Vom Krieg

[SwordsMaster]

Hey all,

I am beginning to pick some books for the summer months, and I have, for a long time now been considering "On War" by Clausewitz. But its volume, intricate language and, frankly, hardly entertaining nature, have kept me away from it. Until now.

Since I know some of you have read it, my question is, if one had limited time, which would be the most easily understandable translation, since, unfortunately my german is nowhere good enough to read the original, and which parts of the book are crucial to its understanding, and which others are merely illustrating the main points and filling up romantic details.

Danke

EDIT: Go figure, just noticed I misspelled the title of the thread... Could some benevolent mod change that to "Vom Kriege"? Thanks

[R'as al Ghul]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_War

[SwordsMaster]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_War

Fantastic! Thanks!

[Franconicus]

Do not put too much hope in the translation. I have the German original and my German is rather fine. Nevertheless it isn't easy to read.

Good luck, anyway! Maybe reading this book will make the Spanish Empire stronger and Hitler win the war

[I of the Storm]

I tried reading that book a couple of years ago (I'm german) but gave up after a while on account of the language being incredibly dull. So I'd say even if you'd find a proper english translation it would still be dull.

[SwordsMaster]

Do not put too much hope in the translation. I have the German original and my German is rather fine. Nevertheless it isn't easy to read.

Good luck, anyway! Maybe reading this book will make the Spanish Empire stronger and Hitler win the war

Thanks! It will definitely help with my war-winning strategies!

As of it being boring, I assume it will be, but I hope to be able to push through it...

[I of the Storm]

Good luck, then.

[SwordsMaster]

Good luck, then.

Danke

[Franconicus]

Maybe you can write an intriguing summary?

[Watchman]

"War: don't go at it half-assed and without a good reason" ?

[SwordsMaster]

Maybe you can write an intriguing summary?

Actually, I found this an interesting paragraph:

We have already said that the aim of the action in war is to disarm the enemy, and we shall now show that this in theoretical conception at least is necessary.
If our opponent is to be made to comply with our will, we must place him in a situation which is more oppressive to him than the sacrifice which we demand; but the disadvantages of this position must naturally not be of a transitory nature, at least in appearance, otherwise the enemy, instead of yielding, will hold out, in the prospect of a change for the better. Every change in this position which is produced by a continuation of the war, should therefore be a change for the worse, at least, in idea. The worst position in which a belligerent can be placed is that of being completely disarmed. If, therefore, the enemy is to be reduced to submission by an act of war, he must either be positively disarmed or placed in such a position that he is threatened with it according to probability. From this it follows that the disarming or overthrow of the enemy, whichever we call it, must always be the aim of warfare. Now war is always the shock of two hostile bodies in collision, not the action of a living power upon an inanimate mass, because an absolute state of endurance would not be making war; therefore what we have just said as to the aim of action in war applies to both parties. Here then is another case of reciprocal action. As long as the enemy is not defeated, I have to apprehend that he may defeat me, then I shall be no longer my own master, but he will dictate the law to me as I did to him.

[Kagemusha]

I have the Finnish translation of it. I think it has great wiews of the general aspects.Altough some tactical issues are pretty much Napoleonic,as the author lived during that time.

[Watchman]

Given that Sun Tzu speaks of captured chariots at few points... But it's not because of such context-specific practical details why these books are classics, is it ?

[Kagemusha]

Given that Sun Tzu speaks of captured chariots at few points... But it's not because of such context-specific practical details why these books are classics, is it ?

Nope its not.

[Vladimir]

Wow. Now I know what people meant when they called it difficult read.

[Watchman]

German is a language well suited for building up seriously run-on sentences, and I understand during the 1800s and thereabouts it was regarded as virtually de rigeur for "highbrow" texts to have them spill over at least one page. That particular brand of eloquence is AFAIK a considerable additional hurdle for most people delving into the writings of the major German-speaking thinkers of the period. Von Clausewitz seems to be from the light and easy end.

[I of the Storm]

In case you are referring to the philosophers of that time you're right. Compared to them he's rather light reading, since they usually commit barbarous and cruel acts to the reader by writing either page-long sentences or having three lines of sentence and 65 lines of note on one page.
These are books to choke to death on.

[SwordsMaster]

In case you are referring to the philosophers of that time you're right. Compared to them he's rather light reading, since they usually commit barbarous and cruel acts to the reader by writing either page-long sentences or having three lines of sentence and 65 lines of note on one page.
These are books to choke to death on.

Too true. I attempted to tackle some Nietzsche a few years back, but had to admit defeat, even in the translated version, the sentences were so long and convoluted, it was hardly possible to make any sense of them at all...