Rating: 
Summary: hard to read
Review: I don't know if the translation is bad or Clausewitz could not express himself clearly but the book is hard to read. What do you make of paragraphs like the following one:
"But after his [Frederick the Great's] skilful application of the system of husbanding his resources had shown the powers allied against him, through a seven years' struggle, that the actual expenditure of strength far exceeded what they had at first anticipated, they made peace."
Since Clausewitz is considered a classic, I am much more inclined to blame it on the translator. Everyone who studied German knows that you can't translate word for word. German grammar is different. They put verbs in weird places.
I don't know if other translations are any better but this one is definitely hard to read.
Rating: 
Summary: Classic on military tactics... The concept of total war..
Review: I have the Regnery edition- "War, Politics, and Power," but this edition surmising Clausewitz's writings seems more widely available. So I offer my review on his writings and recommend this book. This book was widely disseminated in Red China, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union.Essentially, this book contains the best writings of the German military theorist. Clauswitz, the Prussian Sun Tzu, effectively brought the concept of total war into acceptability. Gone our the days Antonie Henri Jomini's chilvarious code of conduct and honor- Civilians will not only be subject to attack - they'll bear the brunt of the battle in an age of total war. Several points are made- which are crucial to surmising Clausewitzian theory- 1) "War is the continuation of state policy by other means;" 2) "All war is based on the art of deception;" 3) "No one starts war... without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by the war and how he intends to conduct it;" 4) War is "an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will." 5) "If the enemy is thrown off balance, he must not be given time to recover. Blow after blow must be struck in the same direction: the victor, in other words, must strike with all his strength... by daring to win all, will one really defeat the enemy." To me this work is valuable in its historical context- and as an ardent student of military history.
Rating:
Summary: War in Letters
Review: Karl von Clausewitz's (1780-1831) masterpiece On War has deservedly been translated into most major languages. The Everyman's Library Edition of the work - introduced by Peter Paret - is the perhaps most widely acclaimed English edition. Long recognized as the classic the strategic principles of armed conflict, the book continue to influence military thinking. On War is an attempt to reach an understanding of the nature of war itself. The Prussian general defines war as violence intended to compel the opponent to fulfill the will of the proponent. Violence is the means; submission of the enemy is the object. The ultimate goal of war is political - armed combat is the means to a political end, without which war becomes «pointless and devoid of sense». Another key thought is that the total defeat of the adversary is the essence of war. A critique often heard against this strain of thought is that Clausewitz's focus on decisive battle and over strategic maneuver invites bloodbath. This can also serve to illustrate why the book has carried relevance over the centuries. -It focuses on the -how's of war rather than considerations that are bound to be influenced by Zeitgeist. The book is experiencing a renaissance in the post-Cold War era -reading it may well help to explain the phenomenon of war also in the years to come.
Rating:
Summary: The elements of war
Review: Karl von Clausewitz's (1780-1831) masterpiece On War, has deservedly been translated into most major languages. The Everyman's Library Edition of On War introduced by Peter Paret is the perhaps most widely acclaimed English edition. Long recognized as the classic the strategic principles of armed conflict, the book continue to influence military thinking. On War is an attempt to reach an understanding of the nature of war itself. The Prussian general defines war as violence intended to compel the opponent to fulfill the will of the proponent. Violence is the means; submission of the enemy is the object. The ultimate goal of war is political - armed combat is the means to a political end, without which war becomes «pointless and devoid of sense». Another key thought is that the total defeat of the adversary is the essence of war. A critique often heard against this strain of thought is that Clausewitz's focus on decisive battle and over strategic maneuver invites bloodbath. The book is experiencing a renaissance in the post-Cold War era -reading it may well help to explain the phenomenon of war also in the years to com
Rating:
Summary: Un libro para ciudadanos no para militares
Review: Leer este libro aclara muchas dudas sobre la política de estado, que una nación debe llevar. Si bien es un clásico es un compendio bastante compelto del arte de la guerra, es la concepción occidental de hacer la guerra, si excluimos a el arte de la guerra Sun-Tzu, arte de la guerra II Sun Pin, Estrategias no Ortodoxas (autor desconocido), podriamos decir que es la raíz del razomiento cientifico aplicado a guerra, este es el producto de una mente brillante y tal como se indica esta influenciado por Kant y Scharhorst.
Este libro es más para los ciudadanos comunes y corrientes, que para eruditos en ciencias y artes militares
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Work
Review: Most of you are likely familiar with the work of Sun Tzu, and a comparison is, I think, inevitable. Sun Tzu functioned as a very talented advisor, but Carl discusses at length much of what he learnt in his time in the trenches, practicising the Art of War. This perspective is very illuminating as he discusses the political ramifications of war (war as an instrument of policy), as well as discussing the various problems that a leader in the field faces (including what he calls 'friction'). Unlike Sun Tzu, I feel that Carl's understanding may well have been deeper, and Carl's explainations are more to the point, rather than anaecdotal and poetic. I know I sound harsh when discussing Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu was an excellent thinker, but it is Carl's work that has kept me thinking about some basic but fundamental concepts for well over a year. This book is easily worth your time. But I should warn you, this book is not for the faint of heart. The language is particularly difficult, even more difficult than that of the Art of War. My only complaint about the book is that Carl died while it most it's chapters were still in draft!
Rating: 
Summary: Hard work, but worth the effort.
Review: Not really a relaxing bedtime read. On War is challenging, and not to be undertaken lightly. Still, its concepts are eminently more utile than Sun Tzu's, when all is said and done. I would have given it five stars, but for the 72 pages of nonsensical introductory ranting by Anatol Rapoport, included with this volume. If you can find a volume without Rapoport's introduction, buy that one instead and save a tree. (Honestly, I will never understand why modern publishers insist on pre-forming the reader's reactions to classic works by adding an introduction from some third-rate aging socialist. If I wanted to read Anatol Rapoport, I would have looked him up in "Great Irrelevant Figures of the 20th Century").
Rating: 
Summary: The wrong translation
Review: On War is an essential work but this is an abridgement first published in the late 1960s and based on a poor translation dating from around 1908. The editor, Anatol Rapoport, is a scientist, not an historian, and the commentary is something of a hatchet job. Much better to get the 1976 translation with commentary edited by Michael Howard and Peter Paret.
Rating:
Summary: The traditional Western approach to conflict
Review: On War is the classic book on the Western approach to conflict...direct...mechanical. Clausewitz wrote this book when military chain of commands were based upon the classical European highly centralized chain of command. If you wish to understand a more Asian decentralized approach to conflict and war, read Sun Tzu, Warfighting or some of Mao Tse Tung's writings on guerilla warfare. Eric
Rating:
Summary: Unfinished Business
Review: On War is the work-in-progress never finished by Clausewitz. He died before all of his revisions could be incorporated into a final edition. Reading the introductory essays though, would lead one to believe that Clausewitz was the type of person who never would have been completely satisfied with any 'final' edition. On War is Clausewitz's effort to form a coherent theory of the art of war. His theory bears only a lukewarm resemblance to the realities of modern warfare as practiced by technologically advanced militaries like the United States and her NATO allies. The main thrust of Clausewitz's theory is that chance plays a much stronger role in the outcome of a war than many theorists are willing to admit. This aspect of his theory still remains true today, as does his assertion that the defensive form of war is stronger than the offensive form. The only other part of his theory that holds true today is the importance of military genius by the commanding officers in the conduct of the war. Of course, Clausewitz could not have predicted the effects that aircraft and ballistic missiles would have on modern war. His depictions of military superiority were grounded in the number of infantry, cavalry, and artillery pieces that could be mustered for the army. The nuclear missile is the ultimate equalizer among militaries of disparate strengths. The United States may have a superior military to China; but, the presence of nuclear weapons, that can reach American soil, will ultimately prevent the United States from major offensive actions on the Chinese mainland. One missing area from Clausewitz's work that he can be criticized for not acknowledging is the effects of naval power. I believe this shows his Prussian bias as they did not maintain naval forces. They fought all of their wars against continental powers. However, Clausewitz should have realized the power that navys exert by the strong English colonial presence. No nation of such limited land forces should be able to control so much territory under Clausewitz's theory. The easy answer was the superior strength of England's navy, which he doesn't acknowledge until the last few pages. There are several other aspects of war from a tactical nature that just aren't relevant anymore. They include 1) night fighting, 2) winter fighting, and 3)fortresses and depots. None of these elements either exist or affect the way in which wars are prosecuted in modern armies. At heart On War is a historical account of how wars were fought in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. This was a time when the balance of power arrangements hadn't broken down into the bloodletting of the first World War. Many more states existed in those times as opposed to modern Europe. All but a very few nations were headed by monarchies that viewed their nation and people as personal objects to be used and fought over at whim. It is curious that the Napoleonic campaigns that Clausewitz draws upon for so much of his theories heralded the end of warfare as Clausewitz knew it. The American Civil War reinforced some of his axioms; but, it also forecast the coming modern military that would obsolete many of his theories.
| 
