Jump to content

Talk:Carl von Clausewitz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InternetArchiveBot (talk | contribs) at 01:27, 31 July 2017 (Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot (v1.5beta)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Some collected notes

Dudes, this guy must have been born on June 1, not July 1. His writings resonate with Gemini vibrations to a much greater degree than they do with Cancer vibrations. If he was born on July 1, then there must be something extreme going on in his chart. Does anyone know his time of birth?

68.38.86.36 (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this guy above seems to change the birthday from july to june because of his ridiculous astology believe. pathetic. ME23

Yes, can we please have his Birthday changed back to its proper dates? Primitive superstition aside, 'astrological charts' does not historical evidence make, to paraphrase Aristotle. (LEHR 19th May 2012 09.42) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.170.58 (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

-- 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)[reply]

"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

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)

- Rene Girard's Achever Clausewitz (Paris: Carnets Nord, 2007) should be mentioned as it is a thorough study of Clausewitz's On War. It was published in English as Battling to the End (2009, transl. Mary Baker). --Mmwm (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, Operation Clausewitz was the name of the plan to evacuate Wehrmacht and SS personnel from Berlin during the final days of the Third Reich, as well as destroy documents and prepare the city for front-line defence. Interestingly enough, I learned of this while viewing the film Downfall (2004). It was mentioned repeatedly in the film and, as it was a sub-titled foreign language film, the name "Clausewitz" was displayed multiple times on screen. When viewing the article for Downfall here on Wikipedia, there is a reference to the operation and, of course, the article for the operation references Clausewitz himself. Stranegly, however, there was no mention of the film here in the "Pop Culture" section of Clausewitz's own page. I did add this this information, but somebody tried to remove it, claiming it was "not relevant" (?). - thewolfchild 07:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it because this is an article about Clausewitz, and though the operation as named after him, it has no relevance to Clausewitz himself or his philosophies, which is what this article is about. Its use as the name of a military operation is as relevant as would be including Operation Desert Storm in the article about Sirocco. Please do not restore it again until you have a consensus to do so here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Desert Storm" and "Sirocco"... really? (Does Sirocco even have a Pop culture section?) You seem like a smart guy, I'm sure you can do better than that. Maybe look up the term "analogy" if you need to. In the meantime, you seem to be missing the point of "In pop culture" (in good faith, I'm sure). Perhaps you should look at the other films listed in that section and consider their varying degrees of minimal, vague and/or simplistic references to Clausewitz, before you jump all over mine. But at the end of the day, they are just that, references to the man, made in media considered to be as part of pop culture. Your strange meteorological quip aside, you really need to provide a more "relevant" argument for "relevance". While you work on that, I have an idea... why don't you leave my entry there until you have a consensus that says it should go. (or, do you wanna go for your 3rd revert?) Have a nice day. - thewolfchild 23:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

    • 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[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

FYI, the Deutsch Wikipedia article http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz gives a quote

Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik unter Einbeziehung anderer Mittel - (Vom Kriege I, 1, 24)

Perhaps he said something similar in various places? -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clausewitz actually uses different though similar formulations of his principle. Book 1, Chapter 1, Paragraph 24 is entitled Der Krieg ist eine blosse Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln, which is equivalent to the often quoted maxim in English. The following text reads: So sehen wir also, dass der Krieg nicht bloss ein politischer Akt, sondern ein wahres politisches Instrument ist, eine Fortsetzung des politischen Verkehrs, ein Durchführen desselben mit anderen Mitteln. And later in the same paragraph: denn die politische Absicht is der Zweck, der Krieg ist das Mittel, und niemals kann das Mittel ohne Zweck gedacht werden. The same thought is further refined in Book 8 (as stated by a previous contributor) with the expression der Krieg ist nichts als eine Fortsetzung des politischen Verkehrs mit Einmischung anderer Mittel. The idea of Einmischung (mixing) highlights the fact that in wartime both political and military means should be used together harmoniously to achieve whichever political ends the government has set itself. It follows (still in Book 8, Chapter 6B) that if possible the top military commander should be a member of the political cabinet, unless of course political and military leadership are united in the same person, as was the case under Napoleon and Frederick the Great. Nescio vos (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Vom Kriege 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)[reply]

clausewitz is born in the july

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

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cultural References

Does anyone agree that we should scrap the entire "beautiful horses" section? Bonapart 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)[reply]

Crimson Tide??

I wonder why a reference to the film, Crimson Tide, was added to the summary, as it is not discussed in the main body, except for a statement in cultural references which points to the main text. As it is, a Hollywood motion picture is not the most definitive way of showing the depreciation of a theory, and I am pretty sure it has been discussed in more detail elsewhere..

I would suggest removing this reference from the summary at least, though I am not well educated in the field of military theory. ovvldc (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clausewitz division

I figure we ought to mention Panzer Division Clausewitz here - as well as perhaps 12873 Clausewitz - but I'm not sure where. Anyone? Shimgray | talk | 14:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is known as trivia in Wikipedia and is generally discouraged--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm... yes and no. Trivia sections are certainly discouraged! However, there's often a "stuff named after X includes" mention somewhere, especially when it's directly relevant - as a military unit probably is, here. I ask because it seems significant enough to mention, but I didn't want to just ram in a trivia header... Shimgray | talk | 16:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that under different circumstances it could have been called a commemoration except we know that was not the intention of the Nazi command to name the unit in this way; rather to link it to a sense of superior military prowess...in 1945--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need a 'Subsequent Acts of Staggering Hubris' header ;-) I'm quite surprised how few things were named after Clausewitz, in fact; I could only find these two with a quick search. Shimgray | talk | 14:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting points. There is currently an editor disputing whether or not the film Downfall should be mentioned in the "Pop culture" section as it repeatedly references Operation Clausewitz. But the question above really raises the issue of whether or not to acknowledge the impact von Clausewitz has had on military culture, conventions and institutions. How many biographies have we seen here that denote all the schools, libraries and streets named after the person? - thewolfchild 00:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments above. Operation Clausewitz could have been called Operation Toilet Paper - military operations generally have nothing whatsoever to do with the literal meanings of the codenames given them, because if they did it you would be giving away information to the enemy. If "Operation Clausewitz" related in some way to Clausewitz' thoughts, the Allies would know something about it should they come across the name. On the other hand, a list of schools, libraries and streets is an indication of the person's impact on the culture and the respect and honor shown to him. A military operation is not that, it's just words used because the operation has to be called something. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your right about that in general Ken, but in this case you are mistaken. In World War II, it was German practice to usually give their operations a codename that in some way was related to the operation (i.e. Operation Barbarossa for the invasion of the Soviet Union, Operation Sea Lion for the planned invasion of Britain, Operation Axis for the occupation of Italy, Operation Weserübung for the invasion of Norway and Denmark, etc, etc) which was a rather bad practice as it helped the Allies to guess what the operation was. I'm not certain just why Clausewitz was picked as the name of the operation, but it no doubt had some symbolic importance because otherwise his name would not had been used.--A.S. Brown (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Key ideas" needs cite

The section "Principal ideas" contains a list of "some of the key ideas discussed in On War". This list has the appearance of WP:OR or synthesis. While I agree that this is a reasonable list of C's key ideas, I am not a reliable source and no reliable source is cited. Please provide a good cite for this list. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this smacks of WP:OR. I found, and added citations for "fog or war" and "centers of gravity". However, when it comes to the claims:
  1. "strategy" belongs primarily to the realm of art
  2. "tactics" belongs primarily to the realm of science
von Clausewitz's Chapter III it titled "ART OR SCIENCE OF WAR" and ruminates on the question, but I don't see it as obvious that the two bullet points are even an accurate summary, much less an obvious one.
In addition, the list includes:
  1. the "culminating point of the offensive"
  2. the "culminating point of victory"
There are two phrases in quotes, potentially problematic when the original is in another language (so :I cut some slack when one translation used "Centre of gravity" rather than "center of gravity") but I didn't see a phrasing close enough to either phase to accept it. That said, I didn't read the whole text closely, I searched and skimmed. I don't feel certain enough to take it out, but I'll add to the discussion, and presume that someone eventually has to find a close phrasing, or eliminate the item from the list.--SPhilbrickT 19:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VON Clausewitz

The VON is a part of the surname, this should be stated. You wouldn't call "Vincent van Gogh" just Gogh, because VAN is part of the surname. Please refer to Clausewitz (if you are just using the last name) as "von Clausewitz" or, as Americans like to write, "Von Clausewitz" (although wrongly so). Hyperboreer 14:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperboreer (talk • contribs)

There is an element of convention involved. See also Ludwig von Mises. I haven't read extensively about von Clausewitz, but if scholarly sources shorten his name to Clausewitz as often as they do for Mises, then I think it's appropriate to do the same here. I wouldn't object if you inserted the vons, but you might have difficulty getting everyone else to stick to the same convention as the article evolves. Maghnus (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a new issue for some articles. What is, and is not, worthy of inclusion within an In popular culture (ipc) section?

I added an item to this page's ipc sec. Another editor has resorted to edit-warring to have the item removed. The issue has been touched upon in several different locations. I have copied everything here to one place to make things easier; ( - thewolfchild 04:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, Operation Clausewitz was the name of the plan to evacuate Wehrmacht and SS personnel from Berlin during the final days of the Third Reich, as well as destroy documents and prepare the city for front-line defence. Interestingly enough, I learned of this while viewing the film Downfall (2004). It was mentioned repeatedly in the film and, as it was a sub-titled foreign language film, the name "Clausewitz" was displayed multiple times on screen. When viewing the article for Downfall here on Wikipedia, there is a reference to the operation and, of course, the article for the operation references Clausewitz himself. Stranegly, however, there was no mention of the film here in the "Pop Culture" section of Clausewitz's own page. I did add this this information, but somebody tried to remove it, claiming it was "not relevant" (?). - thewolfchild 07:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it because this is an article about Clausewitz, and though the operation as named after him, it has no relevance to Clausewitz himself or his philosophies, which is what this article is about. Its use as the name of a military operation is as relevant as would be including Operation Desert Storm in the article about Sirocco. Please do not restore it again until you have a consensus to do so here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Desert Storm" and "Sirocco"... really? (Does Sirocco even have a Pop culture section?) You seem like a smart guy, I'm sure you can do better than that. Maybe look up the term "analogy" if you need to. In the meantime, you seem to be missing the point of "In pop culture" (in good faith, I'm sure). Perhaps you should look at the other films listed in that section and consider their varying degrees of minimal, vague and/or simplistic references to Clausewitz, before you jump all over mine. But at the end of the day, they are just that, references to the man, made in media considered to be as part of pop culture. Your strange meteorological quip aside, you really need to provide a more "relevant" argument for "relevance". While you work on that, I have an idea... why don't you leave my entry there until you have a consensus that says it should go. (or, do you wanna go for your 3rd revert?) Have a nice day. - thewolfchild 23:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clausewitz division

I figure we ought to mention Panzer Division Clausewitz here - as well as perhaps 12873 Clausewitz - but I'm not sure where. Anyone? Shimgray | talk | 14:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is known as trivia in Wikipedia and is generally discouraged--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm... yes and no. Trivia sections are certainly discouraged! However, there's often a "stuff named after X includes" mention somewhere, especially when it's directly relevant - as a military unit probably is, here. I ask because it seems significant enough to mention, but I didn't want to just ram in a trivia header... Shimgray | talk | 16:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that under different circumstances it could have been called a commemoration except we know that was not the intention of the Nazi command to name the unit in this way; rather to link it to a sense of superior military prowess...in 1945--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need a 'Subsequent Acts of Staggering Hubris' header ;-) I'm quite surprised how few things were named after Clausewitz, in fact; I could only find these two with a quick search. Shimgray | talk | 14:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting points. There is currently an editor disputing whether or not the film Downfall should be mentioned in the "Pop culture" section as it repeatedly references Operation Clausewitz. But the question above really raises the issue of whether or not to acknowledge the impact von Clausewitz has had on military culture, conventions and institutions. How many biographies have we seen here that denote all the schools, libraries and streets named after the person? - thewolfchild 00:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments above. Operation Clausewitz could have been called Operation Toilet Paper - military operations generally have nothing whatsoever to do with the literal meanings of the codenames given them, because if they did it you would be giving away information to the enemy. If "Operation Clausewitz" related in some way to Clausewitz' thoughts, the Allies would know something about it should they come across the name. On the other hand, a list of schools, libraries and streets is an indication of the person's impact on the culture and the respect and honor shown to him. A military operation is not that, it's just words used because the operation has to be called something. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Clausewitz wasn't called "Operation Toilet Paper" (is this the kind of low-brow shtick I can expect from you?) It was "Operation Clausewitz" for a reason. Have you ever heard of a soldier named "Gunther Hans-Klaus"? No? Neither have I (or anyone else). That's why they didn't name the operation after him, they named it after von Clausewitz. That in istelf is a reference. The operation and it's name were repeatedly mentioned and displayed within a major motion picture, which makes it a pop culture reference. Does the reference in the film I listed "...relate in some way to Clausewitz' thoughts"?[sic] Does it have to? Is that WP's policy, or yours? - thewolfchild 04:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD

Please review WP:BRD. The practice is that you made a Bold edit. I disagreed with it, so I Reverted. The next step is that we discuss it, whixh is now happening on the article's talk page. What does not happen, is that you get to keep reverting to restore your edit to the article while we discuss. Please leave the article in the status quo ante while discussion takes place. To do otherwise is edit warring, which, as I'm sure you are aware, is not allowed. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you can't seem to respect the simple instructions I left on my talk page, I deleted your message and moved it here. we`ll your your talk page instead.
- You reverted an edit with no worthwhile explanation what-so-ever. A simple "not relevant" doesn't cut it.
- When asked for an explanation, you provide a ridiculous 'analogy' that doesn't clarify or support your position - at all.
- When further pressed to explain yourself, you go to cite yet another idiotic analogy ("toilet paper"... are you kidding?).
- You then refer to another comment of yours that you don't bother to link to, so it seems it doesn't exist.
- You then have the nerve to throw out WP:BRD policy... right after your 3rd revert in 24 hours, you arrogant edit-warring hypocrite.
Now I see why sooo many people on WP don't like you.
I will continue the Clausewitz issue on the talk page for that article. Any comments you feel you may need to make that aren't relevant to that article you can make here. Stay the hell off my talk page. - thewolfchild 03:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Authority

Some light reading...

- Help:Reverting,

- Wikipedia:Reverting,

- Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary,

- Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus",

- Wikipedia:Consensus,

- Wikipedia:Tendentious editing

and finally;

- WP: Manifesto of the... ?

Have a nice day. - thewolfchild 14:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Clausewitz espoused a romantic conception of warfare"

I think this needs more explanation. This line occurs once in the lede, but "romantic" occurs nowhere else in the article. And having browsed both this article and Romanticism I can't see any obvious connection. Iapetus (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Influence on Army in the 3rd Reich?

Referring to the Rowohlt Edition of "vom Kriege" (1999). This edition has an appendix by Wilhem Ritter von Schramm ("Zum Verstaendnis des Werkes" / for better understanding of Clausewitz' works) in which he elaborates that Ludendorf declared Clausewitz' works as outdated (p.264) and that Hitler was completely opposed to Clauswitz' ideas (p. 265). He then explains why highest ranking officers in the German army did not oppose this view or why they even shared it (p. 265), citing Feldmarschall von Kleist and links the resignation of Feldmarschall von Kleist 1938 to Clausewitz related point of views (p.267)

Could make an interesting read. I am no expert in the field and unable to judge on these conclusions. I merely repeat them here.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.228.83.98 (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

section needs more references

In the "Theory of war" section, there are four paragraphs that have no citations whatsoever. —howcheng {chat} 03:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And none of the citations given cover this material? Have you checked, or are you just slapping tags onto articles without doing any research whatsoever? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:V states, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. I am unfamiliar with the topic and the source(s), so I raise my concerns and leave it to more competent individuals. —howcheng {chat} 17:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you ar 3eunfamiliar with the subject, you are in no position to know whether it's properly sourced or not. Move on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous. I can see that paragraphs have no citations. As WP:V states, Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Me adding {{cn}} tags is challenging the verifiability. —howcheng {chat} 21:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carl von Clausewitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carl_von_Clausewitz&oldid=793162714"