War Was Written Well Over Two Thousand Years Ago By Chinese Philosopher And Military General Sun Tzu

In his writing, he stated that war is intrinsically vast, communal (or political) and violent. It is an actual, widespread and deliberate armed conflict between political communities, motivated by a sharp disagreement over governance” (p.135)

This essay will explore the influences of Sun Tzu in the Second World War. Sun Tzu (544 – 496 BC) was a Chinese general and strategist in times of the Zhou dynasty. His techniques, even today are highly respected. The teachings of Sun Tzu were used not only in Asia and Europe but have also been applied today by the western society.

Bloch studied about war for approximately fourteen years before materializing his researches into the form of a book. Eventually, his study came out in 1899 but Bloch would never get the opportunity to observe his ideas being validated by the two world wars. An entrepreneur and a civilian writer, Jean de Bloch's theory of war has proven viable throughout the years precisely because it witnessed its actualization within the two world wars. His analysis on military strategies is all time relevant because it explores war from standout points that indeed remain constant no matter the circumstances or the time of its emergence.

MP1 One of the Carl Von Clausewitz’s central issues that describes war’s dynamic is the concept of “culminating point of victory.” Clausewitz advocated the idea that an offensive should be focused on the defender’s collapse, otherwise there is a “culminating point”, a momentum where the attacker loses his advantage for strategic victory. As he mentioned, “every attack which does not lead to peace must necessarily end up as a defense.” Military history has been enriched by battles of commanders with an overestimating self-confidence and high spirit who failed to identify this momentum. As a result, they lost the tactical advantage and they were defeated. Classical example in the World War II

War is a human endeavor. Humanity continually pursues solutions to counter evolving threats with the end of preserving power while also enabling peace. Civilizations resort to war to maintain their perception of this equilibrium. Defined threats and adversaries have changed throughout history, however, the essence of human nature and the base concept of conflict itself have not. Carl von Clausewitz’s theories on warfare capture the relationship between humanity and its application of war, remaining relevant in today’s era through their pensive explanations of timeless philosophical principles regarding the concept of war. These theories regarding war in politics, the key factors affecting war, and the extent that war is applied are inherently interconnected, providing insight on the relationships between humanity and its application of war.

War. A familiarity. An ambiguity. As a human, it is almost as if this three letter word has become synonymous with existence itself. From the earliest wars in the ancient world between the Sumerians and the Elamites, to the Crusades, to conflict between the Greeks and the Ottomans, to numerous civil wars, up until the disastrous wars of the modern world, it seems as if the temptation to raise a weapon against a perceived hostile force is one that humanity has never been able to resist.

Historical writings have evolved from procedural accounts of events to inquisitive reflections on combatants. Focusing on weapons, strategies and generals’ perspectives the procedural approach quickly provides in-depth information, but often in a distorted way 1. It is important to remember a commander’s actions and the events of their battles are often exaggerated to support current political goals . Alternately, a slightly more encompassing approach to warfare considers the conflict’s decisiveness in addition to the battle’s statistics and facts 1. That is to say, what influence did the battle have on future events and how were people’s lives changed by it. Beyond these procedural approaches, modern historians now use a more inquisitive method that combines personal experiences and facts. This more inclusive method allows

Nature of war which usually remains unchanged irrespective of changes in environment or war. Four elements of nature of war are; ‘greater political nature’, ‘human dimension’, ‘uncertainty’, and final one is ‘contest of wills.’ The trinity of war, Clausewitz 's famous theory, comprises three basic elements of warfare are ‘people; the second commander and his army; and the third the government, ' essential basis for successful military operations. He describes these three tendencies are must be balanced to

Today’s strategic environment, whether government or corporate, is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) often times characterized by “wicked problems” or unsolvable problems. Compiled during the early 19th century, Clausewitz’s manuscript “On War” arguably posited the same conclusion in relation to the strategic level of war. He described war as uncertain, unpredictable, and marked by chance. The more the scale moved from the tactical realm to the strategic realm, the more complex war became due to the aforementioned variables. Society today must contend with the impacts of globalization, which has led to significant changes in economic, social, and cultural norms. These changes have resulted in compressed timelines and reduced decision space. With so much information available, the risk of information overload has presented challenges to how individuals approach problem solving. As a result, society has become over reliant on what Guy Claxton defines as deliberate mode (d-mode), “a way of knowing that relies on reason and logic.” (Claxton, p2)

The comprehension of the term ‘total war’ has had great significance towards the understanding as to how wars are fought, affect society and differ from other conflicts. The main issue that arises is conclusively defining total war and is continually differing between both historians and military combatants alike. Roger Chickering defines states “total war is distinguished by its intensity and extent. Theatres of operation span the globe; the scale of the battle is practically limitless” all the while adding “total war requires the mobilisation not only of armed forced but also of whole populations” This definition, while not quintessential is a good starting point for a definition due to its broadness and acceptance of the idea of the incapability to fully mobilise a society’s entire resource. David A. Bell states that it is often defined as ‘a war involving the complete mobilization of a society’s resources to achieve the absolute destruction of an enemy, with all distinction erased between combatants and non-combatants’ . However, he notes the limitations of such an idea including the inability for societies to meet such criterion, in particular, the ability for a society to completely utilise its resources towards the war effort. Ultimately, Jeremey black, while not giving a conclusive definition for the term, total war, does acknowledge different definitions by various individuals distilling many of their arguments and consequently outlining main characteristics of

Throughout history humanity has constantly strived towards its own destruction through war and petty conflict. As times change so does warfare, years ago we used to fight with swords and spears, now combat and warfare has evolved to the point that it is not only useful for soldiers, but the common man as well. This new era has seen much development and among these developments is warfare, in this case corporate warfare. One man throughout the years has been teaching people, the art of war and his name is Sun Tzu.

“War is more than a true chameleon that slightly adapts its characteristics to the given case. In the totality of its phenomena, with respect to its dominant tendencies,

Sun Tzu understood the nature of war as “the province of life or death,” and a “matter of vital importance to the state.”1 I agree. In my own experience, war awakens your primordial instincts and strips you of your self-rationalizations. Sun Tzu defined the character of war when he wrote, “water has no constant form, there are in war no constant conditions.”2 Accordingly, Sun Tzu’s principals of war offer a framework adequate to explain the nature and character of 21st century warfare, which I rationalize as a near-continuous battle of ideologies fought through asymmetric means to advance the values and interests of state and non-state actors.

I have been recommended to read Sun Tzu’s ‘Art of War’ as it not only covers strategic aspects of only war but the main analogy of it could be applied to an individual’s way of living and how he/she deals with the things that are encountered in one’s daily life. Keeping that in mind, his

Throughout the ages of history, there were many wars that were fought. For every victory and defeat, what was it that really determined the outcome of the war? Which army leader had the better or worse battle plan? With the plan they had, did it increase their chances of victory? Were there key factors in an army leader’s plan that lead to their defeat? Or, was the best decision made to completely avoid war? For a lot of the wars that took place and the ones that were avoided many years ago, the mystery still remains unsolved on how and why certain army leaders were victorious or gained a certain advantage because of the choices they made. On the other hand, it is also unknown on how or why an army leader failed to a certain extent