Hegel and Clausewitz

The Hegelian influence in Clausewitz has far more often been stated than it has ever been qualified, quantified, or verified. Perhaps the error was to try to ‘prove’ such a link, rather than focus on what such a convergence consists of and what it means, regardless of how it happened. Using both a historical and a linguistic argument, this essay delineates early writings that are devoid of any Hegelian similarities from those later in Clausewitz's life where a convergence of ideas becomes manifest. A counterpoise to Raymond Aron's overall dismissal of the link between the two authors, this article nonetheless reaches a limit as well: though they agreed in many ways in their methodology, the two fathers of the ‘dialectical war theory’ diverged quite dialectically on ethics. Hegel understands war as an inherently justified ‘right’ of the state, while Clausewitz sees it rather as the neutral ‘instrument’ of a moral agent, the state. The author traces this divergence to a missing link: a foundational aspect of Hegel's method regarding the nature of subjectivity and objectivity is absent from Clausewitz's work, and this appears to generate the impasse. The essay provides grey tones to arguments on either side of the debate about influences, or lack thereof, which have strayed too far into shades of black and white.Keywords: ClausewitzHegelwardialecticsphilosophy Notes1. The Graham translation of On War is used as the primary source in my work because while the Howard/Paret has become the norm among scholars, I find that its omission and misrepresentation of philosophical terms makes it less than ideal for my comparative approach with Hegel. All references to Clausewitz are to the following edition, unless specified otherwise: C. von Clausewitz, On War, J. J. Graham (trans), F. N. Maude (ed), J. Willem Honig (intro) (New York, 2004).2. B. Brodie, ‘On Clausewitz: A Passion for War. Review of Clausewitz: A Biography by Roger Parkinson’, World Politics, xxv, no. 2 (1973), 290.3. New research on this question has provided numerous examples of the Kantian influence in Clausewitz, which include a variety of direct quotes and the clear borrowing of concepts. In Clausewitz and Contemporary War, Antulio Echevarria provides examples of the Kantian influence in Clausewitz which can be traced back to the latter's Professor Kiesewetter. In ‘Dialectical Reasoning in War Theory’ by Youri Cormier (King's College London, near completion, 2013), there are additional examples of where the links appear even more direct to actual passages in the works of Kant than similar passages written in Kiesewetter's textbooks on the subject of Kant.4. A. Gat, The Origins of Military Thought: From the Enlightenment to Clausewitz (Oxford, 1989), 241–3.5. A. Gat, A History of Military Thought (Oxford, 2001), 231.6. G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, T.M. Knox (trans) (London, 1952), 160–1, 260. All other references to Hegel are to this book, unless specified otherwise.7. C. Taylor, Hegel (Cambridge, 1975), 128.8. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, 209–10, 260.9. Gat, The Origins of Military Thought, 234.10. Gat, The Origins of Military Thought, 234.11. Gat, The Origins of Military Thought, 235.12. Gat, The Origins of Military Thought, 228, 36.13. C. Taylor, Hegel (Cambridge, 1975), 117.14. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, preface, 10.15. Clausewitz, On War, 547. This line occurs in the context of Clausewitz speaking about the advantages of the ‘state of expectation’ on the defensive side, the difficulties in executing the attack, and the concepts of ‘mutual destruction’ and war's ‘absolute form’.16. Clausewitz, On War, Book VIII, chapter 6-B, 675.17. Paret, Clausewitz and the State (Princeton, 1985), 84.18. Paret, Clausewitz and the State, 84.19. Y. Cormier, ‘Dialectical Reasoning in War Theory’, Part 1, chapters 2, 4 (London: PhD dissertation King's College London, near completion, 2013). See also J. Honig's chapter ‘Clausewitz's On War: Problems of Text and Translation’ which provides a good look at the difficulties involved in translating Clausewitz to English, and examples of where this poses problems in the Howard/Paret translation. H. Strachan and A. Herberg-Rothe (eds), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (Oxford, 2007), 57–73.20. Gat, The Origins of Military Thought, 232–3.21. C. von Clausewitz, ‘Letter to his Fiancée’, 28 Jan. 1807; K. Linnebach (ed), Carl und Marie von Clausewitz, Ein Lebensbild in Briefen und Tagebuchblättern (Berlin, 1916), 85.22. Gat, The Origins of Military Thought, 203–4.23. Paret, Clausewitz and the State, 169–79.24. C. von Clausewitz, On War, Howard/Paret (trans and ed) (Princeton, 1989), Author's Comment, 63.25. Gat, The Origins of Military Thought, 194.26. See n. 4.27. Aron, Penser la Guerre, Tome I (Paris, 1976), 362. All other references to Aron are to this book, unless specified otherwise.28. Gat, The Origins of Military Thought, 233.29. Gat, The Origins of Military Thought, 233, citing : H. von Fallersleben, Mein Leben (Hanover, 1868) i. 311–12 (cited in Paret, Clausewitz and the State, 316).30. Gat, The Origins of Military Thought, 233, citing: H. Hoffman von Fallersleben, Mein Leben (Hanover, 1868) i. 311–12 (cited in Paret, Clausewitz and the State, 316).31. Gat, The Origins of Military Thought, 233.32. Aron, Penser la Guerre, 361.33. For example, see: Aron, Penser la Guerre, 23–4, 107, 350–70.34. Aron, Penser la Guerre, 368.35. Aron, Penser la Guerre, 355.36. Aron, Sur Clausewitz (Paris, 1980), 103.37. Aron, Penser la Guerre, 173.38. Paret, Clausewitz and the State, 171n.39. Clausewitz, On War, Howard/Paret (ed), Author's Comment, 63.40. Clausewitz, On War, Howard/Paret (ed), Two Notes by the Author, 70–1.41. Gat, The Origins of Military Thought, 255–63 (appendix).42. Clausewitz, Vom Kriege, Nachricht http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/VomKriege1832/Nachricht.htm43. Clausewitz, Vom Kriege, Buch II, Kapitel 5, http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/VomKriege1832/Book2Ch05VK.htm44. Clausewitz, On War, Book II, chapter 5, p. 114.45. D. Hume, Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1902), 63.46. I. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, M. Weigelt (trans) (New York, 2007), 212–26.47. G.W.F. Hegel, The Phenomenology of Mind, J. Baillie (trans), 2nd ed. (New York, 2005), i. 8. Please note that since only vol. 1 of this edition is available online, citations from vol. 2 of this particular translation are taken from another online edition, see below. Unless specified otherwise, references to the Phenomenology are to the Baillie (trans), 2005 edition.48. C. Taylor, Hegel (Cambridge, 1975), 128.49. Gat, Origins, 234–5.50. Aron, Penser la Guerre, 363–4.51. Clausewitz, Vom Kriege, Book VI, chapter 8 http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/VomKriege1832/Book6.htm52. Clausewitz, On War, Book VI, chapter 8, 385.53. Hegel, Phenomenology of Mind, 67.54. Clausewitz, Principles of War, 20.55. Ibid., 54.56. Clausewitz, Principles of War, 58.57. Clausewitz, On War, Book VI, chapter 9, p. 400.58. M. Van Creveld, The Art of War (London, 2000), 114–18.59. P. Paret, The Genesis of On War, in Clausewitz, On War, Howard/Paret (trans) (Princeton, 1976), 20.60. Clausewitz, Plan of Operations, 1804, 51–2 (citation from Paret, The Genesis of On War, 20).61. Clausewitz, Principles of War (New York, 2003), 46.62. Fichte, Machiavel et autres écrits philosophiques et politiques, L. Ferry and A. Renaut (trans) (Paris, 1981). Clausewitz read an essay written by Fichte on the subject of Machiavelli, in which the term ‘absolute war’ was used. He then wrote, in 1809, an anonymous letter to the philosopher in reply.63. The contradiction is in fact more intense than the impression one might have of it by reading the Howard/Paret translation. While Clausewitz notes the possibility of two types of political aims, he categorically states that the aim in war is one: make your opponent defenceless. See J.W. Honig, ‘Interpreting Clausewitz’, Security Studies, iii, no. 3 (1994), 575–6.64. Clausewitz, Plan of Operations (1804), 51 (citation from Paret, The Genesis of On War, 21).65. R. Aron, ‘Clausewitz et l’état’, Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 32e Année, no. 6 (1977), 1259.66. Clausewitz, On War, Book V, chapter 15, p. 339.67. Clausewitz, On War, Book III, chapter 18, p. 186.68. Clausewitz, On War, Book VI, chapter 30, p. 547 and Book VIII, chapter 6-B, p. 675.69. Clausewitz, ʻConsidérations sur la manière de faire la guerre à la Franceʼ (February 1801–October 1805), cited by J.W. Honig. Clausewitz and the Politics of Early Modern Warfare, in A. Herberg-Rothe, J.W. Honig, and D. Moran (eds), Clausewitz, the State and War (Stuttgart, 2011), 1–2.70. Hegel, Phenomenology of Mind, 34–6.71. Clausewitz, On War, Book VIII, chapter 3-A, pp. 646–8.72. F. Engels. Review of Marx's Critique of Political Economy, Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 16 (New York, 1980). http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/appx2.htm73. Aron, Penser la Guerre, 363–4.74. Clausewitz, On War, Book VIII, chapter 6-B, p. 674.75. Clausewitz, On War, Book VIII, chapter 6-B, p. 674.76. See for example B. Heuser, Reading Clausewitz (London, 2002), 41.77. J.W. Honig, ‘Clausewitz and the Politics of Early Modern Warfare’ in A. Herberg-Rothe, J.W. Honig, and D. Moran (eds), Clausewitz, the State and War (Stuttgart, 2011), 29–48.78. Ibid., 29–48.79. Clausewitz, ʻConsidérations sur la manière de faire la guerre à la Franceʼ [February 1801–October 1805], cited by J.W. Honig, Clausewitz and the Politics of Early Modern Warfare, 1–2.80. Aron, Penser la guerre, Tome 2, p. 227.81. Clausewitz, On War, Book I, chapter 1, p. 18.82. Clausewitz, Vom Kriege, Buch I, Kapitel 1, http://clausewitz.com/readings/VomKriege1832/Book1.htm#183. Clausewitz, On War, Howard/Paret (trans and ed), Book I, chapter 1, p. 88.84. G.W.F. Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, A.V. Miller (trans), with analysis of the text and foreword by J.N. Findlay (London, 1977), 360. I have used the Miller translation here because it makes the point more effectively in English than does the Baillie translation.85. Clausewitz, On War, Book VIII, chapter 2, p. 643.86. Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, Miller (trans), 360.87. M. Cozette, ‘Reading Clausewitz: Raymond Aron's Interpretation of On War, Clausewitz’ in The State and War, H. Herberg-Roth, Staatsdiskurse (Stuttgart, 2011), 126.88. See M. Frost, Towards a Normative Theory of International Relations (Cambridge, 2009), 168. Also, Taylor argues, in Hegel, that even though the central spiritual and ontological thesis is dead, Hegel remains relevant nonetheless, 538–9.89. Hegel, Phenomenology of Mind, 2nd ed., J. Baillie (trans), i. 28.90. Hegel, Phenomenology of Mind, J. Baillie (trans) (London, 2002), ii. 430.91. Clausewitz, On War, Book I, chapter 1, p. 14.92. Hegel, The Phenomenology of Spirit, Miller (trans) (Oxford, 1977), 58–66.93. Hegel, The Philosophy of Right, 260, 160.94. Hegel, The Phenomenology of Mind, 2nd ed. Baillie (trans), (Blackmask, 2001), 432.95. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, #324, 209–10.96. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, #324, 209–10.97. G.W.F. Hegel, ‘Letter to Niethammer’, 13 Oct. 1806, in Hegel: The Letters, C. Butler and C. Seiler (trans) with commentary by C. Butler (Bloomington).98. Clausewitz, On War, Book VI, chapter 5, p. 374

Convergence (economics · Divergence (linguistics · Economics · Epistemology · Hegelianism · Linguistics · Macroeconomics · Political science · Intelligence, Security, War Strategy · Military History and Strategy · Philosophy · War, Ethics, and Justification

• Teaching the First World War in Professional Military Education – A Reflection and Response

  Open Access•Jesse Tumblin, Michael S Neiberg•First World War Studies•2026

  Add to list

• Challenging the association of Hegel with political realism

  Open Access•Athanasios Gkoutzioulis•Journal of International…•2019

  Add to list