- 26 Jan 2012 03:29
#13881405
Considering that fascism is so tightly tied to militarism, I was curious which doctrinaire fascists would prefer to follow.
In simple terms, Jomini focused on morale and scientific management, treating warfare as a technical experience where force efficiency is paramount. Countries should pick commanders based purely on capability, and train those commanders to fit overall strategy in order to maximize force:personnel ratios. Logistics should also be micromanaged in order to ensure security and prevent attrition.
Clausewitz, on the other hand, realized war is an uncertain "fascinating trinity" between social, artistic, and scientific elements. War is an expression of politics through violent means, and while rules are nice, genius rises above all rules. Operational commanders should be chosen according to ideological discipline because capability alone can lead to betrayal, and the best ideology is one which leads to culminating victory from the country's present center of gravity.
The reason I ask this is because I doubt many, if any, fascists would prefer Clausewitz. The implication of a Clausewitzian doctrine, while bringing all of a State's resources to war, is social diversity, yet fascism takes pride in social uniformity. Clausewitzian doctrine needs diversity because diversity is how a commander would address uncertainty in an artistic manner and prove loyalty. Remember, Clausewitzian commanders have to prove an ability to transition from center of gravity to culminating victory.
Jominian doctrine doesn't really need diversity because of being so technical. It aims to calculate everything into rigor, and through that rigor, eliminate the need for contingency planning for variable scenarios. Furthermore, tight calculations lead to confidence over reliable operations, so forces can succeed in straight-forward and unwavering breakthroughs.
Anyway, who do you prefer? Jomini or Clausewitz?
In simple terms, Jomini focused on morale and scientific management, treating warfare as a technical experience where force efficiency is paramount. Countries should pick commanders based purely on capability, and train those commanders to fit overall strategy in order to maximize force:personnel ratios. Logistics should also be micromanaged in order to ensure security and prevent attrition.
Clausewitz, on the other hand, realized war is an uncertain "fascinating trinity" between social, artistic, and scientific elements. War is an expression of politics through violent means, and while rules are nice, genius rises above all rules. Operational commanders should be chosen according to ideological discipline because capability alone can lead to betrayal, and the best ideology is one which leads to culminating victory from the country's present center of gravity.
The reason I ask this is because I doubt many, if any, fascists would prefer Clausewitz. The implication of a Clausewitzian doctrine, while bringing all of a State's resources to war, is social diversity, yet fascism takes pride in social uniformity. Clausewitzian doctrine needs diversity because diversity is how a commander would address uncertainty in an artistic manner and prove loyalty. Remember, Clausewitzian commanders have to prove an ability to transition from center of gravity to culminating victory.
Jominian doctrine doesn't really need diversity because of being so technical. It aims to calculate everything into rigor, and through that rigor, eliminate the need for contingency planning for variable scenarios. Furthermore, tight calculations lead to confidence over reliable operations, so forces can succeed in straight-forward and unwavering breakthroughs.
Anyway, who do you prefer? Jomini or Clausewitz?
- By Puffer Fish
- By Unthinking Majority
- By wat0n
- By Rugoz