Storm of SteelbyErnst Jünger
• Strategikon of MauricebyByzantine Emperor Maurice
• Tactica of Emperor Leo VI the Wise
• TruppenführungbyHelmuth von Moltke the Elder
• The Utility of Forceby GeneralSir Rupert Smith
• The Influence of Sea Power upon Historyby AdmiralAlfred Thayer Mahan

Notes

a.^{^}:For example, writing in his introduction toSun Tzu'sArt of War,B. H. Liddell Hartstated that "Civilization might have been spared much of the damage suffered in the world wars of this century if the influence of Clausewitz's monumental tomeOn War,which molded European military thought in the era preceding the First World War, had been blended with and balanced by a knowledge of Sun Tzu's exposition onThe Art of War."This comment is tempered by the comment that the" ill-effects of Clausewitz's teaching arose largely from his disciples' too shallow and too extreme interpretation of it, "but it remains an influential criticism. Extracted fromThe Art of War(UNESCO Collection of Representative Works), Samuel B. Griffithhttps://web.archive.org/web/20060628174003/http://www.kw.igs.net/~tacit/artofwar/suntzu.htm.

Bibliography

• Bassford, Christopher, 1994.Clausewitz in English: The Reception of Clausewitz in Britain and America.Oxford University Press.
• Bernard Brodie,1976.A guide to the reading of "On War."Princeton University Press.
• Clausewitz, Carl von (2018).Napoleon's 1796 Italian Campaign.Trans and ed. Nicholas Murray and Christopher Pringle. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.ISBN978-0-7006-2676-2
• Clausewitz, Carl von (2020).Napoleon Absent, Coalition Ascendant: The 1799 Campaign in Italy and Switzerland, Volume 1.Trans and ed. Nicholas Murray and Christopher Pringle. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.ISBN978-0-7006-3025-7
• Clausewitz, Carl von (2021).The Coalition Crumbles, Napoleon Returns: The 1799 Campaign in Italy and Switzerland, Volume 2.Trans and ed. Nicholas Murray and Christopher Pringle. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.ISBN978-0-7006-3034-9

Further reading

• Bassford, Christopher, 2002. "Clausewitz and His Works."Describes the author's intent, and discusses interpretations and common misunderstandings.
• Coker, Christopher.Rebooting Clausewitz: 'On War' in the Twenty-first Century(Oxford University Press, 2017)online review.
• Cormier, Youri.War as paradox: Clausewitz and Hegel on fighting doctrines and ethics(McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP, 2016).
• Daase, Christopher, and James W. Davis (eds).Clausewitz on Small War(2015)online review
• Erfourth M. & Bazin, A. (2014).Clausewitz’s Military Genius and the #Human Dimension.Archived2016-04-08 at theWayback MachineThe Bridge.
• Hughes, R. Gerald. "Clausewitz, still the Master of War?: On Strategy in the Twenty-first Century."War in History26.2 (2019): 287-296 [ online].
• Kornberger, Martin, and Anders Engberg-Pedersen. "Reading Clausewitz, reimagining the practice of strategy."Strategic Organization(2019):online
• LeMay, G.H.L. "Napoleonic Warfare"History Today(Aug 1951), Vol. 1 Issue 8, pp 24-32.
• Simpson, Emile. "Clausewitz's Theory of War and Victory in Contemporary Conflict."Parameters47.4 (2017): 7-18.
• Stoker, Donald J.Clausewitz: His Life and Work(Oxford UP, 2014) 376 pp.online review;alsoexcerpt

External links

• Online version ofVom Kriege- the 1832 German original
• Online version ofOn War- the 1873 English translation
• "On War"by Carl von Clausewitz.Project Gutenberg E-book.(2006, 2019). English translation of 1874 by Colonel J.J. Graham. Originally published in 1874 and 1909.
• On Warpublic domain audiobook atLibriVox

External links

• Mind Map ofOn War
• The Clausewitz Homepage
• Clausewitz Gesellschaft (Clausewitz Association)