¹ See Parer, Peter, Yorck and the Era of Prussian Reform, 1807–1815 (Princeton 1966).Google ScholarHoward, is the author, among other things, of The Franco-Prussian War (New York and London 1962).Google Scholar Parkinson has leaned heavily on Paret's book on Yorck, as he has also on Craig's, Gordon A.The Politics of the Prussian Army (New York 1955).Google Scholar

² Neumann, Sigmund, “Engels and Marx: Military Concepts of the Social Revolutionaries,” in Earle, Edward M., ed., Makers of Modern Strategy (Princeton 1943), 158.Google ScholarParet, concidentally quotes the same passage at greater length in his “Clausewitz: A Bibliographical Survey,” World Politics, XVII (January 1965), 278.Google Scholar

³ In retiring as Deputy Secretary of Defense in January 1972, Mr. David Packard stated publicly concerning the word “sufficiency” so often used by Secretary Laird: “It sounds good in speeches but it doesn't mean a damn thing.”

⁴ On the subject of Clausewitz's early education, Parkinson seems to have ignored entirely Paret's, Peter “Education, Politics, and War in the Life of Clausewitz,” Journal of the History of Ideas, XXIX, No. 3 (1968).Google Scholar Paret, however, leans less to the idea of Hegel's influence than I do.

⁵ Clausewitz, Karl von, On War, trans, by Jolles, O. J. Matthijs (New York 1943), 3f.Google Scholar In this edition, p. 3 is actually the first page. A new translation is being prepared by Peter Paret working jointly with Michael Howard, and should be available within a year or two. The Jolles translation was based on the corrupt third German edition; Paret and Howard are using the original German edition of 1832, reissued in 1935 by A. W. Bode, Leipzig.

⁶ Mes rêveries sur la guerre is contained in its entirety in English translation in Phillips, Maj. Thomas R., ed., Roots of Strategy (Harrisburg, Pa. 1940), 177–300.Google Scholar The passage quoted is on p. 298.

⁷ Gilbert, Felix, “Machiavelli: The Renaissance of the Art of War,” in Makers of Modern Strategy (fn. 2), 25.Google Scholar

⁸ On War (fn. 5), 624.

⁹ The changes during that time, which were by no means the contribution of Napoleon alone but owed a great deal to others as well, demonstrate that tactics can change significantly without comparable innovations in technology. Frederick the Great, being interested in having his soldiers fire as rapidly as possible and not in having them aim carefully, used a musket which was not balanced well for good aiming—but he could easily have used a better one. For an excellent treatment of the relevant tactical changes (upon which Parkinson also relies), see Paret's Yorck (fn. 1), especially chap. 2 and the appendices.

¹⁰ The full title of the Nachrichten referred to in the text is Nachrichten über Preussen in seiner grossen Katastrophe. Parkinson cites this as having been published in 1825, before Clausewitz's death, but Paret, who is certainly more reliable in these matters, has it as first published by the Historical Section of the Great General Staff in 1888! Clausewitz did publish in 1807 some articles entitled: “Historische Briefe über die grossen Kriegs-Ereignisse im Oktober 1806,” Minerva, I and II (Berlin 1807).

¹¹ He had married Marie, née von Brühl, in December 1810 after a courtship of over six years.

¹² Clausewitz's brothers, however, were not sent into Russia. Both later became major generals, like their more famous brother.

¹³ On War (fn. 5), 620f.

¹⁴ Ibid., 608. Before leaving Prussia he had talked with Scharnhorst about the coming campaign and had agreed entirely with the latter's conception that the only sound strategy for the Russians was to fall back deeply into their own territory and delay a full-scale battle with the French as long as possible. As aide to von Phull he had tried to convey this view not only to his commander but also to the Czar.

¹⁵ Clausewitz may indeed have succumbed somewhat to the beauty of Paris, and may therefore have let slip some of his habitual resentment and detestation of the French. In one letter to his wife he speaks of another bridge somewhere that reminded him of the extraordinary beauty of the Pont Neuf across the Seine.

¹⁶ My attention has been called to the fact that the word “paralyzed” may well have read gelähmt in the German original; as such, it might be interpreted as carrying a connotation of frustrated or thwarted. If it was indeed the latter idea that Clausewitz meant to convey, it would imply that he perceived his condition as being externally rather than internally imposed. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the German original to check the point, but it would actually change things very little. The question would then be: why, and in respect to what, did he feel so frustrated?

¹⁷ Parkinson in his bibliography cites a number of books which, it is clear from their titles, contain either all of Clausewitz's letters that have survived, or at least considerable portions of them. Those that seem most worth mentioning are: Hahlweg, W., Carl von Clausewitz, Schriften, Aufsätze, Studien, Briefe (Göttingen 1957)Google Scholar, a book which Parkinson describes as being more concerned with Clausewitz's career than with his private life; Heuschele, Otto, Carl und Marie von Clausewitz (Leipzig 1935)Google Scholar; Linnebach, K., Karl und Marie von Clausewitz: Ein Lebensbild in Briefen und Tagebuchblättern (Berlin 1916).Google Scholar (Incidentally, one notices that even in German the name is spelled either Karl or Carl.) Paret (fn. 2) notes that “a fairly sizable body of manuscripts and letters remains unpublished today.”

¹⁸ Though Parkinson refers to this note and quotes a part of it, I have used the full note as presented in die Jolles translation (fn. 5), xxixf. I also have in hand the manuscript version of the new translation of this note by Howard and Paret.

¹⁹ Quoted in Col. Joseph I. Greene's Introduction, ibid., xiii. The late Col. Greene states that the quotation comes from the revised (1944) edition of Rosinski's The German Army, but though the language is undoubtedly Rosinskian, I have satisfied myself that it is not to be found in either die original (London 1939, New York 1940) edidon or the revised one. In the latter, Rosinski does refer to “a more detailed independent study” of Clausewitz that he is planning, and I suspect Greene is quoting from the manuscript of mat. See Rosinski, , The German Army (Washington 1944), 73.Google Scholar