Gents,
Glad we have so many CvC fans out there...I have the same impression that the author has never read CvC save a few bumper sticker phrases which misses the point entirely of delving into his work.
Gents,
Glad we have so many CvC fans out there...I have the same impression that the author has never read CvC save a few bumper sticker phrases which misses the point entirely of delving into his work.
"But the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet withstanding, go out to meet it."
-Thucydides
I have three different translations (don't ask). I learned from reading one (Howard and Paret, I think), skimming the other two, and reading commentary, that the quality of translation significantly determines what one gets out of studying CvC. e.g. Translating "vernichten" as "destruction" rather than "negation" leads to a lot of misunderstanding of what CvC was trying to convey.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
Concur, but he does go on to explain explicitly what he means later in the book, - but yes, this is why Gray, Heuser and Smith are so useful.Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger
Good point all the same.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Translations and interpretations are part of what makes St. Carl so enduring and good for generating discussion/learning. For me his phrase "The Aim Is To Disarm The Enemy" as the ultimate goal could be interpreted many ways besides the use of violence.
today:
vernichten = to annihilate
zerstören = to destroy
negieren = to negate
1830's meanings may have differed.
"vernichten" has "total" almost built in. Something that was "vernichtet" is 100% gone. "zerstören" can also be applied to parts instead of only the whole thing. "negieren" is close to "to neutralize", doesn't require any damage - it is usually used as "to say no".
Verneinung vs Vernichtung
From 1959 Langenscheidt's, Verneinung = concept of negation; Vernichtung = concept of annihilation. Cf., nein = no; nicht = not.
Sounds like someone, as Fuchs just pointed out, was trying to get to the concept of "neutralize" by toning down (making more "humane") the English "translation" of "vernichtung". Cf., as we used in CORDS-Phoenix, "neutralize" to include kill, detain and convert.
Context will tell the tale; but CvC noted at more than one point that the enemy force does not have to be physically destroyed - e.g., it can collapse in one way or another. BUT, there always lurks in the background the real threat and ability to destroy.
Regards
Mike
Last edited by jmm99; 02-25-2010 at 01:50 AM.
Hope this helps. In this translation the "nur" or "only" has been left out!
If we consider the whole sentence, vernichten contains both "annhiliation" and "making void", as "Vernichtung der feindlichen Streitkraft" states that a short phrase for "reducing the enemy military power (fighting capability) to such a state that it is no longer be able to prosecute the fight (war)."The military power must be destroyed (annihilated, made void), that is, reduced to such a state as not to be able to prosecute the war (fight). This is the (only!) sense in which we wish to be understood hereafter, whenever we use the expression "destruction of the enemy's military power." (Italics by Graham, bold additions by Firn)
....
A bit more on the vernichten part.
If we speak of the destruction of the enemy's armed force, we must expressly point out that nothing obliges us to confine this idea to the mere physical force; on the contrary, the moral is necessarily implied as well, because both in fact are interwoven with each other even in the most minute details, and, therefore, cannot be separated. But it is just in connection with the inevitable effect which has been referred to, of a great act of destruction (a great victory) upon all other decisions by arms, that this moral element is most fluid, if we may use that expression, and, therefore, distributes itself the most easily through all the parts.
Against the far superior worth which the destruction of the enemy's armed force has over all other means, stands the expense and risk of this means, and it is only to avoid these that any other means are taken.
That this means must be costly stands to reason, for the waste of our own military forces must, ceteris paribus, always be greater the more our aim is directed upon the destruction of the enemy's.
But the danger of this means lies in this, that just the greater efficacy which we seek recoils on ourselves, and therefore has worse consequences in case we fail of success. (This is a pretty weak and distorting part of the translation!)
My rough translation of the last bit: "The superior (overwhelming) worth, which the annihilation of the enemy forces has over all other means, is opposed by the valuableness (costliness, preciousness) and danger of this mean, and only to avoid those [the consequences of those], other ways are taken [in war].
....
This seems to be a rather deep insight both in finance in war. Right Enron?
Die Waffenentscheidung ist für alle großen und kleinen Operationen des Krieges, was die bare Zahlung für den Wechselhandel ist; wie entfernt diese Beziehungen auch sein, wie selten die Realisationen eintreten mögen, ganz können sie niemals fehlen.The decision by arms is, for all operations in war, great and small, what cash payment is in bill transactions. However remote from each other these relations, however seldom the realisation may take place, still it can never entirely fail to occur.
Firn
Last edited by Firn; 02-25-2010 at 09:46 AM.
I forgot to explain the "Wechselhandel" or "bill transaction" of that time. Basically you give some sort of security, usually a cheque which doesn't gets chashed to get a credit.
The decision by arms is, for all operations in war, great and small, what cash payment is in bill transactions (The "bill" was some sort of cheque or security presented to obtain a (of course larger) credit. At some point you have to pay and not just show something ). However remote from each other these relations, however seldom the realisation may take place, still it can never entirely fail to occur.
Perhaps this could be edited in.
Firn
I wrote "negieren = to negate" (although "negieren" is an imported word; Latin "negare") because of the context.
The mentioned "to say no" is better translated with the verb "verneinen", but it's not the only meaning of "negieren".
Yes, true enough and the fun side of translations. This is the reason why I added more choices in my very rough ones. It puts the reader in guard and shows that there are other nuances and (slightly) differing meanings.
Firn
I'll go out on a limb and say it doesn't matter who we study, only that we do so-
Whether it is Clauswitz, Jomini, Sun Tzu, or whoever is in style at time, what matters is that professionals tear into something, think critically about it, and analyze it. Whether you agree or disagree with the concepts you are reading, you exercise that all important muscle between your ears.
Now, if the LTC's issue is students at the War College are passively accepting Clauswitz rather than actively thinking, engaging, and applying concepts... then maybe he could have a case.
As to professional soldiers wanting to be... professional? Dedicated to thier chosen profession of arms? Thats like saying a fireman shouldn't vigorously train and plan to fight fires. A volunteer firefighter should be able to overcome with determination and "occaisional ineptitude".
Okay- dead horse, excuse me for that. I'm new.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks