The presenter of this speech is marvelous....he has no script, ne does not read texts from the power Point slides...speeks freely and clearly and in a very organiszed manner..i have seen so many speeches until now ....but this is i guess one of the most intersting and best i have ever heard (the Topic was very interesting too of course)....congratulations on Dr. Jim Helis...!!
Yes! He is captivating and conveys a command of his subject that makes me smile. Extra bonus points on him for his referring to Clausewitz as both precocious and an autodidact. Being honest, so often, watching recorded academic lectures is akin to enduring lengthy dental surgery- not here. A clap-worthy lecture, most lovely.
All good speakers speak largely contemporaneously. They only speak on subjects in which they are well steeped, and they speak as though they were having a very one sided conversation.
One of the best presentations I've seen, I don't really know much about Clausewitz but I will definitely check him out, the things he talks about sound very plausible and realistic.
I'm a Brazilian and I live in Brazil. Four of my dead relatives were military, during World War Il. All in Allied side. None is alive today. Clausewitz remains a writer to be read.
Studying Clausewitz now. Highly recommend the Samuel b Griffith translation of the art of War by 'sun tzu'. Seems more hermetically sealed and complete thus far in studies.
There are some things to remember about "On War". First, it wasn't complete. Clausewitz had intended to reedit and arrange the material before he died from cholera in Poland as chief of staff of the Prussian forces involved in assisting the Russians in suppressing a Polish uprising. What we are seeing is not the final product. Second, Clausewitz was a philosopher like Kant and others of the German school. He would state a theory at its purest and then work back on how the theory applied to reality and was modified by reality. He states that violence will always escalate to its maximum level. but then explains why this doesn't happen in reality due to issues such as the "fog of war", political concerns and objectives and limits to the resources available to the opponents. He never meant that violence would or even should escalate to its maximum potential as some have accused. Third, just as important as the baseline statement "war is a continuation of policy by other means" (organized violence by a state or non-state actor is a continuation of the acts by those actors, military and otherwise, to achieve a desired political end state) are his identification of the "Holy Trinity" of government, people and army (armed forces) (represent each as a circle and then draw the circles with overlap representing the integration of that actor with the others. In 1806, the government and army would significantly overlap each other but only barely overlap the people. In Israel, the circles are almost contiguous, with barely any space between them), the "fog of war", the duality of war (the enemy has a vote) and war as a human activity (by every measure the North Vietnamese should not have succeeded in their desired political end state, yet they did). Third, Clausewitz has sometimes been accused of being an "ivory tower" Soldier. In fact, Clausewitz had extensive field service as a company grade officer from 1793-1796 and 1805-06 and as a staff officer in a general officer combat command. He was, in fact, Thielmann's (Prussian IV Corps (IIRC) chief of staff during the Waterloo campaign. This was a period when general officers were expected to expose themselves and the communications systems for exercising command had a shorter range than the weapons systems being employed. Four, Clausewitz was a published historian BEFORE the release by his widow of "On War", both books, articles and essays, including an analysis of Napoleon's Russian 1812 Campaign. Finally, Clausewitz was not saying that war was the only way to achieve a desire political end state, he said that it was ONE of ways in a combination of ways that could be used to do so. On War is still relevant as Sun Tzu when read within the context of themes that apply to military strategy throughout history and to strategic planning today. Work through the Syracuse Campaign of Alcibiades and Athens by identifying the desired political end state and evaluating political and military planning and performance within that context.
Problem I see in military leaders today... It's a this or that, yes or no dogmatic type of thinking that limits critical thinking. Clausewitz book is full of concepts about war it's important to see them as such and like any concept it is best shaped into the practical world through critical thinking skills. Even Clausewitz himself understood the task of proposing a set theory or doctrine about war was impossible. It's not about liberal or conservative interruption of war but knowing on the battlefield or viewing the battlefield using both as necessary for effect. Painting the world black or white limits the colors you can use thus painting war as black or white limits your view of approach. You want the results of your predecessor do what they did, if you want different results do what you think and if your want the best results do what they did not along with what you must. Our regular Army would be much better if the soldiers were trained with same approach used on our best. It's not costly to use social psychology on troops or to teach it to commanders, it's not costly to train soldiers about basic principles of combat down to the cook in garrison, it's not costly to teach soldiers about COIN where it worked when it didn't, and certainly it's not costly to get both a critical thinking soldier as well as an obedient one following the values of the group. You want a good Army have good officers you want a great Army then train individual soldiers with same care as officers. Soap box rant and nothing against Clausewitz but I see more necessary for the narrative.
The fog is not mentioned but four times in On War. Friction encompasses both mental and physical challenges. The idea of total war is a Plato concept of the absolute war. It is not possible even with nuclear weapons. This is an interesting conception but I think there are some different points that are glossed over
@@filipepeerally Jomini disliked Clausewitz's work, but modern U.S. doctrine blends the two. Jomini applies primarily at the operational level of war, whereas Clausewitz applies at the strategic level.
No, he really means the element of randomness. Let's say there is a 10 percent chance that it rains and your support will not arrive in time. The probability is in your favour but there is a chance that fate will turn against you. The militarius genius has to be able to take such things into account and adapt to them. This is what he meant by chance as I understood it after reading the passage in the original.
No. I read the original and the German word he basically uses all the time in that context is "Zufall". In German this word has no positive connotation like "chance" or something like that. It just means the heartless nature of an entirely random event.
@@AliothAncalagon that makes it even more beautiful. The fatalism of the Germans and Russians is part of their noble bearing in war. Thanks for teaching me about that!
@@gritmindset9381 You are welcome. Reading something like Clausewitz in the original is not an easy task, not even for a native speaker since its old 17th century aristocrat German. I am glad if I can help to make anything about it more understandable ^^
Other officers at 28 and 29 were learning about how to manage TROOP and infantry "stuff". Clausewitz was studying something WAY above Battalion Commander management. Clausewitz was doing NATIONAL management. I totally forgot he was ROYALTY.
If all war is based on the battlefield then its a loosing war. Total war is Economic, Military, Political, Terran, Influence, manipulation, black mail, assassinations, bribery, Black ops, weather, doctrine, discipline, Moral influence, mental determination, Fluid adaption of continuous flow of friction & Fast Motion to intercept anywhere, anytime, anyplace, at a moments notice. An over all objective, entry, sustained unwavering skill, stealth, speed and strategic exit. In and out. Doing all this as fast as possible and willing to take any loses in doing so, even to die so he does not win, suicide attack. All aimed at not winning the enemy, but winning your objective, his their just to throw you off. That is only 1% of war.
I tend to agree. You are more in Sun Tzu's domain of the five preconditions to victory. We can draw the difference between autocracy and other systems where armies are concerned. Boots win wars but metaphysics drive them forward. "The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field. These are: (1) The Moral Law (complete popular support for a just war); (2) Heaven (weather, seasons); (3) Earth (terrain and logistics) ; (4) The Commander (general both skilled and virtuous) ; (5) Method and discipline. Sun Tzu, The Art Of War."
Mike Cimerian I tend to agree with you too, but what i mean is more in dept. what i mean is in war, a Bullet can not change a mind into breaking or a bomb into subsiding a nation into defeat. The DEFEAT of the will of the enemy nation Defense Forces is only 1/3 of the over all objective of the foreign aggressor. No weapon in the face of mankind can break a spirit that cannot be broken [A Nation] i BELIEVE. So Military skill in all domains can defeat the less skilled oppression force but that skill has to be bound on a moral code against the enemy...in other words if the more skilled invader has beaten the home force well that will be it,,,but as along as the invader is not suppression the nation free will under occupation. The most powerful army's in history have fallen to the most oldest war trick in the book..."Never drive the enemy into total dispare ",,,Because a bullet can change a war,,but will never per tick the outcome. So The ground, air and sea is only 1/3 OF THE OVERALL BATTLE. Because the real battle is winning the Hearts and minds of the home nation of both sides,,,the aggressors home people and the Home nation getting invaded. Loose the people,,you'll loose the war. P.S. See What i mean...Great discussion by the way.
Michael McCann I have been thinking about something that nags me about Clausewitz's assertion that war is a member of the set of all types of human relations. There is a tension between amoralistic objectivism and the unsubstantial moral virtues required to obtain complete effort to reach an objective. As soon as we introduce Moral Law within the set of all human relations there appears a scale where reason is set in transcendent context with other human attributes. This opens a self-reference loop within the system. Objectivism is as dead as most encyclopedic endeavors. We can thank or curse Godel for this.
Mike Cimerian i would agree with you by the way, true. No living organism wants to be self constrained about moral virtues and self aware of class and between to classes of good and wrong action, that's why the most free minded of us would conclude that actions and the application of Moral law somehow hinders ones progress and deposes its theory in a flash... and many would say and believe that the application of Morals has noting to do with life or as in war because of so many random acts can not be subjected to one theory of good vs bad or black vs white, rader the few would conclude that as in war as in life,................The chips fall where they may,,, and we adapt in accordance with survival and a better outcome for oneself in that situation. So yes moral Virtue has less hope then a fly to turn into an eagle,,,but With Clausewitz would reflect his assertion that war is a member of all types of human relations is as he would put it as more in the study of human personalty and out come of grief turning to anger = War. With is as simple a theory as saying, will ice cream melt on a sunny day,? yes. So in conclusion my opinion is that in life no mammal can live without moral virtue, as saying a Lion can hunt and kill but can switch off and feed and care for its cubs, so in fact it knows without its morals its DNA gene will die and will give itself no reason to live there after, So same as humans in relation to war, Humans cant go to war for the sake of going to war, it has to be in good standing with their mind, even do it can be evil in times with gives rise to corruption, so where going into the the human relation of the world, so for the sake of it lets stay on current point,,,,,, Good morals can be subjected to vanity, greed, corruption, and evil. So True virtue has to be in order with war or other wise the whole point of war is obscene and reckless. Good virtue like saying,"im only going to war to defend my family and children", or "My brother signed up and so will i", these things will survive in the natural order of the world, War without good virtue is like saying,'im going to war for to kill all them children in the other nation and wipe out their food supply", Humans cant stand this action and intervene to apply good virtue by saying, 'im going to kill those men to save them children and defend their food for them to survive. So the balance is needed and order is restored. So Clausewitz is correct but too little simple to be accepted on one go and needed to be explained in that its not black and white but yet needed in relation to humans in war, its a tricky subject. SO Objectivism is dead but not gone in the world of war, for me it is but i understand both sides. My theory of War is none of these theory's, Clausewitz or Sun Tzu or any War Strategic general must be read in theory and only theory only and not fact, For these men have different life's, i mean all men have different understandings of war, on war, i believe in one Fact in Conflict, ~ 'No war is, never, was, or ever will be the same as the last, so no theory can be a set goal or fact in "Solving" war as in i have found the only solution of war in ever winning one. So My Theory is based on the works of Nature and the Surrounding Environment in accordance of survival, I look at war as a sport, the battle as the game and the solider as the athlete, Except in this game you can die, So The more the athlete is trained the more he can adapt, achieve and overcome. But in terms of generals bullets or bombs can cause serous damage, but as i believe bullets and so on cant hit something that is forever changing and changing, cant be hit. Today, War is based on numbers, The Theory of Replenishment, Kill as many enemy faster then he recruits, Body-counts. Witch is simple as giving a fat kid Chocolate cake and timing him on a stop watch. Always causes more havoc then it solves. TRUE VICTORY IN WAR IS WINNING THE ENEMY WITHOUT EVER ENGAGING HIM, i believe. master that, you mastered war.
Michael McCann I have to hand it to you that truly is war, did you write this or did you get this from a book? If so can you please tell me which book?
This is during the Napoleon Era. They give HISTORY classes for officers at West Point. I already know enough on what happened. Did they have to write something on what war is about? My paper or book would be no where near the others in class.
Americans never understand that war is politics with other means. They think it is something like a football game where it is about wining or loosing. But war needs a goal that can be achieved either by one way or another and that there is no point in gaining that goal by a higher price.
Christian Kunert you do understand that in terms of military intelligence and operations the United States is more advanced than any other civilization .
Clausewitz wrote using dialectic method, which means he began with an unsophisticated and undeveloped thesis (nothing but a duel on a large scale), progressed to a slightly less unsophisticated antithesis (merely policy by other means), and eventually concluded with the trinity - war is an interaction between violence unpredictability and rational calculation.
Christian Kunert I think most of americans know that war is more like business to them "War is a racket" as a U.S Marine Corps Major General Smedley D. Butler stated Or maybe americans nowadays became dull?
You obviously don't understand Americans. American military policy demonstrates a wisdom about warfare from its inception - shaped by a combination of European theory and technology and Native American guerilla tactics. It was first established by Washington and Marion, and was later defined by Grant, with a simple measure of success - unconditional surrender of the enemy. We have the social and economic means to field a military that can achieve and demand that without slaughtering the enemy. Part of our theory is our identity - the good guys, with principles of non-aggression, and respect for human life. Americans will pound you into oblivion if you fight them. But if you surrender, you will not just be shown mercy - you will be shown respect for your dignity as a human being, as a people with rights to your territory, and your defeat will not result in killing or in annexation. We are much better off with you living and doing your thing and being prosperous, and we have nothing to gain to compromise our principles by wiping you out or taking your land. Let me note this strategy has never been executed perfectly, nor do we always live up to our ideals even at the theater level of warfare. Clausewitz was an experienced man - in a crowded continent with a well-recorded military tradition that was shaped around cultural values, and knew nothing of wearing camouflage, stalking the enemy, and targeting officers in attacks. Americans are much more aggressive because they are much more humane - we cannot accept that killing is part of the regular order, some extension of politics or diplomacy. Officers may have been inducted into that way of thinking in their training schools, but enlisted fighters know the savagery of the battlefield, the extraordinary necessity of a warrior, and the evil and danger of casual warfare. Clausewitz is an infiltration assault of the flawed European way of thinking on American military theory.
That's fair to say about the people I guess but the government clearly understand the concept of limited war considering its been involved constantly at war since ww2 and it never precipitated total war with the Soviet union or China
Many view Sun Tzu and Clausewitz with the greatest adulation. But I began to think, would you keep detailed comprehensible records of your military secrets if you were a really shrewd strategist? How many great commanders with plenty of laurels fighting on the battlefields throughout history came out with acclaimed books? Think Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan..
Well, if you read Clauzewitz's chapter on Military Genius, you would understand that just because you are a good theorists, thinking about various principles and attrributes of war an how they interact with each other, and having coup 'd oiel and being able to think on the fly are two different sets of skills.
I mean not so much the ability, but the deliberation and motivation behind. Which military genius fighting on the battlefield wanted others to read his mind by recording his thoughts in a comprehensible way? :)
Yi Jiun Any one that was giving orders to his subordinates. Making one's orders clear and understandable is a battlefield skill. By the way, if the commander and his subordinates are familiar with the same theories, mutual understanding is easier. War is a team endeavor. Battlefield orders aside, several military geniuses have published books off the battlefield. Rommel - Infantry Attacks, Patton - War as I knew it, Napoleon - Military Maxims and his memoirs, Heinz Guderian - Panzer Leader, and Liddell Hart edited a book which contains essays from various German Generals some of whom were considered military Geniuses - German Generals Talk
Mark Stuber What if they fall into enemy hands? I believe a shrewd general would never write so comprehensively his theories and strategies in the midst of battles. For this reason, ancient Chinese dynasties used to ban the propagation of Sun Tzu's work for fear of "encouraging" insurgencies and coups.
Yi Jiun The answers are quite simple but are various. It can be "reports from the front" that the ennemy won't read (eg Caesar's "Commentarii de Bello Gallico "), it can be for educationnal use with a limited public, later more widely published (see below Clausewitz), it can be for historical purpose, after the facts, so there are no usable secrets (Patton, Chruchil, etc.), it can be for propaganda (Caesar, Alexander the Great : see below) Sun Tzus's case is not clear : we don't even know if he really existed. So we can't tell if it's book was destined to be published or not, when, for whom, by whom, etc. For Clausewitz, it's much clearer : he wrote "On War" at the end of his life, at the same time as he was active in military operations in Poland and a teatcher at the War Academy of Berlin. It was not supposed to be published. It was published some years after his death by his widow. As for Alexander the Great, a lot of people wrote about his campaigns and strategies (including soldiers and an official historian) during his time. All these texts are now losts and are know by second hand historians (some very close to the period) basing their work on these original texts. Depending on the texts, it has different purpose as listed above (propaganda, reports home, historical, etc.).
They let Clausewitz study in France as a POW. Im pissed about this because this is when Prussia lost the Knights Cross. Im not a nazi but that was a HIGH AWARD. Whatever I would rather serve with Great Britain but still. Germany wtf?
Unless you're dealing with an enemy of inferior means and capabilities... How does direct warfare work in the nuclear age? Seems that Sun Tzu's method of indirect warfare wins out in our day and age.
it's not war if it's indirect. going by foot is not indirect driving. starving is not indirect eating. words have meanings. war is war. posturing is posturing and politics is politics. none of them are indirect warfare.
jeez this guy would put you to sleep, should really work on diction. no doubt a clever man but his voice is so monotonous. stop, accentuate, breathe, emphasise, don't just tick over like a well running engine, that audience is as animated as a fryed egg. was this in the days prior to mobile phones? I would be praying for someone to ring me.
The presenter of this speech is marvelous....he has no script, ne does not read texts from the power Point slides...speeks freely and clearly and in a very organiszed manner..i have seen so many speeches until now ....but this is i guess one of the most intersting and best i have ever heard (the Topic was very interesting too of course)....congratulations on Dr. Jim Helis...!!
Yes! He is captivating and conveys a command of his subject that makes me smile. Extra bonus points on him for his referring to Clausewitz as both precocious and an autodidact. Being honest, so often, watching recorded academic lectures is akin to enduring lengthy dental surgery- not here. A clap-worthy lecture, most lovely.
All good speakers speak largely contemporaneously. They only speak on subjects in which they are well steeped, and they speak as though they were having a very one sided conversation.
I can’t help but think he gives this introductory lecture every year.
And it's 2024 and US military experts training the Azov in Ukraine are going to RUclips to find answers.
@@MarcosElMalo2 To a sleepy audience
One of the best presentations I've seen, I don't really know much about Clausewitz but I will definitely check him out, the things he talks about sound very plausible and realistic.
I'm a Brazilian and I live in Brazil. Four of my dead relatives were military, during World War Il. All in Allied side. None is alive today. Clausewitz remains a writer to be read.
🙏🙏🙏
Studying Clausewitz now. Highly recommend the Samuel b Griffith translation of the art of War by 'sun tzu'. Seems more hermetically sealed and complete thus far in studies.
There are some things to remember about "On War". First, it wasn't complete. Clausewitz had intended to reedit and arrange the material before he died from cholera in Poland as chief of staff of the Prussian forces involved in assisting the Russians in suppressing a Polish uprising. What we are seeing is not the final product. Second, Clausewitz was a philosopher like Kant and others of the German school. He would state a theory at its purest and then work back on how the theory applied to reality and was modified by reality. He states that violence will always escalate to its maximum level. but then explains why this doesn't happen in reality due to issues such as the "fog of war", political concerns and objectives and limits to the resources available to the opponents. He never meant that violence would or even should escalate to its maximum potential as some have accused. Third, just as important as the baseline statement "war is a continuation of policy by other means" (organized violence by a state or non-state actor is a continuation of the acts by those actors, military and otherwise, to achieve a desired political end state) are his identification of the "Holy Trinity" of government, people and army (armed forces) (represent each as a circle and then draw the circles with overlap representing the integration of that actor with the others. In 1806, the government and army would significantly overlap each other but only barely overlap the people. In Israel, the circles are almost contiguous, with barely any space between them), the "fog of war", the duality of war (the enemy has a vote) and war as a human activity (by every measure the North Vietnamese should not have succeeded in their desired political end state, yet they did). Third, Clausewitz has sometimes been accused of being an "ivory tower" Soldier. In fact, Clausewitz had extensive field service as a company grade officer from 1793-1796 and 1805-06 and as a staff officer in a general officer combat command. He was, in fact, Thielmann's (Prussian IV Corps (IIRC) chief of staff during the Waterloo campaign. This was a period when general officers were expected to expose themselves and the communications systems for exercising command had a shorter range than the weapons systems being employed. Four, Clausewitz was a published historian BEFORE the release by his widow of "On War", both books, articles and essays, including an analysis of Napoleon's Russian 1812 Campaign. Finally, Clausewitz was not saying that war was the only way to achieve a desire political end state, he said that it was ONE of ways in a combination of ways that could be used to do so.
On War is still relevant as Sun Tzu when read within the context of themes that apply to military strategy throughout history and to strategic planning today. Work through the Syracuse Campaign of Alcibiades and Athens by identifying the desired political end state and evaluating political and military planning and performance within that context.
"There are still principles in Clausewitz that apply today to our business"
Haunui Royal war is competition. And you couldn't talk about business without mentioning competition. So... yeah
Excellent lecture. Very useful and to-the-point (....from a humble SAMS grad).
Problem I see in military leaders today... It's a this or that, yes or no dogmatic type of thinking that limits critical thinking. Clausewitz book is full of concepts about war it's important to see them as such and like any concept it is best shaped into the practical world through critical thinking skills. Even Clausewitz himself understood the task of proposing a set theory or doctrine about war was impossible. It's not about liberal or conservative interruption of war but knowing on the battlefield or viewing the battlefield using both as necessary for effect. Painting the world black or white limits the colors you can use thus painting war as black or white limits your view of approach. You want the results of your predecessor do what they did, if you want different results do what you think and if your want the best results do what they did not along with what you must. Our regular Army would be much better if the soldiers were trained with same approach used on our best. It's not costly to use social psychology on troops or to teach it to commanders, it's not costly to train soldiers about basic principles of combat down to the cook in garrison, it's not costly to teach soldiers about COIN where it worked when it didn't, and certainly it's not costly to get both a critical thinking soldier as well as an obedient one following the values of the group. You want a good Army have good officers you want a great Army then train individual soldiers with same care as officers. Soap box rant and nothing against Clausewitz but I see more necessary for the narrative.
The fog is not mentioned but four times in On War. Friction encompasses both mental and physical challenges. The idea of total war is a Plato concept of the absolute war. It is not possible even with nuclear weapons. This is an interesting conception but I think there are some different points that are glossed over
the fog of war is just one example of Clausewitz,
but some ended creating a concept
in relation to it, really they mean
the meaning of friction.
He said he´s a Clauswewitzian, are there other contemporary doctrines of War that are not? Would be interesting to know
There's Jominian
AuricMonkey succ my diccian
@@filipepeerally Jomini disliked Clausewitz's work, but modern U.S. doctrine blends the two. Jomini applies primarily at the operational level of war, whereas Clausewitz applies at the strategic level.
@@mac2894what the difference between operational and strategic?
it's *von* clausewitz
Simply superb
Boy this is great 👍🏽 thanks
do you have part 2 where he lectures about clausewitz's generalship and leadership as he mentioned in the end of the video??
No, he really means the element of randomness. Let's say there is a 10 percent chance that it rains and your support will not arrive in time. The probability is in your favour but there is a chance that fate will turn against you. The militarius genius has to be able to take such things into account and adapt to them. This is what he meant by chance as I understood it after reading the passage in the original.
Moving from state to state conflict?
When Clausewitz spoke about the role of "chance" in war; I wonder if the best possible word to describe what he meant is the word "opportunity?"
No. I read the original and the German word he basically uses all the time in that context is "Zufall". In German this word has no positive connotation like "chance" or something like that. It just means the heartless nature of an entirely random event.
@@AliothAncalagon that makes it even more beautiful. The fatalism of the Germans and Russians is part of their noble bearing in war. Thanks for teaching me about that!
@@gritmindset9381 You are welcome.
Reading something like Clausewitz in the original is not an easy task, not even for a native speaker since its old 17th century aristocrat German.
I am glad if I can help to make anything about it more understandable ^^
do you read "on war " ?
Other officers at 28 and 29 were learning about how to manage TROOP and infantry "stuff".
Clausewitz was studying something WAY above Battalion Commander management.
Clausewitz was doing NATIONAL management.
I totally forgot he was ROYALTY.
now we need a basketball show about Michael Ordan (no, this is not a typo)
seriously, that "von" is part of his name.
I WAN TAUGHT OR (ANY MATERIAL VERY CONCISE ) ABOUT NATURE AND CHRACTER OF WAR
Interesting. I am watching it with the Ukrainian crisis in mind.
I don't usually necropost, but what on Earth happened in the comments?
If all war is based on the battlefield then its a loosing war. Total war is Economic, Military, Political, Terran, Influence, manipulation, black mail, assassinations, bribery, Black ops, weather, doctrine, discipline, Moral influence, mental determination, Fluid adaption of continuous flow of friction & Fast Motion to intercept anywhere, anytime, anyplace, at a moments notice. An over all objective, entry, sustained unwavering skill, stealth, speed and strategic exit. In and out. Doing all this as fast as possible and willing to take any loses in doing so, even to die so he does not win, suicide attack. All aimed at not winning the enemy, but winning your objective, his their just to throw you off. That is only 1% of war.
I tend to agree. You are more in Sun Tzu's domain of the five preconditions to victory. We can draw the difference between autocracy and other systems where armies are concerned. Boots win wars but metaphysics drive them forward.
"The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.
These are: (1) The Moral Law (complete popular support for a just war); (2) Heaven (weather, seasons); (3) Earth (terrain and logistics) ; (4) The Commander (general both skilled and virtuous) ; (5) Method and discipline.
Sun Tzu, The Art Of War."
Mike Cimerian I tend to agree with you too, but what i mean is more in dept. what i mean is in war, a Bullet can not change a mind into breaking or a bomb into subsiding a nation into defeat. The DEFEAT of the will of the enemy nation Defense Forces is only 1/3 of the over all objective of the foreign aggressor. No weapon in the face of mankind can break a spirit that cannot be broken [A Nation] i BELIEVE. So Military skill in all domains can defeat the less skilled oppression force but that skill has to be bound on a moral code against the enemy...in other words if the more skilled invader has beaten the home force well that will be it,,,but as along as the invader is not suppression the nation free will under occupation. The most powerful army's in history have fallen to the most oldest war trick in the book..."Never drive the enemy into total dispare ",,,Because a bullet can change a war,,but will never per tick the outcome. So The ground, air and sea is only 1/3 OF THE OVERALL BATTLE. Because the real battle is winning the Hearts and minds of the home nation of both sides,,,the aggressors home people and the Home nation getting invaded. Loose the people,,you'll loose the war.
P.S. See What i mean...Great discussion by the way.
Michael McCann I have been thinking about something that nags me about Clausewitz's assertion that war is a member of the set of all types of human relations.
There is a tension between amoralistic objectivism and the unsubstantial moral virtues required to obtain complete effort to reach an objective.
As soon as we introduce Moral Law within the set of all human relations there appears a scale where reason is set in transcendent context with other human attributes. This opens a self-reference loop within the system.
Objectivism is as dead as most encyclopedic endeavors. We can thank or curse Godel for this.
Mike Cimerian i would agree with you by the way, true. No living organism wants to be self constrained about moral virtues and self aware of class and between to classes of good and wrong action, that's why the most free minded of us would conclude that actions and the application of Moral law somehow hinders ones progress and deposes its theory in a flash... and many would say and believe that the application of Morals has noting to do with life or as in war because of so many random acts can not be subjected to one theory of good vs bad or black vs white, rader the few would conclude that as in war as in life,................The chips fall where they may,,, and we adapt in accordance with survival and a better outcome for oneself in that situation. So yes moral Virtue has less hope then a fly to turn into an eagle,,,but With Clausewitz would reflect his assertion that war is a member of all types of human relations is as he would put it as more in the study of human personalty and out come of grief turning to anger = War. With is as simple a theory as saying, will ice cream melt on a sunny day,? yes. So in conclusion my opinion is that in life no mammal can live without moral virtue, as saying a Lion can hunt and kill but can switch off and feed and care for its cubs, so in fact it knows without its morals its DNA gene will die and will give itself no reason to live there after, So same as humans in relation to war, Humans cant go to war for the sake of going to war, it has to be in good standing with their mind, even do it can be evil in times with gives rise to corruption, so where going into the the human relation of the world, so for the sake of it lets stay on current point,,,,,, Good morals can be subjected to vanity, greed, corruption, and evil. So True virtue has to be in order with war or other wise the whole point of war is obscene and reckless. Good virtue like saying,"im only going to war to defend my family and children", or "My brother signed up and so will i", these things will survive in the natural order of the world, War without good virtue is like saying,'im going to war for to kill all them children in the other nation and wipe out their food supply", Humans cant stand this action and intervene to apply good virtue by saying, 'im going to kill those men to save them children and defend their food for them to survive. So the balance is needed and order is restored. So Clausewitz is correct but too little simple to be accepted on one go and needed to be explained in that its not black and white but yet needed in relation to humans in war, its a tricky subject. SO Objectivism is dead but not gone in the world of war, for me it is but i understand both sides. My theory of War is none of these theory's, Clausewitz or Sun Tzu or any War Strategic general must be read in theory and only theory only and not fact, For these men have different life's, i mean all men have different understandings of war, on war, i believe in one Fact in Conflict, ~ 'No war is, never, was, or ever will be the same as the last, so no theory can be a set goal or fact in "Solving" war as in i have found the only solution of war in ever winning one. So My Theory is based on the works of Nature and the Surrounding Environment in accordance of survival, I look at war as a sport, the battle as the game and the solider as the athlete, Except in this game you can die, So The more the athlete is trained the more he can adapt, achieve and overcome. But in terms of generals bullets or bombs can cause serous damage, but as i believe bullets and so on cant hit something that is forever changing and changing, cant be hit. Today, War is based on numbers, The Theory of Replenishment, Kill as many enemy faster then he recruits, Body-counts. Witch is simple as giving a fat kid Chocolate cake and timing him on a stop watch. Always causes more havoc then it solves. TRUE VICTORY IN WAR IS WINNING THE ENEMY WITHOUT EVER ENGAGING HIM, i believe. master that, you mastered war.
Michael McCann I have to hand it to you that truly is war, did you write this or did you get this from a book? If so can you please tell me which book?
Im Royalty... your point?
We are back to state to state conflicts at 2024
Taliban & Viet-cong didn't have to read Clauswitz to beat the Exceptional Clauswitzians. 🤣
They do read those books
@@Polit_Burrosomeone in Vietnam especially the higher officers probably read some of Clausewitz.
"There are still some principles [in Clausewitz] that apply to our business today."
"business"
He said the quiet part out loud.
in Germany you'll Royal from merit, operational readiness, ideal and welfare
...the difference, you was born as Royal ... to deserve ;)
Who's this von clauseeitz?
He was German military and philosopher that died in XIX century.
this documentary misconceptions
on clausewitz.
and ?
This is during the Napoleon Era.
They give HISTORY classes for officers at West Point. I already know enough on what happened.
Did they have to write something on what war is about? My paper or book would be no where near the others in class.
🙏🙏🙏
No support from the people you will run out of time and it has the same effect as if you run out of manpower. Especially in a democracy.
Americans never understand that war is politics with other means. They think it is something like a football game where it is about wining or loosing. But war needs a goal that can be achieved either by one way or another and that there is no point in gaining that goal by a higher price.
Christian Kunert you do understand that in terms of military intelligence and operations the United States is more advanced than any other civilization .
Clausewitz wrote using dialectic method, which means he began with an unsophisticated and undeveloped thesis (nothing but a duel on a large scale), progressed to a slightly less unsophisticated antithesis (merely policy by other means), and eventually concluded with the trinity - war is an interaction between violence unpredictability and rational calculation.
Christian Kunert I think most of americans know that war is more like business to them
"War is a racket" as a U.S Marine Corps Major General Smedley D. Butler stated
Or maybe americans nowadays became dull?
You obviously don't understand Americans. American military policy demonstrates a wisdom about warfare from its inception - shaped by a combination of European theory and technology and Native American guerilla tactics. It was first established by Washington and Marion, and was later defined by Grant, with a simple measure of success - unconditional surrender of the enemy. We have the social and economic means to field a military that can achieve and demand that without slaughtering the enemy. Part of our theory is our identity - the good guys, with principles of non-aggression, and respect for human life. Americans will pound you into oblivion if you fight them. But if you surrender, you will not just be shown mercy - you will be shown respect for your dignity as a human being, as a people with rights to your territory, and your defeat will not result in killing or in annexation. We are much better off with you living and doing your thing and being prosperous, and we have nothing to gain to compromise our principles by wiping you out or taking your land. Let me note this strategy has never been executed perfectly, nor do we always live up to our ideals even at the theater level of warfare. Clausewitz was an experienced man - in a crowded continent with a well-recorded military tradition that was shaped around cultural values, and knew nothing of wearing camouflage, stalking the enemy, and targeting officers in attacks. Americans are much more aggressive because they are much more humane - we cannot accept that killing is part of the regular order, some extension of politics or diplomacy. Officers may have been inducted into that way of thinking in their training schools, but enlisted fighters know the savagery of the battlefield, the extraordinary necessity of a warrior, and the evil and danger of casual warfare. Clausewitz is an infiltration assault of the flawed European way of thinking on American military theory.
That's fair to say about the people I guess but the government clearly understand the concept of limited war considering its been involved constantly at war since ww2 and it never precipitated total war with the Soviet union or China
Many view Sun Tzu and Clausewitz with the greatest adulation. But I began to think, would you keep detailed comprehensible records of your military secrets if you were a really shrewd strategist? How many great commanders with plenty of laurels fighting on the battlefields throughout history came out with acclaimed books? Think Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan..
Well, if you read Clauzewitz's chapter on Military Genius, you would understand that just because you are a good theorists, thinking about various principles and attrributes of war an how they interact with each other, and having coup 'd oiel and being able to think on the fly are two different sets of skills.
I mean not so much the ability, but the deliberation and motivation behind. Which military genius fighting on the battlefield wanted others to read his mind by recording his thoughts in a comprehensible way? :)
Yi Jiun Any one that was giving orders to his subordinates. Making one's orders clear and understandable is a battlefield skill. By the way, if the commander and his subordinates are familiar with the same theories, mutual understanding is easier. War is a team endeavor.
Battlefield orders aside, several military geniuses have published books off the battlefield. Rommel - Infantry Attacks, Patton - War as I knew it, Napoleon - Military Maxims and his memoirs, Heinz Guderian - Panzer Leader, and Liddell Hart edited a book which contains essays from various German Generals some of whom were considered military Geniuses - German Generals Talk
Mark Stuber What if they fall into enemy hands? I believe a shrewd general would never write so comprehensively his theories and strategies in the midst of battles. For this reason, ancient Chinese dynasties used to ban the propagation of Sun Tzu's work for fear of "encouraging" insurgencies and coups.
Yi Jiun
The answers are quite simple but are various. It can be "reports from the front" that the ennemy won't read (eg Caesar's "Commentarii de Bello Gallico "), it can be for educationnal use with a limited public, later more widely published (see below Clausewitz), it can be for historical purpose, after the facts, so there are no usable secrets (Patton, Chruchil, etc.), it can be for propaganda (Caesar, Alexander the Great : see below)
Sun Tzus's case is not clear : we don't even know if he really existed. So we can't tell if it's book was destined to be published or not, when, for whom, by whom, etc.
For Clausewitz, it's much clearer : he wrote "On War" at the end of his life, at the same time as he was active in military operations in Poland and a teatcher at the War Academy of Berlin. It was not supposed to be published. It was published some years after his death by his widow.
As for Alexander the Great, a lot of people wrote about his campaigns and strategies (including soldiers and an official historian) during his time. All these texts are now losts and are know by second hand historians (some very close to the period) basing their work on these original texts. Depending on the texts, it has different purpose as listed above (propaganda, reports home, historical, etc.).
@LibranEsq lol wut?
and ??? now ? *-*''
LOL Empire's failing. Now what?
Fiction and frog are inevitable...
The princess and the frog is the best work on friction
you never be was were a soldier ;D
They let Clausewitz study in France as a POW.
Im pissed about this because this is when Prussia lost the Knights Cross. Im not a nazi but that was a HIGH AWARD.
Whatever I would rather serve with Great Britain but still. Germany wtf?
Sun tzu warfare
Unless you're dealing with an enemy of inferior means and capabilities... How does direct warfare work in the nuclear age? Seems that Sun Tzu's method of indirect warfare wins out in our day and age.
it's not war if it's indirect. going by foot is not indirect driving. starving is not indirect eating. words have meanings. war is war. posturing is posturing and politics is politics. none of them are indirect warfare.
I'm a Brazilian and I live in Brazil. Islâmics are using Sun Tzu's ideas, since Islam was founded. And they are conquering Europe, without any battle.
If you can’t even get his name right!!!
Jesus Christ
jeez this guy would put you to sleep, should really work on diction. no doubt a clever man but his voice is so monotonous. stop, accentuate, breathe, emphasise, don't just tick over like a well running engine, that audience is as animated as a fryed egg. was this in the days prior to mobile phones? I would be praying for someone to ring me.
your prose is sleep-inducing
yawn, read clausewitz cause this guy is a bore