Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 10

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Clausewitz
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The main purpose of the following study is to investigate the life of Carl von Clausewitz after the fall of Napoleon as well as some of his minor and less known political writings up to 1823. To better illustrate the subject, the article is divided into two parts. First and introductory one is a brief sketch of Clausewitz’s biography, particularly focusing on the fate of the former reform group and its relevance towards his further military career. The second section in turn analysis Clausewitz’s selected political works between 1816‑1823, especially those related to Prussian military institutions.
EN
This study investigates the life of Carl von Clausewitz to 1815 and analyses impact of the Napoleonic Wars era and its relevance to On War. The idea for this article stems from the fact, that the overall image that emerges from the Polish literature in this field is incomplete. Above all it lacks a proper understanding of his life as well as it omits most of his minor historical and political writings. To better illustrate the complexity of the issue in question, the article is divided into eight separate sections, each one describing particular period in Clausewitz’s life, especially the importance of Prussia’s defeat in the twin battles of Jena and Aüerstedt, the process of restoration of the state that took place in following years and his participation in campaigns of 1812 in Russia and of 1815 in France. This study also tries to illustrate and explain how Clausewitz’s experience contributed to the formation of his theory of war.
PL
Po dwudziestowiecznych rewolucjach w sprawach wojskowych – nuklearnej i następującej po niej rewolucji informacyjnej, w XXI wieku można wymienić nowe obszary, które w dającym się przewidzieć czasie mają zrewolucjonizować wojnę, m.in. masowe wykorzystanie robotów, w tym również obdarzonych sztuczną inteligencją, nowej generacji środki farmakologiczne, mechaniczne wspomaganie żołnierzy oraz zastosowanie nanotechnologii. Niniejszy artykuł poddaje w wątpliwość założenie, jakoby rozwój nowych technologii oraz postęp techniczny w dziedzinie wojskowości miał rzeczywiście zrewolucjonizować przyszłą wojnę.
EN
The 20th century saw two major revolutions in the military world: the nuclear revolution and, following it, the information one. At the beginning of the 21st century, one can easily think of the elements that could, in a foreseeable future, revolutionize modern warfare, such as the wide use of robots, including the ones featuring artificial intelligence, pharmacological treatments, systems of mechanical support for soldiers, and nanotechnology. This article questions the thesis that the advent of new technologies and fast technical development will truly revolutionize future wars.
PL
W artykule omówiono wybrane teoretyczne i praktyczne problemy trwającej od 2014 r. wojny rosyjsko-ukraińskiej z perspektywy politycznej teorii wojny Carla von Clausewitza. Stwierdzono, po pierwsze, że definiowanie pierwszej fazy konfliktu jako „wojny hybrydowej” jest na gruncie teoretycznym zabiegiem zbędnym, który zaciemnia metodologicznie ważną różnicę między wojną a pokojem. Po drugie, pomimo innowacji technologicznych, koncepcje „mgły wojny” i „tarcia” pozostają aktualne. Po trzecie, obecna faza konfliktu pokazuje, że spontaniczne i oddolne zaangażowanie obywateli w wojnę było zjawiskiem przejściowym, które uległo podporządkowaniu centralnym strukturom dowodzenia. Ukazano również, że z perspektywy teorii Clausewitza strategiczna porażka Rosji w pierwszej części drugiej fazy konfliktu jest całkowicie zrozumiała.
EN
The article discusses selected theoretical and practical problems of the ongoing Russian Ukrainian war since 2014 from the perspective of Carl von Clausewitz’s political theory of war. It argues, first, that defining the first phase of the conflict as “hybrid war” on theoretical grounds is an unnecessary exercise that obscures the methodologically important difference between war and peace. Second, despite technological innovations, the concepts of “fog of war” and “friction” remain relevant. Third, the current phase of the conflict shows that the spontaneous and grassroots involvement of citizens in the war was a transitional phenomenon that became subordinated to central command structures. It also shows that from the perspective of Clausewitz’s theory, Russia’s strategic failure in the first part of the second phase of the conflict is completely understandable.
EN
The aim of this article was to discuss basic concepts of Clausewitz philosophy of war. At first, I wanted to present and criticize some older interpretations of philosophical assumptions which founded theoretical schema of On war. In the next part, I presented some recent interpretations based on the distinction between “early” and “old” (or “mature”) Clausewitz. They gave us new look on few theoretical problems included in Prussian’s general works and his attitude to many important Enlightenment philosophers like Kant and Hegel. Finally, I tried to prove that Clausewitz theory has dialectical character, which makes it open and worth further developments.
EN
The aim of this paper is to show Carl von Clausewitz influence on Vladimir Lenin writings and actions. We especially want to analyse this influence on bolshevik’s theory of war, warfare and revolutionary struggle. We think that Clausewitz writings on strategy and tactics played important role in marxist-leninist theory of just and unjust war’s. They have also important role in defending the October Revolution in Russia because beliefs of prussian general helps bolshevik with creation of the Red Army as mighty and powerful revolutionaly tool. At the end we want to show actuality of „clausewitzian” theory of war in modern marxism. We would say also few words about importance of marxist investigations of war as instrument of capitalist culture.
EN
This article will try to indicate the most important theories which constitute the modern paradigm of the war. The theory of the war is an important issue in political philosophy because it accentuates how the boundaries of the existence and the functioning of the state are drawn. Seeking works that form the basis of the paradigm, one should begin with presenting a specific structure of the theory proposed by T. Kuhn. On this basis the article will be divided into three parts. The first part is focused on the construction of Kuhn’s scientific paradigm. Additionally in order to prove the meaningful use of paradigmatic structure in issues connected to humanities and philosophy Giorgio Agamben thesis will also be presented. The next part will expose the main elements of Carl von Clausewitz's theory of war. The most important of these is an assumption that war is the continuation of political action that seeks to compel the enemy to fulfill “our will”. The second element to be tested will be a political concept of Carl Schmitt along with its specific categories of the enemy and the friend. The second element to be tested will be Carl Schmitt’s the Concept of the political with its specific categories: the enemy and the friend. The third part of the paper will present the concept of Jerzy Wiatr. Its task will be to supplement the paradigm by showing that the parties of the war may be a “political community” and not only the state. This will help to extend the applicability of the paradigm in various fields of the social sciences. The ultimate aim will be to convince the reader that these theories are the most important part of the paradigm. Moreover, there is a high probability that they became the basis for the modern paradigm of the war.
8
87%
EN
Security has rightly been included in the social sciences in Poland. Carl von Clausewitz stated that war is a continuation of politics using other means. According to Clausewitz, war is “an act of relations between people,” and by this token it is a phenomenon of social life. Clausewitz not only explained the phenomena of struggle and war, but also their origins through the prism of society and security – not as a threat but as a response to threats. The purpose of the paper is to show security as a social phenomenon by distinguishing the differences between security and survival. In fact, Hobbes argued that it is not possible to provide security for a society operating as a community (i.e. outside the state) because its existence is not protected by anybody. This means that such social entities are concerned only with survival in the context of the internal competition of small groups whose proportions of force change easily and quickly. The issue of security becomes even more significant when it comes to the possibility of such an entity disintegrating, whether from the inside (e.g. betrayal) or by outsiders when they penetrate the relationship (immigration) or try to destroy it in a rivalry (aggression).
PL
Bezpieczeństwo słusznie zostało w Polsce zaliczone do nauk społecznych. Carl von Clausewitza głosił, że wojna jest kontynuacją polityki innymi środkami. Według Clausewitza, wojna jest „aktem stosunków pomiędzy ludźmi”, czyli jest zjawiskiem życia społecznego. Clausewitz nie tylko wyjaśnił fenomen walki i wojny, ale także ich genezę przez pryzmat funkcjonowania społeczeństwa i kwestii bezpieczeństwa – nie jako stanu braku zagrożeń, ale takiego reagowania na zagrożenia. Celem artykułu jest ukazanie bezpieczeństwa jako zjawiska społecznego poprzez rozróżnienie pomiędzy bezpieczeństwem i przetrwaniem. Trafnie Hobbes twierdził, iż zapewnienie bezpieczeństwa społeczeństwu funkcjonującemu w formie zbiorowości (czyli poza państwem) nie jest możliwe, ponieważ nad jego egzystencją nikt nie czuwa. Oznacza to, że takich bytów społecznych dotyczy jedynie problem przetrwania w warunkach wewnętrznej rywalizacji małych grup, których proporcje sił łatwo i szybko się zmieniają. Problem bezpieczeństwa staje się jeszcze bardziej znaczący, gdy pojawia się ewentualność dezintegracji takiej całości, czy to od wewnątrz (np. zdrada), czy przez obcych, gdy dokonują oni penetracji związku (imigracja), albo próbują go zniszczyć w warunkach rywalizacji (agresja).
PL
Artykuł omawia wybrane problemy klasycznej marksistowskiej refleksji na temat wojny, wojskowości. Zaprezentowane zostanie piśmiennictwo wojskowe Fryderyka Engela oraz jego i Marksa historyczne analizy roli wojen w procesie ekonomicznych przemian społeczeństwa. Engels jest również autorem bogatej spuścizny dotyczącej historii wojskowości. Omówiony zostanie również stosunek do militaryzmu czołowych przedstawicieli socjaldemokracji, takich jak Wilhelma i Karla Liebknechtów, Augusta Bebla, Franciszka Mehringa i Róży Luksemburg.
EN
The article discusses some problems of classical Marxist reflection on war and military service. We will some military writings of Friedrich Engels and his some Karl Marx's historical analysis of the role of war in the process of economic transformation of society. Engels is also the author of a rich legacy on military history. We will also discuss will some problems with militarism in writings of leading representatives of social democracy such as Wilhelm and Karl Liebknecht's August Bebel, Franz Mehring and Rosa Luxemburg.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.