Clausewitz, Jomini, WWII and Operation Overlord - Essay Example

The paper tells that Jomini served in the Russian and French armies in the 19th century during the Napoleonic wars. He contributed largely on the terms used in modern U.S theory and doctrine. Jomini believed that war was a science and with careful study on rules one could discover its conduct. According to Jomini he depicted strategy as art of war upon the map, which comprehended the entire theater of war. “The main tactic being posting troops in accordance with the accidents of the ground, of placing them into battle, and art of fighting upon the ground, in contradiction to planning upon a map”.

Jomini further stated that a defensive war had its advantages when wisely conducted. He depicted passive defense as being pernicious and the active on the other side accomplishing greater success. Jomini’s principle on political war was that the cause of defensive war is to protect the countryside that was being threatened by the enemy, and all operations to be designed to retard his enemy’s progress. This is to be achieved by increasing difficulties and obstacles in the enemy’s way, however taking care not to compromise one’s own army.

The idea behind it was that for one to invade, he does so with intention of superiority. The defense on the other hand desires delay till the adversary is weakened by fatigues, marches and sending off detachments to his progress. These ideas by Jomini are important as they are the only ones that were worth considering when it comes to modern war, especially the strategy of exhaustion used to eventually strangle the Confederacy. (Archer 130). Williams in his book Lincoln and his Generals found that most of Jomini’s ideas were seen as misleading and isolated, in many cases would lead to high casualties, uncertain battles, and a war that drug on for so long (Williams 204).

Clausewitz ideas on war According to Clausewitz war was a tragic and complex enterprise, always threatening to break away from human control (Archer 126). Bartholomees in his article states that much of what Clausewitz purported was either ordinary or 19th century specific with an exception of three ideas (Bartholomeees 21). First his encouragement of seeking battle. In his book he states that “… pursuit makes up the second act of the victory and in most cases is more important than the first” (Clausewitz 267).

According to his view, he sees war as a nonlinear phenomenon that is naturally unpredictable through analytical means (Bayerchen 86). The second idea that Clausewitz gave was attacking the enemy’s centre of gravity. This was to be achieved by attacking the enemy’s army then followed by seizing his capital and attacking his alliances. The final idea is the “how to”, which is a concept of the culminating point. Clausewitz defines culminating point as strategic attacks that lead to the point where the remaining potency is just enough to sustain a cover and wait for peace.

Past that point then tables turn and the reaction follows with force that is usually a lot stronger compared to the original attack (Clausewitz 82). Difference between the two theorists There are a lot of differences between the two theorists and their ideas but with only one that can be considered over the others. Their difference mostly came in because: Clausewitz theories mainly dealt with how to win the war unlike Jomini’s which emphasized on teaching the leaders how to fight their battles.

Conclusion Jomini’