The Conduct of War: 1789-1961: A Study of the Impact of the French, Industrial, and Russian Revolutions on War and Its Conduct

by J. F.c. Fuller

Release Date: April, 1992

Edition: Paperback

Price:

More Info

Tendentious,Hypocritical.But at times interesting

Author is a reputed Military Historian.But his views is faulty , reactionary.Fuller traces the conduct of war from the Middle ages till the end of Second World War.Stress is upon how character and conduct of war have changed within a span of 4 centuries.Advancement of science and socio-economic forces have combined to influence the character of war.
Author faults industrial revolution and democracy for ushering in mass warfare.This has made fighting horrendous causing untold death and destruction.Fuller has a nostalgia for the past ,says warfare in the age of kings and despots inherently limited in nature and scope.Then goes on to give fatuous analysis of human nature.Man according to him is essentially warlike ;it is impossible to smother his fighting instincts.He continues to live cordially ,amicably within his group but takes an hostile attitude toward other groups.Same conduct gets reflected in the intercourse among nations.Thus humanity is condemned to live perpetually in wardom and strife.Ifeel it is possible for nations with competing national interests to peacefully coexist.History of postwar Europe attests to this fact.European countries have been able over the years to sink their differences and forge an economic union for their greater welfare.

Fuller explores merits and demerits of Napoleonic system of warfare.Author's account of meathods employed by Napoleon of unravelling enemy's plans and his elucidation of Prussian military philospher Karl Von Clausewitz concepts - Centre of Gravity of war,inner front-I find trifle interesting.Commercial rivalry between Germany and Britain and scramble for colonies among European powere led to World War I.Author has touched upon salient features of the conflict.Fuller is dismayed by the outcome of the war especially disintegration of Austro-Hungarian Empire.Fuller faults US president Woodrow Wilson's call for national self-determination for oppressed nationalities responsible for the ensuing tragedy.Author wanted monarchists,militarists and other reactionary elements retaining power after termination of hostilities.Author misinterprets aims and objectives October Socialist revolution in Russia. Russia is shown to be perfidious country which betrayed Western Allies.This is a gross distortion of truth because facts show by 1916 the Russian armies had lost its cutting edge.Army was wracked with strife and desertion.Russia was not in position to help her allies even if it had wanted to.No other person other than British Special Commissioner R.H Bruce Lockhartwould vouch for this fact.So Lenin concluded an armistice with Germany.However Lenin was willing to continue the war provided Western allies had continued to furnish material support for the Bolsheviks which they refused.These were the circumstances which led to the signing of Brest Litovsk treaty of Mar 3,1918.Author condoned Marshal Pilsudski's poland invading Russia in 1920.But Russian counter-offensive to evict Polish invaders is interpreted as communist expansionism ;what a hypocrisy .Coming to World War II:Hitler invaded Poland and author says Stalin got the war he wanted.Author has either ignored or is ignorant of the fact that from 1934 onward Soviet Union tried consistently to forge joint front in Europe to forge a joint front to resist Nazi aggression.Western democracies did not co-operate which drove Soviets into the hands of Nazi Germany.Further author says the war ended in a tragedy for the West.Because end of the World War II saw Red Army on the banks of River Elbe.The reason Britain failed to pursue its traditional balance -of-power policy;instead,war was reduced to Manichean terms.Under this scheme Russia was to be used for containing German ambhitions.
But I doubt Tory establishment in London would have pursued such a course of action.They would have liked Germany and Russia fight and mutually exhaust themselves which would have helped the British to establish hegemony in postwar Europe.Churchill went to war because he doubted Hitler's ambhitions would remain confined to the east.Having borne brunt of the war author wants Russia denied the spoils of victory.This was to be done by curbing Western aid for Soviet war effort.Most reckless in British scheme of things was Churchill's attempts to sent Allied forces through Llblujana gap in Istrian peninsula towards central north eastern Europe .This force would come astride Red army formations moving towards Berlin. Such a course of events could have possibly triggered a Third World War.Concurrently every help was to be given to reactionary elements in Berlin to seize power while ousting Hitler.
Fuller justifies all this by quoting Clausewitz where war is form of political intercourse.Aim of war is is moderation not complete overthrow of enemy.This is a dangerous doctrine.Sometimes moderation pays.But decision to wage total war ,I believe, depends on nature and characer of enemy.Against vicious and a wicked foe moderation will never pay.Unconditonal surrender in Nazi Germany's case was justified.Because anything short of it would have helped the remaining Nazis to regain strengh and renew its assault upon humanity.
Thus one can see author is biased ,hypocritical in interpretation of facts which seriously detracts the value of this book.