Question: How does Clausewitz's paradoxical trinity explain the changes to the character of warfare from the methods used by Frederick the Great to those that followed in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? I. Thesis: Clausewitz’s paradoxical trinity explains the changes to the character of warfare from the ‘political-ideological French Revolution ’ to the ‘military revolution of the Great War ’ by acknowledging the variable but compelling relationships between: instruments of subordination such as government and policy; the implementation of ‘courage and talent ’ in the ‘realm of probability and chance’ by the military commander and his forces; and the resolve of the people, on all sides of the conflict.
I. Major Point …show more content…
German revolutionists enable the breakdown of royal monarchy’s but face ‘kultrkamph’ in uniting a singular view of German nationalism.
F. Transition to conclusion: The Great War is deadlocked despite radical advancement in military technology swift evolutions in doctrine; the objectives of the people and the governments become unsynchronized with military objectives.
1. Alliances and participation of nations shift from pre-1914 build to the Great War to its culmination in 1918.
2. “Political Leaders struggle to find objectives that justified the outpouring of blood and treasure; ” revolution in Germany results in a change in authority.
CI. Conclusion:
In his quest to define the nature of war, Clausewitz suggests that it is the balance of government and policy; the military commander and his forces; and the resolve of the people which describe the nature of war. While the characteristics of war shifted in the make-up of the soldier and his leader, the expansion of domain from strictly land based to extensive sea based offense and defense, and a growing reliance on firepower; the outcomes and nature by which wars from Frederick the Great to the early nineteenth century have been carried out were greatly influenced by people and
I. Major Point …show more content…
German revolutionists enable the breakdown of royal monarchy’s but face ‘kultrkamph’ in uniting a singular view of German nationalism.
F. Transition to conclusion: The Great War is deadlocked despite radical advancement in military technology swift evolutions in doctrine; the objectives of the people and the governments become unsynchronized with military objectives.
1. Alliances and participation of nations shift from pre-1914 build to the Great War to its culmination in 1918.
2. “Political Leaders struggle to find objectives that justified the outpouring of blood and treasure; ” revolution in Germany results in a change in authority.
CI. Conclusion:
In his quest to define the nature of war, Clausewitz suggests that it is the balance of government and policy; the military commander and his forces; and the resolve of the people which describe the nature of war. While the characteristics of war shifted in the make-up of the soldier and his leader, the expansion of domain from strictly land based to extensive sea based offense and defense, and a growing reliance on firepower; the outcomes and nature by which wars from Frederick the Great to the early nineteenth century have been carried out were greatly influenced by people and