Clausewitzs Theory of the First World War

Both Clausewitzs and Jiminis theory explain the nature of the world war. However, the two differ in that Clausewitz focuses mainly on the strategy while Jiminis theory focuses on the operational aspects of the war. Both of these theories apply to the nature of the war, but Clausewitzs theory is more fitting. This is so mainly in consideration to the political challenges and strategy aspects that predispose the method of fighting in the First World War and its results.

Clausewitzs approach to the strategic theory of the war is its realism in the way the real world events disclose themselves. He believed that these events disclose themselves through complex and uncertain methods. He argued that the war was wholly a politics continuation. This is that the war erupted at any case due to the previous politics that later contributes to disagreements and later the war.

Place New Order

Type of service
Type of assignment
Writer level
Number of pages
Regular Price: $ 10.99

More so, he viewed politics as the main drive of the war. The conflicting states had the need to expand their political goals for prestige and satisfaction. This made both of them fight in order to achieve this. He viewed the war as the continuation of politics and since everyone is in need of this, it leads to the growth of the war. In this theory, war is a sensible violence that aims at achieving certain political goals. Therefore, the nature of the war in this concept is the shape of the politics, which is the guiding intelligence on the ground.

He believed that war happens in an atmosphere with unresolvable conflicts and tension. In this case, he believes that most of the areas where war erupted were characterized by friction that brought discomforts unable to be solved. This friction emanated from the danger that was complicated, especially in the eyes of the new people in it. This necessitated that the soldiers be courageous in order to fight and succeed in the war. The presence of friction, therefore, makes the action in the war be like a movement in an element that is resistant.

The First World War was fought in trenches. In this view, there were different groups that aimed at fighting their enemies at all costs. Each army applied all the possible measures to ensure that they fight their enemies and at least win. Thus, the conflict and tension that previously existed were unreasonable. The only possible mechanism that could at least end it was the defeat of either of the army.

According to this theory, the armies applied three reciprocal actions. Firstly, there was an utmost use of force. In this, Clausewitz argued that each troop applied all the force possible to ensure that they defeat their opponent in the process. The states continually reciprocated each others force to maintain superiority over them. In the process, it contributed to violence to its utmost extent and the war intensified.

Secondly, the states aimed at disarming their opponents so that they could be in control of them. This technique was aimed at controlling the other state. However, this was not easy since each aimed at this. The enemies aimed at being controlling their opponent and force them to comply with their rules. However, this was not easy because it was the aim of each of them. This, therefore, made the war to intensify this and could only be achieved through disarming the opponent. Since it was not easy for either to surrender, it contributed to the intensification of the war.

    Our custom writing services includes:
  • Plagiarism and AI free custom writing for the best grades;
  • CV, resume and cover letters which would
    make you successful
  • Thesis and dissertations writing by academic

Lastly, he argues that an utmost exertion of powers was necessary for the conflicting states. In order to win the battle, the state needed to apply the strength of available means and the strength of the will. These would help them in the process and later win and control their enemies.

Technology had many impacts on the nature of the World War 1. Previously, the war was facilitated by the offensive doctrine. This strategy contributed to the intensification of the war. However, the enemies realized that there was always the need to apply high defensive mechanism. In this case, they made weapons that are more dangerous. These were for high defense maintenance. They at least needed to defend themselves in case of any attack from their enemies. The productions of all those weapons were facilitated by high technology improvements. On the other hand, the opponent also produced highly improved weapons for defense. This in turn contributed to the strategy change to defensive in nature from the offensive one, since more arms were made for defense of each state in the war.

This Clausewitzs theory farther presents its argument in the form of a metaphor. In this argument, the war is viewed as a wrestling match. This is just, but a method that he uses to bring out the meaning of the center of gravity imagery. Hereby the main goal in it is the focus to the enemies. Each block aims at defeating their enemies in the process of the war.

Clausewitz has also talked much on plethora of some topics that are also related to the war. He has done this in his explanations to various considerations that include the political and the strategic ones. I have discussed these below.

What are you waiting for?
Order with 15% discount NOW!


First, the arms race in Europe was mostly facilitated by the politics due to the necessity of the states to be a step forward on the issue of their armies and their ammunitions. The governments in European countries were viewing war as a valid means of foreign policy. They built both their armies and navies that constituted various numbers of soldiers and warships. Various countries that were mostly involved in this arms race included Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, France, Russia and the Great Britain. As one country did this, the rest followed and increased their armies and ammunitions. This demonstrated that there was going to be a war and each state participated as per the political needs of the countries. They mobilize their forces as a security in case of any attack.

To add to the above point, the Clausewitz explains the strategic aspect of the modernization of the weapons. In this case, the technology improved and there was production of even nuclear bombs. Each improved their ammunitions by application of the highly developed technology. Their conflicting states felt insecure as they could be attacked at any time. The commander decided to talk against this, a thing that resulted from the fear of the public opinion. Lastly, the four-year stalemate resulted from this.

Briefly, both tJiminis theories on operational aspects and Clausewitz theories apply very well to the nature of the First World War. However, Clausewitztheories give detailed information on its nature. This is because it concentrates on the political and the strategic outcome and characteristics that clearly explains all the details. It helps one understand about the war better and at least meditate on it.

Related essays