Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:22:24.367Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clausewitz: A Bibliographical Survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2011

Peter Paret
Peter Paret
Affiliation:
University of California
Get access

Extract

The vitality of the social sciences in the United States has not prevented some of its most influential pioneers from becoming unread classics. A widespread preference for textbook treatment and up-to-theminute analysis plays its part; but if the reader does want to turn to the originals, he often finds that they are not readily available. Complete and scholarly editions of writers who pursued new directions of inquiry are rarer than might be supposed—even in their native language. The situation is particularly bad when it comes to foreign authors. A writer's theories and insights may be transmitted through one or two major works, while the rest of his output is ignored, so that his thoughts are analyzed in isolation, without benefit of the preliminary sketches, correspondence, and marginal studies that would give depth and suppleness to the interpretation. Until recently Rousseau and Tocqueville have been in this position; another case in point is Max Weber, ignorance of whose fertile theorizing has misled more than one commentator. Still another, and extreme, example of intellectual discontinuity is provided by Clausewitz. Much of his work has never been published; even in German most of it is out of print; little of it has ever been translated. The result has been the partial loss of a remarkable historical and theoretical achievement. To the American reader, in particular, Clausewitz rarely means more than the “philosopher of war,” a famous name associated with one or two clichés backed up by little of substance. Repeated attempts to outline Clausewitz's thought, or to present the “essential Clausewitz” in the form of excerpts, have never been of more than doubtful value, if only because his methodology and dialectic are scarcely less interesting than the conclusions they reach. It would be pointless to attempt the impossible once again. On the other hand, a brief survey of Clausewitz's writings and of the literature concerning him may provide a useful introduction to his theories and to the manner in which for the past 150 years they have influenced the study and the waging of war.

Type
Research Notes
Information
World Politics , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , January 1965 , pp. 272 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1965

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 A comprehensive bibliography of Clausewitz's writings and correspondence does not yet exist. Useful lists can be found in Carl von Clausewitz: Politische Schriften und Briefe, ed. Rothfels, Hans (Munich 1922), 246–47Google Scholar; and in Hard, Maria, Carl von Clausewitz: Persōnlichkeit und Stil (Emden 1957?), 105–7.Google Scholar

2 “Bemerkungen über die reine und angewandte Strategic des Herrn v. Bülow, oder Kritik der darin enthaltenden Ansichten,” Neue Bellona, IX, No. 3 (1805).Google Scholar

3 “Historische Briefe über die grossen Kriegs-Ereignisse im Oktober 1806,” Minerva, Vols. 1 and 11 (1807).Google Scholar

4 For instance, “Die preussischen Kriegsartikel,” Jenaische Allgemeine Literaturzeitung, October 11, 1808.

5 Der Feldzug von 1813 bis zum Waffenstillstand. Von einem Augenzeugen (Glatz 1813).Google Scholar

6 Hinterlassene Werke des Generals von Clausewitz über Krieg und Kriegsfükrung (Berlin 1832–1837).Google Scholar

7 “Über das Leben und den Charakter von Scharnhorst Aus dem Nachlasse des General Clausewitz,” Historisch-politische Zeitschrift, 1 (1832)Google Scholar; Nachrichten über Preussen in seiner grossen Katastrophe, No. 10 in Kriegsgeschichtliche Einzelschriften, published by the Historical Section of the Great General Staff (Berlin 1888)Google Scholar; Strategic aus dent Jahr 1804 mit Zusätzen von 1808 und 1809, ed. Kessel, Eberhard (Hamburg 1937).Google Scholar

8 Vom Kriege, ed. Bode, A. W. (Leipzig 1935).Google Scholar

9 Leben des Generals Carl von Clausewitz und der Frau Marie von Clausewitz (Berlin 1878).Google Scholar A larger selection of the essays with valuable notes is contained in the edition by Rothfels cited in note 1.

10 Karl und Marie von Clausewitz. Ein Lebensbild in Briefen und Tagebuchblättern, ed. Linnebach, Karl (Berlin 1916).Google Scholar Clausewitz correspondence can be found in such works as Pertz, Georg and Delbrück, Hans, Das Leben des Feldmarschalls Grafen Neithard von Gneisenau (Berlin 1864–1894)Google Scholar; Scharnhorsts Briefe, ed. Linnebach, Karl (Berlin 1914)Google Scholar; Gneisenau. Ein Leben in Briefen, ed. Griewank, Karl (Leipzig 1939)Google Scholar; Aus den Jahren Preussischer Not und Erneuerung, ed. Schoeps, Hans J. (Berlin 1963).Google Scholar

11 See, for instance, Hahlweg, Werner, “Clausewitz bei Liddell Hart,” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, XLI, No. 1 (1959)Google Scholar; as well as the descriptive auction catalogues Nos. 551 (1961) and 554 (1963) of the firm J. A. Stargardt, Marburg.

12 Carl von Clausewitz: Schriften—Aufsätze—Studien—Briefe, ed. Werner Hahlweg. The first volume of the work is expected to be published in the near future.

13 See, for instance, La Campagne de 1796 en Italic, translated by Colin, Captain J. (Paris 1899)Google Scholar; La Campagne de 1812 en Russie, translated by Begouen, Captain M. (Paris 1900)Google Scholar; La Campagne de 1815 en France, translated by Niessel, Captain M. (Paris 1900).Google Scholar

14 De la guerre, par le général de Clausewitz, translated by Neuens, Major (Paris, 1849–1851)Google Scholar; von Clausewitz, Carl, Théorie de la grande guerre, translated by de Vatry, Lt.-Col. E. (Paris 1886–1887, 1889)Google Scholar; von Clausewitz, Carl, De la guerre, ed. Rougeron, Camille (Paris 1955).Google Scholar

15 The many inaccuracies of the Graham-Maude translation have often been noted. See, for instance, the unsigned review in the Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, LII (1908), 584–85.Google Scholar

16 von Clausewitz, Carl, On War, translated by Jolles, O. J. Matthijs, with introductions by the translator, Joseph I. Greene, and Richard McKeon (New York 1943).Google Scholar The original Modern Library edition was republished unchanged by the Infantry Journal Press (Washington, D.C., 1950).

17 E.g., Carl von Clausewitz, General, On War, translated by Maguire, A. M. E., with notes by T. Miller Maguire (London 1909).Google Scholar The character of this edition is suggested by the translator's statement that “My father, T. M. Maguire, has helped me in various ways, principally by supplementing the original paragraphs with some remarks of his own, with which, as he says, Clausewitz would have agreed, had not that man of genius died in 1831” (p. xiii). More recent American compilations are those by Greene, Joseph I., The Living Thoughts of Clausewitz (Harrisburg 1943)Google Scholar; and von Clausewitz, Karl, War, Politics, and Power, ed. Collins, Edward M. (Chicago 1963).Google Scholar In a different and far more useful category is the little volume prepared by Gatzke, Hans, Carl von Clausewitz: Principles of War (Harrisburg 1942)Google Scholar, a translation of an outline that Clausewitz prepared in 1810 as part of his lectures on war to the Prussian crown prince, which is generally included as an appendix in editions of Vom Kriege.

18 von Klauzewitz, Karl, On War, translated by Woide, General K. (Moscow 1905).Google Scholar

19 This is being carried out under the auspices of the Center of International Studies, Princeton University.

20 Of the four university libraries (Princeton; University of California, Berkeley; University of California, Davis; Stanford) which the writer consulted in preparing this article, none owns a complete first edition of Clausewitz's Works.

21 A complete bibliography of books and articles concerning Clausewitz does not exist. A valuable list of titles has been assembled by Werner Hahlweg in his introduction and notes to the 16th edition of Vom Kriege (Bonn 1952).Google Scholar See also the same author's Carl von Clausewitz (Göttingen 1957)Google Scholar, and the work by Maria Hard cited in note 1.

22 Some facets of these misinterpretations are discussed in my paper, “Clausewitz and the 19th Century,” in The Theory and Practice of War: Essays in Honour of Basil Liddell Hart, ed. Michael Howard, to be published by Cassells later this year.

23 Jähns, Max, Geschichte der Kriegswissenschaften (Leipzig 1891), III, 2852–76Google Scholar; Delbrück, Hans, “General v. Clausewitz,” in Historische und politische Aufsätze (Berlin 1907)Google Scholar, and Geschichte der Kriegskunst (Berlin 1920), IV, 527–30.Google Scholar See also Delbrück's discussions of Niederwerfttngsstrategie and Ermattungsstrategie in the same work.

24 Among these, the greatest understanding for Clausewitz's theoretical approach and intentions was shown by von Caemmerer, General R., author of an excellent brief study, Clausewitz (Berlin 1905)Google Scholar, as well as of the important survey Die Entwicklung der strategischen Wissenschaften im 19ten Jahrhundert (Berlin 1904)Google Scholar, an English edition of which appeared under the title The Development of Strategical Science During the 19th Century (London 1905).Google Scholar More exclusively empirical in their approach than Caemmerer were such writers as von der Goltz, Colmar, Das Volk in Waffen (Berlin 1898)Google Scholar; and von Freytag-Loringhoven, Frhr., Die Macht der Persönlichkeit im Kriege (Berlin 1905)Google Scholar, and Kriegslehren nach Clausewitz (Berlin 1908).Google Scholar

25 de la Barre Duparcq, Nicholas, Commentaires sur le traité de la guerre de Clausewitz (Paris 1853).Google Scholar

26 See especially Georges Gilbert, “Etude sur Clausewitz,” Revue des Deux-Mondes, August 1 and 15, 1887, reprinted in Sept études militaires (Paris 1892)Google Scholar; Rocques, Paul, Le gönöral de Clausewitz (Paris-Nancy 1912).Google Scholar

27 Of all British writers, Henderson, Colonel G. F. R., without ever devoting a special study to Clausewitz, entered most fully into his thought. See Henderson's essays, posdiumously collected under the title The Science of War (London 1905)Google Scholar, and reprinted several times. See also Major Murray, Stewart L., The Reality of War: An Introduction to Clausewitz (London 1909).Google Scholar

28 Letter from Marx to Engels, October 31, 1857, in Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich, Werke (Berlin 1963), XXIX, 205Google Scholar; Engels to Marx, January 7, 1858, ibid., 251–52; Marx to Engels, January 11, 1858, ibid., 256. See also the references to Clausewitz in Vols. XIII, XIV, XVII, and XXI of the Werke.

29 See Lenin's excerpts from On War, together with his comments, “Vypiski i zamechaniya na knigu Klauzevitsa ‘o voina i vedenii voin’” [“Excerpts from and Comments on Clausewitz's Book ‘On War and the Conduct of Wars’”], in Leninsky Sbornik (Moscow 1931), XIII, 389–452.Google Scholar Excerpts from the so-called Tetradka have also been published separately; for example, Clausewitz Werk “Votn Kriege”: Auszäge und Randglossen (East Berlin 1957).Google Scholar A good summary of Clausewitz's influence in Russia between the Revolution and the Second World War is given by Garthoff, Raymond L., Soviet Military Doctrine (Glencoe 1953).Google Scholar However, Gardioff is misleading when he writes that Lenin read On War in “the incomplete manuscript of July 1827. Precisely how much was available to him is not certain…” (p. 54). Lenin read the Berne city library copy of the first edition, which contained On War in the state Clausewitz left it at his death. The greater part of the manuscript was completed in a first draft in April 1827. Clausewitz revised Book 1 by 1830. The remaining sections are in various stages of completeness, but no other versions exist in print. See Hahlweg, Werner, “Lenin und Clausewitz. Ein Beitrag zur politischen Ideengeschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts,” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, XXXVI (1954).Google Scholar A translation by the present writer of the article in somewhat changed form appeared under the title “Clausewitz, Lenin, and Communist Military Attitudes Today,” in the Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, CV (May 1960).Google Scholar

30 Lenin, V. I., Socialism and War (Moscow 1952), 21–22.Google Scholar

31 Stalin, J. V., letter of February 23, 1946Google Scholar, to Rasin, J. A.. The German text was published in Neue Welt, 11 (1947), 23.Google Scholar The Encyclopedia's description is contained in the article “War” by Chrustow, F. D., Bol'shaia sovetskaia entsiklopediia, 2nd edn., XXII (Moscow 1953).Google Scholar See also the article “Klauzewitz” in Vol. XXI of the same edition.

32 Rasin's lecture first appeared in April 1956. The following year it was published in German under the title W. I. Lenin: der Schöpfer der sowjetischen Militärwissenschaft (East Berlin 1957)Google Scholar; Clausewitz's influence on Lenin is discussed on pp. 33–39. Typical of many other favorable Communist interpretations of Clausewitz are Hennicke, Otto, Clausewitz: Bemerkungen zur Bedeutung seiner Kriegstheorie für seine und unsere Zeit (East Berlin 1957)Google Scholar; and Lapacz, Otto, Zur Überlegenheit der sowjetischen über die bürgerliche Militärwissenschaft (East Berlin 1957).Google Scholar

33 Groener, Wilhelm, Das Testament des Grafen Schlieffen (Berlin 1927)Google Scholar, and Der Feldherr wider Willen (Berlin 1930).Google Scholarvon Seekt, Hans, “Schlagworte” and “Clausewitz. Zum 150. Geburtstag,” both printed in the collection Gedanken eines Soldaten (Leipzig, 1935).Google Scholar For a discussion representative of the attitudes held by a coming generation of senior officers, see von Schickfus und Neudorff, Erich, “Clausewitz,” in Fiihrcrtum, ed. von Cochenhausen, Friedrich (Berlin 1930).Google Scholar

34 Ludendorff, Erich, Kriegführung und Politik (Berlin 1922)Google Scholar, and especially Der totale Krieg (Munich 1935).Google Scholar On the appearance of the first work, Hans Delbrück immediately attacked some of its numerous falsifications and misinterpretations in his pamphlet, Ludendorffs Selbstporträt (Berlin 1922).Google Scholar For more comprehensive and detached criticism, see Speier, Hans, “Ludendorff: The German Concept of Total War,” in Makers of Modern Strategy, ed. Mead Earle, Edward (Princeton 1963)Google Scholar; and von Albertini, Rudolf, “Politik und Kriegfiihrung in der deutschen Kriegstheorie von Clausewitz bis Ludendorff,” Schweizerische Monatsschrift für Offiziere aller Waffen, LIX, Nos. 1–3 (1947).Google Scholar See also the works listed in note 47 below.

35 See, for example, Fuller, J. F. C., Armament and History (New York 1945)Google Scholar, and Hart, B. H. Liddell, Strategy: The Indirect Approach (London 1954).Google Scholar

36 Liddell Hart, 352–53, 355.

37 Vagts, Alfred, A History of Militarism (New York 1959), 185.Google Scholar

38 Schmitthenner, Paul, “Clausewitz,” in the National Socialist biographical dictionary, Die Grossen Deutschen, 11 (Berlin 1935), 648.Google Scholar

39 Von Kants Einfluss auf die deutsche Kultur (Berlin 1883).Google Scholar

40 Hegels Einfluss auf Clausewitz (Berlin 1911).Google Scholar

41 Carl von Clausewitz, Politik und Krieg: Eine ideengeschichtliche Studie (Berlin 1920).Google Scholar

42 Schering, Walther M., Die Kriegsphilosophie von Clausewitz (Hamburg 1935)Google Scholar; Wehrphilosophie (Leipzig 1939)Google Scholar; Carl von Clausewitz: Geist und Tat (Stuttgart 1941)Google Scholar; “Clausewitz als Philosoph,” Europäischer Wissenschafts-Dienst, IV (May 1944).Google Scholar To be noted among other discussions of Clausewitz's philosophy and methodology published at this time are Elze, Walther, “Von der Lehre und Lehrweise im Buch vom Kriege von Clausewitz,” Jahrbuch der Deutschen Geselhchaft für Wehrwissenschaften und Wehrpolitik, 1 (Hamburg 1934)Google Scholar; Hagemann, Ernst, Die deutsche Lehre vom Kriege, 1 (Berlin 1940)Google Scholar; Linnebach, Karl, “Die wissenschaftliche Methode in Clausewitz' Werk ‘Vom Kriege,’ ” Wissen und Wehr, XIV (1933)Google Scholar; Weniger, Erich, “Clausewitz als Philosoph,” Frankfurter Zeitung, August 7, 1937.Google Scholar After the war, Weniger expanded on his arguments in “Philosophic und Bildung im Denken von Clausewitz,” Schicksalswege deutscher Vergangenheit, ed. Hubatsch, W. (Düsseldorf 1950).Google Scholar

43 In Revue de métaphysique et de morale, XLII (April 1935).Google Scholar

44 See especially Rosinski, Herbert, “Die Entwicklung von Clausewitz' Werk ‘Vom Kriege’ im Lichte seiner ‘Vorreden’ und ‘Nachrichten,’” Historische Zeitschrift, CLI (1935)Google Scholar; and Kessel, Eberhard, “Zur Genesis der modernen Kriegslehre. Die Entstehungsgeschichte von Clausewitz' Werk ‘Vom Kriege,’ ” Wehrwissenschaftliche Rundschau, III, No. 9 (1953).Google Scholar Rosinski's book, The German Army (London 1939)Google Scholar, contains a good, brief analysis of Clausewitz's place in the history of military theory. A more detailed treatment can be found in Sigfrid Mette's work, Vom Geist deutscher Feldherren (Zurich 1938)Google Scholar, especially in ch. n. Compare also Hans Rothfels' chapter, “Clausewitz,” in Earle, ed., Makers of Modern Strategy.

45 Ritter, Gerhard, Staatskunst und Kriegshandwerk, 1 (Munich 1954), especially chs. 11, III, and IV.Google Scholar

46 Beck, Ludwig, “Die Lehre vom totalen Kriege,” printed in Studien, ed. Speidel, Hans (Stuttgart 1955).Google Scholar Compare also Wolfgang Foerster's biography, Generaloberst Ludwig Beck (Munich 1953)Google Scholar, especially 158–63; and Ritter von Schramm, Wilhelm, “Das politisch-militärische Testament des Generalobersten Beck,” Wehrkunde, VIII (July 1959).Google Scholar

47 Some examples of recent titles dealing with Clausewitz's theories are Weil, Eric, “Guerre et Politique selon Clausewitz,” Revue Francaise de Science Politique, V, No. 2 (April-June, 1955)Google Scholar; Gembruch, Werner, “Zu Clausewitz' Gedanken iiber das Verhaltnis von Krieg und Politik,” Wehrwissenschaftliche Rundschau, IX, No. 11 (November 1959)Google Scholar; Brodie, Bernard, Strategy in the Missile Age (Princeton 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ch. 11. Reminiscent of an older pejorative approach is the section dealing with Clausewitz in the West Point pamphlet, Clausewitz, Jomini, Schlieffen (West Point 1951)Google Scholar, which concludes with the sentences: “Clausewitz's influence is not dead. The philosophy of On War is the philosophy of Bismarck's Blood and Iron and the philosophy of Mein Kampf” (p. 46). Besides being bad history, this confuses recognition that war is an arm of national policy with an eagerness to engage in it. In the fall of 1964 the Department of Military Art and Engineering at West Point issued a new edition of the pamphlet, with a much improved section on Clausewitz by Colonel John R. Elting.