Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T15:09:09.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The womb of war: Clausewitz and international politics*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Hugh Smith
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The student of international relations seeks from Clausewitz not a theory of politics but an analysis of war. For some 150 years those who have sought to understand war have turned to Clausewitz—to find inspiration or to condemn him, to borrow or to steal from him, to quote or to misquote him. He has been called upon to support particular wars and strategies, to take sides in the Cold War and to throw light on nuclear deterrence. He has been both venerated and vilified, and frequently misunderstood. Few have ignored him altogether.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , January 1990 , pp. 39 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The edition used here is the one edited and translated by Howard, Michael and Paret, Peter (Princeton, 1976)Google Scholar. Page references to this edition are in brackets in the text. Citations in German are taken from Clausewitz, Carl von, Vom Kriege, ed. Hahlweg, Werner (19th edn, Bonn, 1980)Google Scholar.

2 One of the most detailed analyses is Aron, Raymond, Penser la guerre, Clausewitz (henceforth Penser la guerre), 2 volumes (Paris, 1976)Google Scholar; both volumes are condensed in the translation by Booker, C. and Stone, N., Clausewitz: Philosopher of War (henceforth Philosopher of War) (London, 1983)Google Scholar. See also Howard, M., Clausewitz (Oxford, 1983)Google Scholar and Handel, M. I. (ed.), Clausewitz and Modern Strategy, (London, 1986)Google Scholar.

3 On seapower see Arndt, H.-J., ‘Clausewitz und der Einfluß der Seemacht’, in Wagemann, E. and Niemeyer, J. (eds.), Freiheit ohne Krieg? Beiträge zur Strategie-Diskussion der Gegenwart im Spiegel der Theorie von Carl von Clausewitz (henceforth Freiheit ohne Krieg?) (Bonn, 1980), pp. 215–217Google Scholar.

3 Creveld, Martin van, Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 68–71Google Scholar; Howard, , Clausewitz, pp. 101–103Google Scholar.

5 Handel, M. I., ‘Clausewitz in the Age of Technology’, in Handel, (ed.), Clausewitz and Modern StrategyGoogle Scholar; Howard, , Clausewitz, pp. 3–4Google Scholar.

6 See in particular Aron, Penser la guerre, Gallie, W. B., Philosophers of Peace and War (Cambridge, 1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ch. 3 and Reynolds, Charles, ‘Carl von Clausewitz and Strategic Theory’, British Journal of International Studies 4(1978)Google Scholar.

7 Paret, Peter, ‘Die Politischen Ansichten von Clausewitz’, in Wagemann, and Niemeyer, (eds.), Freiheit ohne Krieg?, p. 333Google Scholar.

8 The German word Politik can mean policy or politics; Clausewitz uses the term variously to mean either or both.

9 Reynolds, , ‘Clausewitz and Strategic Theory’, p. 189Google Scholar.

10 For a detailed study of Clausewitz's intellectual development, see Paret, Peter, Clausewitz and the State (Oxford, 1976)Google Scholar.

11 One of his earliest essays—written in French around 1805—examined the difficulties of putting together a successful coalition against France. ‘Considérations sur la manière de faire la guerre à la France’, in Hahlweg, W. (ed.), Carl von Clausewitz: Schriften-Aufsätze-Studien-Briefe (henceforth Schriften-Aufsätze), vol. 1 (Gottingen, 1966), pp. 58–63Google Scholar.

12 Paret, , Clausewitz and the State, p. 3Google Scholar.

13 Schmitt, C., ‘Clausewitz als politischer Denker, Bemerkungen und Hinweise’, in Dill, G. (ed.). Clausewitz in Perspektive (Frankfurt/Main, 1980), p. 442Google Scholar.

14 See, for example, ‘Die Deutschen und die Franzosen’ (1807), in Rothfels, H. (ed.), Carl von Clausewitz: Politische Schriften und Briefe (henceforth Politische Schrifteri) (Munich, 1922), pp. 35–51Google Scholar.

15 Rothfels, Hans, Carl von Clausewitz: Politik und Krieg (henceforth Politik und Krieg) (Berlin, 1920; reprinted Bonn, 1980), p. 75Google Scholar.

16 ‘Umtriebe’ (1820–23), in Rothfels, (ed.), Schriften, Politische, p. 171Google Scholar; Paret, , Clausewitz and the State, p. 300Google Scholar.

17 ‘Bemerkungen und Einfälle’ (1807), in Rothfels, Politik und Krieg, p. 225Google Scholar.

18 Clausewitz approaches war in the same way. Actual war is to be understood by comparison with war in the abstract or ‘absolute war’ (581), an analytical concept which serves as a reference point for the analysis of war in the real world. Paret, P., ‘Die Politischen Ansichten von Clausewitz’, in Wagemann, and Niemeyer, (eds.), Freiheit ohne Krieg, p. 347Google Scholar.

19 Paret, P., ‘Education, Politics, and War in the Life of Clausewitz’, Journal of the History of Ideas (1968), p. 395Google Scholar. Paret argues that ‘Clausewitz's preoccupation with the possibilities of educating and improving the individual.. . became the source of his politics and theories’ (p. 395).

20 ‘Umtriebe’, in Rothfels, (ed.), Politische Schriften, p. 176Google Scholar. On the problems of interpreting this essay, see Paret, , Clausewitz and the State, pp. 298–306Google Scholar.

21 Weil, E., ‘Guerre et politique selon Clausewitz’, Revue Frangaise de Science Politique 5 (1955), p. 311Google Scholar. Clausewitz's interpretation of the French Revolution—by no means original but notably objective—focuses on the tension between classes and on the incompetent and wasteful administration of the government. ‘Urntriebe’ (1820–23), Rothfels, (ed.), Politische Schriften, p. 164Google Scholar.

22 ‘Umtriebe’ (1820–23), in Rothfels, (ed.), Politische Schriften, p. 176Google Scholar; translation from Ritter, G., The Sword and the Scepter, vol. I, The Prussian Tradition (Miami, 1969), p. 275Google Scholar, n. 65.

23 Letter of 12 November 1817, cited in Paret, , Clausewitz and the State, p. 262Google Scholar.

24 Ibid. p. 298. For a discussion of the merits of various arrangements, see Clausewitz, , ‘Nachrichten iiber Preußen in seiner Großen Katastrophe’ (1823–4), in Hahlweg, W. (ed.), Verstreute kleine Schriften (Osnabruck, 1979), pp. 305–309Google Scholar.

25 Paret, , Clausewitz and the State, pp. 138Google Scholar, 291.

26 ‘Umtriebe’, in Rothfeis, (ed.), Politische Schriften, p. 173Google Scholar.

27 Letter of 9 September 1824, cited in Ritter, , The Sword and the Scepter, I, p. 275Google Scholar, n. 65.

28 Historisch-Politische Aufzeichnungen’, in Rothfeis, (ed.), Politische Schriften, p. 4Google Scholar.

29 ‘Nachrichten über Preußen in seiner großen Katastrophe’, in Hahlweg, (ed.), Verstreute kleine Schriften, p. 320Google Scholar.

30 Gallie considers this concept of policy to be Clausewitz's ‘single brilliant insight’ into the nature of politics, Philosophers of Peace and War, p. 61Google Scholar; see also Schramm, W. von, ‘Clausewitz und die politische Philosophic’, Aussenpolitik 9 (1958), pp. 709–710Google Scholar.

31 ‘Historisch-Politische Aufzeichnungen’ (1803), in Rothfels, (ed.), Politische Schriften, p. 2Google Scholar.

32 Ibid. p. 3.

33 The difficult dilemma of the citizen who believes that his ruler is failing to follow the true interests of the state, however, is not one that Clausewitz chooses to examine, despite his own experience in leaving Prussian service in 1812. Such transfer of service was not an unusual practice for the time but it was a difficult decision for Clausewitz and prompted him to write a lengthy personal statement. ‘Bekenntnisdenkschrift’, in Rothfels, (ed.), Politische Schriften, pp. 80–119Google Scholar.

34 Strachan, H., European Armies and the Conduct of War (London, 1983), p. 97Google Scholar.

35 Scheuner, U., ‘Krieg als Mittel der Politik im Lichte des Völkerrechts’, in Wagemann, and Niemeyer, (eds.), Freiheit ohne Krieg?, p. 161Google Scholar.

36 Note dated 1807 in Rothfels, (ed.), Politische Schriften, pp. 63–64Google Scholar; see also Paret, , Clausewitz and the State, pp. 171–172Google Scholar.

37 Penser la guerre, p. 33Google Scholar.

38 All creations of society, including the great religions, Clausewitz wrote in 1807, carry within them the seeds of their own destruction. ‘Historisch-Politische Aufzeichnungen’, in Rothfels, (ed.), Politische Schriften, pp. 51–52Google Scholar.

39 On Coalitions’ (1803), in Rothfels, (ed.), Politische Schriften p. 3Google Scholar.

40 ‘Ueber die künftigen Kriegs-operationen Preußens gegen Frankreich’ (1807–1808), in Hahlweg, W. (ed.), Schriften-Aufsätze, p. 76Google Scholar.

41 ‘Considérations sur la maniére de faire la guerre a la France’, in Hahlweg, (ed.), Schriften-Aufsätze, p. 59Google Scholar.

42 Clausewitz uses the term republic of states (Staatenrepubtik) to refer to the totality of relations among the European powers. Aron notes that the term is reminiscent of Montesquieu and Voltaire. Philosopher of War, pp. 102–103Google Scholar.

43 ‘Bemerkungen und Einfälle’ (1807) in Rothfels, , Politik und Krieg, p. 227Google Scholar.

44 It will suffice here to note that the advantages of the defence include terrain, fortifications, support of the people, the possibility of surprise and the fact that the passage of time generally degrades the attack. It is on account of such factors that attacking states usually believe it advantageous to carry out their conquests as quickly as possible. On War, p. 598.

45 ‘Die Verhältnisse Europas seit der Teilung Polens’; (1831), in Rothfels, (ed.), Politische Schriften, p. 226Google Scholar.

46 Note c. 1804 in Rothfels, , Politik und Krieg, p. 201Google Scholar.

47 See also ‘Die Verhaltnisse Europas seit der Teilung Polens’, in Rothfels, (ed.), Politische Schriften, p. 222Google Scholar.

48 Rothfels, , Politik und Krieg, p. 73Google Scholar.

49 Holbraad, C., The Concert of Europe (London, 1970), p. 87Google Scholar.

50 Scarry, E., The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World (henceforth Body in Pain) (New York, 1985), p. 101Google Scholar.

51 Clausewitz's distinction between major wars fought to a decision and wars fought for minor advantages was not well developed until 1827 but it permeates much of his work. See the ‘Note of 10 July 1827'. On War, p. 69Google Scholar, and pp. 488, 501. See also ‘Gedanken zur Abwehr’ (1827), in Hahlweg, (ed.), Verstreute kleine Schriften, pp. 498Google Scholar. On War, pp. 87–88,Google Scholar 98–9.

52 Gallie, W. B., ‘Power Politics and War Cultures’, Review of International Studies 14 (1988), p. 22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Scarry, , Body in Pain, especially ch. 2Google Scholar.

54 Ibid. pp. 63ff.

55 Rothfels, H., ‘Clausewitz’ in Earle, E. M. (ed.), Makers of Modern Strategy (Princeton, 1943), p. 99Google Scholar.

56 See On War, Book VI, ch. 26; also Hahlweg, W., ‘Clausewitz and Guerrilla Warfare', in Handel, (ed.), Clausewitz and Modern StrategyCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Haffner, S., ‘Mao und Clausewitz’, in Dill, (ed.), Clausewitz in PerspektiveGoogle Scholar.

57 Rapoport, A. (ed.), Carl von Clausewitz: On War (Harmondsworth, 1968), p. 14Google Scholar. According to Rapoport, Clausewitz teaches that war should be rational, national and instrumental.

58 In Paris in 1815, for example, Clausewitz was appalled by those who wanted to exact their revenge on the French by acts such as the destruction of the Pont de lena; he considered such actions unnecessarily provocative towards the French people and government. von Schramm, W., Clausewitz: Leben und Werk (Esslingen, 1981), pp. 472–474Google Scholar.

59 Rapoport, , (ed.), Clausewitz: On War, p. 76Google Scholar. Emphasis in original.

60 Ibid. p. 411. Nor is this a new criticism of Clausewitz. In an introduction to the 1908 English translation of On War Colonel F. N. Maude expressed his belief that ‘it is to the spread of Clausewitz's ideas that the present state of more or less readiness for war of all European armies is due’ On War (trans. Graham, Colonel J. J.), 4th impression (London, 1940), p. ixGoogle Scholar.

61 Walzer, M., Just and Unjust Wars (London, 1978), p. 79Google Scholar.

62 Atkinson, A., Social Order and the General Theory of Strategy (London, 1981), p. 4Google Scholar.

63 Ibid. p. 2.

64 Ibid. p. 189.

65 For discussion of the relevance of Clausewitz in the nuclear age see, for example, Aron, Philosopher of War, esp. chs. 13–15; Moody, P. R. Jr., ‘Clausewitz and the Fading Dialectic of War’, World Politics 31 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nardulli, B. R., ‘Clausewitz and the Reorientation of Nuclear Strategy’, Journal of Strategic Studies 5 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Handel, (ed.), Clausewitz and Modern StrategyGoogle Scholar; Howard, , Clausewitz and The Causes of Wars (London, 1984)Google Scholar.