Talk:Carl von Clausewitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).Add comments
Supported by WikiProject Prussia.
Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Some collected notes

I am no expert in this topic but the section 'Principal Ideas' does not include any of von Clausewitz ideas, it justs talks about the controversy of his dialectical method. The article Total War could be one of his 'Principal Ideas'.odros

Shouldn't his name be spelled Karl? Enchanter

No. It's definitely Carl. (Google for "vom Kriege")

-- See http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/FAQs.html#Name

If this is the case shouldn't we rename the article. The tile is Karl but Carl is used with in it. Is there any objection to changing the name of this article to 'Carl von Clausewitz'? tpower 09:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Should there be a note that the penguin edition of On War is severely abridged? (I.E. it lacks whole chapters...) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 00:19, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)

"His Father was a Prussian Officer" -- Do we need to anglicize some capitalization here?? (Specifically, I don't know whether "Prussian Officer" is a specific term.)

I've changed the recommended edition of On War to the Paret translation. The Penguin edition previously cited is abridged and generally not seen as a well done translation. -- eakaplan

  • Lucky me then, as the Penguin Classics edition is the one I happen to have in my hand. GestaltG 21:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe this was recently vandalized and I reverted to a version that did not contain a line about prostituition... Im pretty new so I m not sure how to find out who did it or what steps should be taken but there you go...

Ghost175 18:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference re-added

A reference was removed without explanation. It has been re-added, as it was used to add content to the article on August 24. Per Wikipedia policy, a reference must be provided when information is "gleaned from an external souce." As that is the case here, to remove the reference would put the article in copyright violation. Uriah923 17:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The reference was again deleted without explanation. It has been re-added for reasons listed above. Uriah923 17:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Value of ON content and quality of reference

The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here. Uriah923 06:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The content was removed - it is not particularly clear why that material was useful in any case, and it certainly wasn't the focus of Clausewitz's book. --Goodoldpolonius2 12:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
The assertion you dubbed out HAD a source, but it was removed. Thus, the discussion I mentioned above. Also, as this topic is being discussed elsewhere, I think you should wait until a decision is reached before acting. Uriah923 15:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More?

Surely this barely constitutes an article as of yet? Only the barebones of fact are present. There is no breakdown of the book by structure, or any discussion of the controversy surrounding the incompleteness of the work. The article "On War" is not much deeper. Above all, reference to his historical legacy is totally absent. Surely Clausewitz can be charged with writing one of the most influential works in history? But the impact of On War is not even mentioned.

[edit] A Plan for Improving this Article

I have just now found this article and I am shocked at the brevity of it. I agree this article needs help. Such are the inequities of Wikipedia that the article for WNEP-TV, a minor television station in North-Central Pennsylvania is longer and more detailed than this article on the West's premier military philosopher, Carl von Clauswitz! It goes to show that people write extensively about subjects they know about, and that most people don't know a lot about many subjects. I have a copy of On War handy (and other military books) and will undertake to expand this article as follows:

  • Expand the biographical information. Missing is his capture at Jena, his service in the Russian Army, and most salient, that he was never a field commander, but only ever a staff officer, though he did later have a command during peace.
  • Insert section for his "ten principles of war" as taught by the U.S. military academies, derived from his works.
  • On War was published posthumanously and was not complete, the last book was only a sketch. Also published posthumanously is his other forgotten work, On Politics.
  • Failure to really mention the post nuclear neo-Clauswitzen movement, by Harry Summers (an article I wrote) and Herman Khan.

What little I know of this subject is already enough to double the length and depth of this article. I will work on my expansions over the next week or so. GestaltG 16:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

-- Seems a good idea, however, I'd suggest not to talk in depth about the "ten principles of war". They might be of clausewitzian inspiration, or so somme may think, but are not in themselves clausewitzian. There is only one clausewitzian principle of war: that all principles are of little value.

    • Ok, I've started the process of expanding this article, I have added a section and rewritten and expanded the bio section. That's likely all I can do for today, so please be patient as I work my way down the page; unless you have itchy fingers and feel like editing. :-) GestaltG 21:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Distinguishing Military Philosophers from Military Systems" is not to the Point

Too much about Napoleon in an Article about Clausewitz!

Section "Distinguishing Military Philosophers from Military Systems":

1.Paragraph: Cut it out comletely!
It belongs to the Napoleon Article.

2.Paragraph: It belongs to a different section
New Heading:"Other Military Philosophers"

3.Paragraph: Belongs to the top!

4.Paragraph: New Heading:"Clausewitz' Rival Jomini"

5.Paragraph: New Heading:"Comparision between Clausewitz and Sun Tzu"
Needs to be Rewritten.

Summary: To much words written for a simple distinguish(<-noun).
21:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Jan Girke jangirke@gmx.net

I also thought that section was a bit much about Napoleon - though perhaps it would be okay if it was trimmed a bit. Also, some parts of that section look non-NPOV. --Sam Francis

[edit] more recent influence

- he is often cited as one (somewhat unlikely) influence on the theory of tactical media (see Joanne Richardson Sarai Reader 2003, p. 349- available online)

[edit] Clausewitz

Wasn't "Clausewitz" also the name of the orders to evacuate the Wehrmacht in April 1945? Is there an article about that?- JustPhil 01:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morale

I'm surprised that morale isn't mentioned at all in the article. It is one of the aspects of his military teaching which had the greatest and most immediate effect.

Others ideas such as the dual nature of war should be mentioned too. While he talked about absolute war and escalation he was not a proponent of it. On War mentions "limited war" and in fact the aim of the war is treated as important within the text. On War has been misread historically at different times. I'm re-reading it at the moment and I'll try and expand on these ideas. Ronank 00:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "To secure peace is to prepare for war"

This quotation is widely cited in many websites as coming from him, but cannot be found in his book "On War". --Koramil 16:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably because the saying is better known in its Latin form, "si vis pacem, para bellum," which is attributed to Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, who wrote around 390 A.D. De Re Militari, the most famous work in this field before Clausewitz. Near the end of the preface to Book III he actually says, "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." He does not make much of this statement, so it might originate from one of his declared sources, or even have been a received opinion of his time. See www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/home/war/vegetius/dere06.php for John Clarke's 1767 translation and www.thelatinlibrary.com/vegetius3.html for the Latin original. NRPanikker 03:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "War is a continuation of politics by other means."

This quote is misleading. Clausewitz spends an entire chapter debunking this claim, and explaining how war is a "fascinating trinity" of (1) primordial violence, hatred, and enmity; (2) the play of chance and probability; and (3) war's element of subordination to rational policy. 82.133.164.82 02:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

    • You could be right, if only because "politics" should read "policy". Here I refer to book 1, chap. 1, section 24 title (in German: Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln, which is Clausewitz' well-known sythesis/conclusion of the nature of war). The German word Politik can be translated roughly as either politics or policy. However, the English translations I've seen (including my Paret edition as well as the edition that is linked in the article) use the word "policy." Although it does make sense somehow to say, war is a continuation of politics by other means, it is, technically speaking, a misquote. The fact that the referenced films Crimson Tide and Cross of Iron have also misquoted doesn't make it right. I wonder if there are any English translations out there, which use the word "politics." -- Eazycompany 14:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)eazycompany
    • The “wunderliche dreifaltigkeit” of calculation, hatred and chance applies as much to an ordinary mugging or burglary or to competitive sport as to any military adventure of a Kaiser or Kissinger. However, I doubt whether business schools yet teach that crime is “business carried on by other means” in the way that the “professional foul” is extolled by football writers. NRPanikker 17:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have always understood that "War is a continuation of politics by other means." is an erroneous translation. To the best of my knowledge, the original German text is: "Der Krieg ist eine Fortsetzung der Politik mit Einmischung anderer Mittel." The English translation would then be: "War is a continuation of politics with the addition (litt. mixing in) of other means." The difference is significant, because it recognises that war does not replace politics entirely, but it is merely an extension of the political process. To be honest, I feel this is a much more important issue than the policy/politics debate. It is true (and this is probably why the issue arose in the first place) that the word "politics" these days is often used as a pejorative, where the user probably means "party politics". The sense in which Clausewitz used the word "Politik" is more likely to be closer to the original, which is derived from the Greek, where it simply denotes "the business of the polis (i.e. the state)". This is not the same as "policy" in English and the sense in which the word "politics" was used before it became encumbered with the negative connotation of "party politics" is in my view the correct one.

--Recoloniser 01:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I looked it up. The original German is:

Wir behaupten dagegen, der Krieg ist nichts als eine Fortsetzung des politischen Verkehrs mit Einmischung anderer Mittel.

This would translate as:

We contend, however, that war is nothing more than a continuation of political intercourse with the mixing in of other means.

The reference is: Vom Kriege, Book 8, Chapter 6B from a German website ([1]) which claims to reproduce the original text of 1832-34. So there it is. Of course, if you want to know what he meant, you'll have to read the book ...
--Recoloniser 02:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some changes to the family and his childhood

I added in his correct information for Carl's birthday, his family info. and his father's career. Xelnanga 00:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vom Krieg was never finished.

In the article, it states that "On War" was finished. This is not true. Clausewitz completed the rough draft of all the chapters, but instead of publishing them, he rewrote the entire book. However, he never finished the last two parts of the book due to his death. His wife published them after compiling his essays and works.

Just reading from the texts of what the last two chapters contain his conclusions and his belief in war.

Xelnanga 17:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] clausewitz is born in the july

http://www.carlvonclausewitz.de/biographie.php

[edit] Notable Quotes Section

Every quote has a critical comment next to it. If these quotes aren't attributable to Clausewitz, why are they there? Delete the section or put in actual quotes.

[edit] Page numbers

I'm having a devil of a time tracking down some Clausewitz quotes. My source is The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman. Tuchman says (p 39) that among Clausewitz' objectives of war is that of "gaining great victories and possession of the enemy's capital." Guns gives the cite for (from the 3-volume Graham translation) as Clausewitz III, 209-10. This apparently doesn't correspond to the online versions of Graham (for example http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_War or http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/VomKriege2/ONWARTOC2.HTML ).

Can anybody give me a cite for any online English translation of this quote?
Is there any rule of thumb for converting page numbers of one translation of Clausewitz to another?

Thanks. -- 201.53.4.206 10:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Influence on Marxism and Communist Parties

There are evidence that Carl von Clausewitz exerts a wide influence on Marxists right from Karl Marx. The classical Marxist/Communist thinking of "war as a tool of politics" has its origin from Clausewitz. Marx, Engels, and Lenin were all avid adopters of primciples from Clausewitz's On War and Mao Zedong uses it as an essential tool of him. (The Conduct of War from J. F. C Fuller quoted Clausewitz and Soviet Strategy by Byron Dexter on Marxists' link with Clausewitz) Although there are later attempts to downplay Clausewitz's influences on Marx and Engels, the rebuttals seem to lack in concrete evidence. Can anyone add this bit to the main article? --JNZ (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural References

Does anyone agree that we should scrap the entire "cultural references" section? Clausewitz has had such a profound cultural impact that it is analogous to having "cultural references" section in entries for Shakespeare or Plato (ok, I am exagerrating here somewhat but you get the point).

--Fmarkham (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)