Clausewitz is a Prussian military theorist and the founder of modern western military theory. During the period of 1566 ~ 18 15, he studied more than 30 war cases, summed up the experience of several wars, and on this basis, he wrote a military theoretical work "On War" with a huge system and rich contents.
Non-military people may not have systematically read On War, but I believe most people are familiar with the famous saying "Military is the continuation of political relations", which comes from On War. On War is the crystallization of clausewitz's observation, research and analysis of war. It is not only a military theoretical work, but also a philosophical work. It is regarded as a classic of modern western military theory and has played an important role in the formation and development of modern western military thought.
"On War" is the first book in the history of military thought to systematically summarize the war experience by consciously applying the dialectical method of German classical philosophy, which has important military artistic value. This book not only laid the foundation of modern western bourgeois military science, but also was one of the important sources of Marxist military science. Clausewitz himself is therefore regarded as "the originator of modern western military theory".
On War is like a maze full of philosophical theories, and few readers can really grasp its logical route or go deep into its theoretical realm without getting lost.
Liddell hart, a famous British military theorist.
As soon as On War was published, it was widely circulated around the world and was highly valued by the military circles of various countries. Regarded as a classic work of military theory, it has become a must-read for military theorists. /kloc-since the 0/9th century, most German famous soldiers are loyal readers of On War. It is said that Hitler often put "On War" on his desk, but if he really understood "On War", I'm afraid he wouldn't repeat the mistake of Napoleon attacking Russia in the cold winter. Russian Marxists carefully studied On War and freely used clausewitz's thoughts. For example, the Soviet government published Lenin's notes on "On War" in 1933, and Stalin developed his own military thoughts on the basis of "On War". From this, we can see one of the great charms of On War.
Comments on On War II clausewitz's On War is a masterpiece at the peak of military theory in19th century. The author's contribution can be summed up in one sentence: the war phenomena in the western world 18 and 19 centuries were investigated as comprehensively and meticulously as possible from macro to micro, which made the military theory reach the peak of his era in depth, which was an unprecedented peak. Because, since Columbus discovered the New World, the emerging capitalist civilization in Europe has been gradually ahead of the world civilization, so On War, as a product of the capitalist civilization system, is also one of the few most advanced military ideological achievements of that era.
From the perspective of time, the meaning of things can be divided into two parts: the present and the long term. The longer the meaning, the greater the value. There is no doubt about the immediate significance of "On War" to19th century. With the passage of time, the society has evolved to 2 1 century, and the long-term value of "On War" has begun to appear. As long as there is war in human society, these ideas that radiate wisdom will never be out of date. The formulation of military strategy in many contemporary western countries mainly comes from clausewitz's thought.
For contemporary war guidance, clausewitz's thoughts at the macro-strategic level still have great vitality. For example, when the strength is at an absolute disadvantage, clausewitz thinks that even if he has no possibility of winning, he should not think that it is impossible or irrational to take action. If we don't have a better way and a small number of troops, it will always be rational to arrange everything as well as possible. This statement is still the correct attitude in formulating strategies when small or weak countries confront big countries today. Such an incisive view can be described as a perfect match in On War, which can be found everywhere.
Clausewitz is a well-read man, and his research often goes deep into the war, carefully examining the fields related to the war. While discussing military issues, he often has original opinions on other professional fields. Many of his conclusions are instructive not only to those who engage in war, but also to those who engage in other non-military activities, and are of value beyond the purely military profession.
He has a unique vision for the construction of "theory". "As soon as any theory comes into contact with spiritual factors, the difficulties will increase infinitely" and "theory must take into account people's feelings". These insights are very enlightening for scholars who try to establish theories in their own professional fields and how people can distinguish the advantages and disadvantages of theories.
He has a profound philosophical accomplishment and a deep understanding of the value of knowledge.
After reading ludendorff's Total War and Qiao Liang's Super-limited War, I began to read On War today, which is the third time that I have opened clausewitz's classics. I still remember when I first entered the university, I came here with admiration. But after turning over five or six pages, those abstruse words and boring arguments made me completely give up the idea of reading, and my first attempt ended hastily.
The second time was after the Iraq war. Because of the need to study the topic of "social warfare", I got up the courage to open the book "On War", which was placed in the corner of the bookcase and was covered with dust. This time, I spent almost a month holding my eyelids with a matchstick and finally turned over the first, second and third volumes. I have finished the translation, but I basically didn't understand it. The only gain is to remember one sentence: "War is the continuation of politics."
Now I opened it again. In the face of 1000 pages of books, my mood is complicated. I hope I can get the answer I need from it this time, but I can't help worrying about whether I can keep reading. Reading "On War" is a painful thing, which requires patience and perseverance, and needs to think and experience with the brain. Different kinds of books, of course, we have different reading attitudes. Why do we want to read a martial arts novel like On War, a classic written by the author with his whole life?
Reading is not an easy task. Learning needs rigorous academic attitude and practical style of study. Without the accumulation of books, where can we reach the writing realm of god? There is no free lunch, and there is no genius in the world. People need to pay to get a reward. Looking back on my four years in college, I wrote more than 300,000 words, many of which were published in newspapers. I'm glad of my little success. But this is only the beginning of a struggle. As the saying goes, "A clever woman can't cook without rice." After writing too much, I gradually feel that Jiang Lang is at the end of his rope. Only when I study some in-depth problems do I feel a little at a loss.
Reading needs persistence, and learning should be a habit. Meditate, meditate, meditate again. As the saying goes, sharpen your knife, stop writing and read more. Now I don't expect to watch "On War" once, but I hope to gain something. I hope I can gain something every time I watch it for the fourth, fifth and sixth time.
Reflections on reading the fourth article of On War; Where did the origin or germination of war begin? Will the word war disappear from our dictionary? After reading On War, I only got some answers, some of which may never be known.
War is the result of the infinite expansion of the struggle between the enemy and ourselves. On the battlefield, I fought the enemy. In order to survive, I will try my best to defeat the enemy. My combat skills and weapon status may determine my life and death. Countless soldiers like me fight to defeat the enemy, that is, the weapon status of a country and a nation. The overall quality, formation and tactics of soldiers determine the victory or defeat of a war. Therefore, when the western powers have absolute advantages over the big blades of wooden boats in the Qing Dynasty, they will naturally win the war.
So where did the war begin? There were few people in ancient times, so there could be no war. Only two savages fight or duel for a female savage, just as animals are trying to reproduce, but they are actually trying to survive. With the growth of population, wars have taken place between tribes, between races and between countries. In the final analysis, it is for a purpose, a better purpose of development and survival. For example, Japan's expansion is to adapt to the increase in population. All wars cannot escape such a purpose. From primitive conquest to modern politics. All for profit. If there is no interest, no one wants to fight. A war is mutually destructive, and there is never a winner. The so-called victory is nothing more than adding your own losses to the enemy. Therefore, war is a political means and a process of gaining benefits and bloodshed.
People exist in the world, and if they don't control their desires, there will always be struggles, ranging from class interests contradictions within the country to the survival of the country. War will be related to people's ideological realm. Humans have been asking for it, from nature, from countries that they have the ability to conquer (so there are colonies and slaves). God's ability to give people is limited, but people's desires are infinite.
Therefore, war originated from people's desires. With the progress of society and the change of state and political system, war has become a tool for rulers to gain greater benefits. How shameful it was for mankind to forcibly seize the development rights of other nations (colonial demands, concessions, tariffs and huge war reparations) under the banner of national rejuvenation from the Qin Dynasty to the Second World War! ! War has become a political means and a tool for other countries to intervene in other countries.
Whether the war can disappear depends on whether human society can truly unite, have no national boundaries and racial discrimination, make education really work, and realize that we are all earthlings. Only in this way can war really disappear from the dictionary.
From a political point of view, On War holds that politics dominates war, war is only a means, and politics is the purpose. This is correct. Recognizing this, we can grasp a war more effectively. We don't need to consider the aphorism that "forgetting the war is dangerous, and fighting is death". We can deeply understand the war by remembering the purpose of politics, which is probably the case in the US-Iraq war. The ultimate destination of mankind should still be a harmonious society. I hope everyone will recognize the essence of war.
China people love peace, and we don't want war, but if you think we are easy to bully and you have the ability to conquer, then come on, and we will accept the challenge. You measure the world with your values, and I will return your values to you. Those who openly commit crimes against me will be punished from a distance.
At the same time, don't forget one sentence: soldiers, national events, places of life and death, and ways of life and death must not be ignored. -The Art of War
The purpose of war is to make the enemy obey our will. In order to achieve this goal, it is bound to make the enemy unable to resist. And to make the enemy unable to resist, it is necessary to destroy the enemy's military strength. The military strength there should include the spiritual strength of the army and the enemy, that is, willpower. Because war is a struggle between people, it must be within the scope of feelings. Therefore, the spiritual strength of war can not be ignored, and personality is in some life-and-death struggles. To make the enemy unable to resist, it is necessary to destroy his country and people's will to resist, at least in theory. Its superficial feature can be to sign a peace treaty and demand sexual intercourse. These characteristics at least show that the enemy has admitted defeat at present, and what will happen in the future is the future.
Conceptually speaking, making the enemy unable to resist will make the struggle extreme, but in fact it is absolutely necessary to correct it. Because people have feelings and will not gain strength for pure logic. War is full of contingency, which is also because spiritual strength, that is, willpower, has played a great role in the war.
People can't cover everything in the war, especially in the fierce war. Any negligence will lead to the change of the war process (relative to the pre-war prediction). This is also a chance.
Never forget that war is a continuation of politics in another way. Therefore, political goals always exist at the beginning and end of the war. Perhaps the progress of the war process has an impact on the original political purpose, or even greater. But we usually think that this kind of influence will not fundamentally affect the original political purpose or the limit of influence is extremely limited. What needs to be explained is that in the case that the hostile feelings and intentions of both sides are not strong or the forces are symmetrical, political goals will often play a great role and even affect the progress of the war. Even under general conditions, political purposes will greatly affect the course of the war, or strictly control its scale, or expand it without restraint (even if there is no real hostile intention and purpose). Usually, its scale is strictly controlled.
War is the continuation of politics, and politics is the inherent attribute of war. Politics is often much smarter than war. The war itself is often full of contingency and violence. Among them, human feelings are the key factor.
In reality, to destroy the enemy's army and willpower, we often have to consider self-consumption, whether we will be destroyed by the enemy, and the range where the enemy's defense is stronger than the attack, so that the war will not develop to extremes. To sum up, due to their own concerns and objective conditions, the war process may be full of uncertainty. This uncertainty seems to make our previous analysis lose its benefits. Facts also show that many times, the real war (that is, the real tearing of both sides) did not happen. We should think that military action in a war should include two aspects of information: first, all preparations for a real war, including military mobilization, material transportation, and the adjustment and assembly of troops. The second is the real war, the real tearing. It can be understood that when the strength of the two sides is very different, when one side realizes that the military strength of the other side far exceeds its own strength, it will automatically put down its resistance. This is the so-called "enemy without fighting". In fact, the war process has already begun.
This uncertainty is not contradictory to the purpose of the war, even if the enemy is unable to resist. Because when one side is not prepared or determined not to take decisive action against the enemy, and the other side has the intention to destroy the opponent at any time, this side is bound to be at a disadvantage in the war, because he has made a negative determination not to take decisive action without judging that the other side will not take decisive action in the war, so he is bound to be in a panic, unable to concentrate his strength and make maximum use of it. Such a result is doomed to be tragic.
Therefore, the purpose of making the enemy unable to resist, destroying the enemy's military strength and crushing the enemy's willpower is not the goal to be achieved in every war, but it has existed in all military actions since the beginning of the war and can only be alleviated or contained for political purposes or other reasons.