Which Theorist Best Characterizes The Nature Of World War

Complete this notes outline as you review the material throughout the course. You will submit this completed outline to 4.04 Unit 4 Notes Dropbox.

The concept of war as a static and unchanging occurrence is an outdated and dangerous miscalculation. More accurately, war is a fluidic, evolving and shifting phenomenon constantly reinventing itself, rendering stagnant, inflexible principles potentially disastrous. Consequently, as students of war and future players in this transforming theatre, the study of eras of significant development is an extremely relevant pursuit. Recognizing the need for adaptation and the creation of doctrine is now a prerequisite for any effective modern commander. War is unpredictable in nature and particularly so in current theatres of operation, in which change is rapid

Much confusion has arisen from misinterpretation of Clausewitz’s discussions on Schwerpunkt or “center of gravity”. Many students of military theory interpret Clausewitz’s ideas through their own historical perspectives. For example, military officers tend to confuse military objectives for centers of gravity, assuming physical objects such as ships or cities are the source of a countries power. While these objects may provide tactical advantages, true power arises from the critical strengths possessed by a country, be they political, diplomatic, military, or informational. The Argentinean military junta made similar mistakes during their invasion of the Falklands. Without fully understanding the source of British power in the region,

In the year of 1792, a twelve year old boy named Carl von Clausewitz enlisted in the Prussian army for war, and soon after appearing in such battles as Jena-Auerstädt and Waterloo, became dedicated in conflict and its reasons for their results most of his life. By being alive at the same time as Napoleon's rise and fall, Carl von Clausewitz was able to document and relate how war was fought, won, and lost. It's important to comprehend that in his writings, he is relaying why it is pertinent to think about how war is fought, not how to win a war. Clausewitz' theories described in “On War,” are not only effective in wars fought in today's time and past, but will remain current in future endeavors, due to its generic layout of

When analyzing any sort of book, it is best for the reader to have a basic summary and understanding of the books arguments and evidence in order to understand further arguments made about said book. It is important to note at the beginning of this paper that Fussell fought in the Second World War, something he does not mention until the end of his book. Fussell also states that as wounded ex-infantry officer, who is fascinated and at times obsessed with his own experience in Europe during the Second World War, he related his circumstances to those that he wrote about who participated in the First World War. It is important to keep in mind because it may influence how Fussell wrote his book and the reader should be aware of this fact while reading this analysis of his work.

In the study of military history, historians at times use what is known as the “fog of war” technique with expectations of keeping away from the historians’ fallacy. In this approach, the actions and choices of the historical subject are assessed primarily on the premise of what that individual knew at that time and not on future developments that the individual could not have known. Fischer’s approach is a scientific-like “what and how” only approach and rarely fields the question of “why.” Fischer states that the “why” deals with the metaphysical issues that bring no definitive results. Fischer’s work shows that historiography can only be taken seriously if it is practiced according to strictly empirical procedures and can only be done by asking the correct questions and answering them according to the strict methodology of “historical logic.” The historian’s task is to solve problems, to ask appropriate questions and to seek answers by researching the information based on archival and other methods of research. Interpretation is inevitable, but the interpretation should conform to the

This essay will examine all nine readings. There will also be insight given to why the United States entered World War I, and whether or not the reasons were persuasive. Other things will also be discussed, including: what America’s war aims were, and how Wilson’s goals were unrealistic, misleading, overly idealistic and moralistic. The fact that Wilson expected too much of international law and international organization. Also, why Wilson’s goals were not achieved. That the national interest is what should guide American diplomacy. There was also a lot of questions of loyalty and civil liberties that were raised by the war.

Although, their conclusions can still be questioned, they have applied intensive and through analysis to their material, widening their subjects and have given legitimate reasoning for their views. While Brown has proven how terms such as War Hawks can be misleading, Horsman has provided enough evidence to prove that the War Hawks did exist and has successfully defined the term War Hawk with greater accuracy than other historians. Both the essays exhibit how historians should be aware of the material they use and careful about their generalizations when explaining such broad

Barbara Tuchman's Pulitzer prize-winning book about the start of World War I is a fascinating and detailed work that delivers the thoughts and actions of the belligerents and their previously mysterious leaders to life on every page. This military history of the first month of the war is written in a way as to keep the reader interested because of the great detail. The author also manages to write about the events in such a manor as the reader sees them as they happened. Despite any previous knowledge about the historical events of the war, the book manages to keep you wondering if the Germans will succeed in its aims.

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.

To developed the war theory, Clausewitz used the Dialectic approach, which is a method of philosophical argument that involves contradictory process between opposing ideas to establish the truth, propounded by the German philosopher G W F Hegel. His “thesis” on war is an ‘absolute war." According to him total or absolute war carry out with the ‘utmost violence ' for unlimited aims, and there is no ‘logic limit’ to the application of available all power. On total war both warring fraction could not suspend their ‘military operation’ and ‘hostilities’ until one or other side finally defeated, or ‘fully discharge’ His "antithesis" is historical evidence and his own experience of war. By interaction between these thesis and antithesis, Clausewitz develops Synthesis (theory of war).

The influence of various theories and concepts on the conduct World War I has generated a range of studies in an attempt to understand how and why World War I was fought. Specifically, Clausewitz’s theories on warfare have come under a considerable amount of scrutiny with regards to their influence on World War I. This scrutiny has led to the ascertation that the protracted and bloody stalemate of World War I was largely due to a stubborn reliance on Clausewitz’s theories. The question that this paper attempts to address is weather the cause of the bloody and protracted

On War is not just a manuscript on of how to understand war; it also provides insight into what Clausewitz thought about the dynamics of human thinking. Similar to what Claxton outlined in Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind, Clausewitz believed that, “knowledge must be absorbed into the mind that it almost ceases to exist in a separate, objective way.” (Clausewitz, p147). In other words, Clausewitz believed knowledge

Gutmann, M. P. ( 1988). The Origins of the Thirty Years' War. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the editors of The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 749-770.