¶ … Clausewitz and World War I
The role of various theories and concepts in the First World War has been an issue of considerable concern that has attracted various studies in attempts to understand their influence in the various battles related to the war. In addition to the various concepts behind the war, Clausewitz theories of war have come under increased scrutiny with regards to their influence on World War I. The scrutiny has led to assertions that the protracted and bloody stalemate of the First World War was largely because of the decision by the then leaders to stubbornly rely on the theories of Clausewitz. These assertions have generated various arguments and counter-arguments based on an overall outlook and analysis of the actual causes of World War I. Proponents of this idea continue to assert that these theories largely influence military strategies while opponents state that the theories had very minimal impact on the bloody stalemate.
Clausewitz's during the First World War
Carl von Clausewitz was a Prussian soldier and intellectual who came from a middle-class social background and acted as a practical field soldier. Clausewitz's involvement as a practical field is evident in his widespread combat experience against Revolutionary and Napoleonic France armies.
His fame is largely attributed to the significance and impact of his book regarding the theory of warfare and strategy despite the varying interpretations and misinterpretations associated with the book. Clausewitz's theories of warfare and strategy have attracted considerable interest from scientists, historians, political analysts, military strategists, and business thinkers. Actually, most of the discussions of military strategy have always involved analyzing Clausewitz theories of warfare and strategy.
While various sophisticated military thinkers during the World War I continued to discuss Clausewitz's theories, they relatively had minimal time for theoretical meditation.
Arguments Regarding Clausewitz's Influence
As previously mentioned, the theories of Clausewitz have been considered as one of the most influential factors in the World War One with regards to their role in the protracted battle and bloody stalemate. While there have been several assertions to demonstrate that these theories were largely influential in the war, there have been counter-arguments to show otherwise. One of these counter-arguments is the fact military strategists during this war had little theoretical meditation, which implies that the theories did not have any influence on the war. Actually, the interpretation of Clausewitz theories has been very difficult because of the dialectical approach he utilized and the many contradictions.
Secondly, the influence of Clausewitz's theories on World War One has been rejected on the premise that the battle contributed to the virtual eclipse of Jomini. Actually, Clausewitz purposely rejected to develop a strategic jargon in a manner that makes Jomini's impact an easy thing to detect. Third, the influence of Clausewitz's theories has been opposed on the basis that it is chronologically ridiculous to propose that he can help interpret the war since he died 73 years before the beginning of the conflict.
Fifth, the opponents have argued that these theories are irrelevant because Clausewitz's main theoretical insights do not have any interpretive strength in relation to the war. They also state that World War I did not have any strategic ideas or concepts on both sides of the frontlines of the battlefield.
One of the concepts of Clausewitz's theories of warfare and strategy is that there is a link between war and politics. He argued that war is basically an extension of politics, which implies that every act of violence must have political objectives.
Clausewitz's stated that war can never be separated from politics and the military must remain secondary to political authorities.
However, opponents argue that politics did not play any role in the conduct of World War I in a way that is worth mentioning. These opponents state that the war was largely a gruesome cultural anomaly. In some situations opponents of Clausewitz's claims have argued that the origins of the war were mysterious and cannot be attributed to political objective or military subordination to political objectives.
Counter-arguments in Support of Clausewitz's Influence
The argument that military strategists had no theoretical meditation to an extent that Clausewitz's theories did not have any relationship with the war is wrong because there is evidence that the theories were adopted during the far. In his analysis, Liddell Hart examined the root cause of the bloody stalemate and concluded that the eventual responsibility for the battle was with Clausewitz. This is primarily because Clausewitz's wrongheaded theories or concepts about warfare and strategy had been passionately adopted by European armies.
For instance, the failure of the German army in the war could be directly attributed to the army's close following of the theories Clausewitz. Therefore, it would be better to assume that Europe would have probably not engaged in the First World War if Clausewitz did not introduce his theories of warfare and strategy.
The argument that Clausewitz theories of warfare and strategy did not play...
Introduction Major wars have almost always resulted in nations and enemies trying to come up with new strategies and weapons to perform even better next time. This phenomenon has made it interesting to try and predict how future wars will be fought. Many military and conflict scholars have written theories that have attempted to predict how future wars will be fought. Perhaps the most renowned among them is Carl von Clausewitz.
Such developments were the product of new types of social organization brought about by the late industrial age. High commands developed new types of organization as individual commanders became less of a factor and teams of staff became more important working together. While still informal, good staff work became more and more important in and of itself. As Hagerman points out, it was not really von Clausewitz, but Henri Jomini
S. involvement in World War II. Is it possible to have a general theory of war? Perhaps the most well-known "theory" of war is articulated in Matthew 24:6: "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars. . . . Such things must happen" (New International Version 1984). Therefore, although it is possible to have a general theory of war, any such theory will be limited in its ability to explain the
On War, Statecraft and Sustainability As Clark (2008) points out, sustainability has been defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development as the capability of meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 3). Sustainability is related to the need recognized by nations to conserve finite resources so that they are not depleted for the next generation. Intertwined with
As it has been said by David Chandler, "the airy Kantian generalization of Clausewitz has held on for quite some time now." Another reason can be the fact that in a world that seems to have freed itself from the fundamental ideological conflicts and in a period in which there are some who seriously think and hope that the history has come to an end, the strife-driven world view
Developments in Air Doctrine from 1903 to the End of World War IIAir doctrine is essentially an innovation of the 20th Century whose origin can be traced back to 1903 when the Wright brothers flew the first airplane (Bakshi, 1999). However, the first fledging use of air power occurred during World War I between 1914 and 1918 where airplanes were initially employed for scouting, artillery detection, and reconnaissance. This was
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now