I suppose many of the FHers here have read about the
Art of War, the one wrote by Sun Tzu.
(edit: busy these days, will update later in the week)
If you haven't heard of the Art of War or know nothing about it, it is a book, probably written over 2000 years ago, somewhere in Ancient China. It do not talk about how to slay your enemy on the battlefield or how to cut a bastard into pieces, it talks about how to win a war in the strategic level.
History Channel has a pretty much dumb-down version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5jLYgc4nBsI will skip here the biography of Sun Tzu as "who he is" is still a controversy.
People who have read it might think those are the "common sense" of a warrior/leader, I agree with that to a certain extend, but Sun Tzu is one of the few people who theorize strategies and write about it, and most importantly, his work survived.
Out of total boredom of my mind, and my admiration of the work, also my bit of interest in WWII, I decided to spend a little bit of time to find where this ancient work fit into WWII. And hope to start a discussion to kill more brain cells. If you think you could add more to Sun Tzu, do so and let's discuss!
Let us start by discussing the first chapter:
Chapter 1 - Laying PlansSource:
http://ctext.org/art-of-war/laying-plans English translation: Lionel Giles
"Sunzi said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected."
I suppose this is, now in the modern world, a common sense. Fighting solely for glory, for revenge, for bloodthirsty reasons, or hoping for of miraculous victory, are very much risking to screw your country up.
Arguably, I would suggest that Japan is the country that violated this principle, their goals are way too grand and too luck based for their power.
Almost all nations who start the war are devastated in WWII, put apart lost of lives, Germany lost a chunk of land and entire country in rubble, Japan become a nuclear testing ground and lost all their hard-fought imperial possessions. (What happened to Italy btw?)
The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field. These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.
The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger. Heaven signifies night and day, cold and heat, times and seasons. Earth comprises distances, great and small; danger and security; open ground and narrow passes; the chances of life and death. The Commander stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerity, benevolence, courage and strictness. By method and discipline are to be understood the marshaling of the army in its proper subdivisions, the graduations of rank among the officers, the maintenance of roads by which supplies may reach the army, and the control of military expenditure. These five heads should be familiar to every general: he who knows them will be victorious; he who knows them not will fail.
(1) The Moral Law - We see widespread use of propaganda in WWII. The side who lost support of people indeed fall apart: The most obvious example is that Italy is kicked out of war by her own people.
(2) Heaven - this is not about god, as stated above, weather is a decisive factor in WWII especially "general winter"... Germany paid dearly for not paying enough attention.
(3) Earth - It is a bit similar to (2), the muddy grounds of Russia (screwing panzers up), the mountainous area of China (essentially stalled the Japanese). Not giving enough consideration results in epic fail.
(4) Commander - I think this is rather obvious, the side with better commanders have the advantage, look at what Hitler do to his generals.
(5) Methods and discipline - it talks about supply routes and command structure, while I have no knowledge about command structures, supply is one of the reasons Germany failed, the lack of protection of merchant shipping of Japan also lead to her crushing defeat.
(btw, I thought Japan is an Asian country and would read about Sun Tzu, but apparently they act totally opposing to Sun Tzu in WWII)
Therefore, in your deliberations, when seeking to determine the military conditions, let them be made the basis of a comparison, in this wise: (1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law? (2) Which of the two generals has most ability? (3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth? (4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced? (5) Which army is stronger? (6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained? (7) In which army is there the greater constancy both in reward and punishment? By means of these seven considerations I can forecast victory or defeat. The general that hearkens to my counsel and acts upon it, will conquer: let such a one be retained in command! The general that hearkens not to my counsel nor acts upon it, will suffer defeat - let such a one be dismissed!
When we analyze the 1941 East Front: (1) No idea, but seemed Germans has a higher support as Stalin is not a good leader in the eyes of quite some number Soviet citizens, (2) Soviet leaders are purged (3) Certainly Soviets have this advantage (4) No comment (5) Not sure how would I interpret this, the Soviets have pretty darn good equipments and quite a lot of them, but to say Germans have inferior power I won't agree. (6) Looks like Germans have better training (7) No idea
Later in the war, (1) is losing for the German side, (2) is remedied by Soviet Generals learning more, (3) is still in the Soviet side, (4) I'd say roughly equal (5) The Germans start to produce stuffs like panthers but the Soviets offset it by numbers (6) No idea (7) No idea.
So it looks like Sun Tzu's theory is correct at least partially here, these factors are certainly something.
While heading the profit of my counsel, avail yourself also of any helpful circumstances over and beyond the ordinary rules. According as circumstances are favorable, one should modify one's plans.
The interpretation I accept is: it is crucial to gain initiative, the side losing the initiative need to devise a plan to try to gain it. This is common sense now but maybe not for some ancient people.
All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away;when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected. These military devices, leading to victory, must not be divulged beforehand.
We see very clearly that deception is the common thing in WWII, one example is the Germans believe the Allies would not land in Normandy. Surprise attacks are always devastating. Against a foe of similar strength, brute force attack would not be a good idea. Military Intelligence is so important so yes, I think most would agree that this is very important in warfare.
Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.
I don't think WWII generals/leaders do no calculation and send their force into battle/starting a war, even the crazy Japanese know the Americans is capable of outproducing them. This is quite obvious in modern times.
So here ends my comment on chapter 1. In my own interpretation, technology is not necessary as a separate category but a sub-element of the principles above (but I believe it relates to power, the quantity/quality thing), which I find quite amazing.
Chapter 2 - Waging WarSource:
http://ctext.org/art-of-war/waging-warSunzi said: In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them a thousand li, the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor, will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men.
This is nothing but saying that war is very expensive. World War II is indeed very expensive.
note: "li" refers to a distance unit in ancient China, I do not know how to convert, maybe just consider it as a mile or a kilometer.
When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
You see clearly that Sun Tzu is against any kind of war of attrition. A third party might come along and take advantage of the war-weakened you.
In WWII, world is split into two alliances, so there is no "3rd party" to take advantage of you. Arguably, you could say the colonies benefited because the colonial powers are weakened, however, this is not of their own decision (Germany/Japan started the war). Nevertheless, this is a wisdom.
Sun Tzu would call it crazy when he know that US actually ended the great depression by being dragged into the war.
It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on. The skillful soldier* does not raise a second levy, neither are his supply-wagons loaded more than twice. Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs. Poverty of the State exchequer causes an army to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished. On the other hand, the proximity of an army causes prices to go up; and high prices cause the people's substance to be drained away. When their substance is drained away, the peasantry will be afflicted by heavy exactions. With this loss of substance and exhaustion of strength, the homes of the people will be stripped bare, and three-tenths of their income will be dissipated; while government expenses for broken chariots, worn-out horses, breast-plates and helmets, bows and arrows, spears and shields, protective mantles, draught-oxen and heavy wagons, will amount to four-tenths of its total revenue.
Hence a wise general makes a point of foraging on the enemy. One cartload of the enemy's provisions is equivalent to twenty of one's own, and likewise a single picul of his provender is equivalent to twenty from one's own store. Now in order to kill the enemy, our men must be roused to anger; that there may be advantage from defeating the enemy, they must have their rewards. Therefore in chariot fighting, when ten or more chariots have been taken, those should be rewarded who took the first. Our own flags should be substituted for those of the enemy, and the chariots mingled and used in conjunction with ours. The captured soldiers should be kindly treated and kept. This is called, using the conquered foe to augment one's own strength.
*"the skillful soldier do not raise a second levy" should be "the skillful leader..." in my interpretation, this guy likely translated it wrong.
This mainly is about logistics, in a very qualitative manner, Sun Tzu is such an evil guy that encourage the exploitation of your conquest. But think in a different way, Sun Tzu encourage the capture of enemy equipments and provisions here and it can only be wise to do so. He also encourage to bring the fight to the enemy in order to prevent messing your own country up. Indeed, the only country that wasn't messed up is USA.
The scorch earth strategy used by Germans and Soviets is to prevent other side to gain advantage by following Sun Tzu's advice.
The last thing here is to encourage the well-treatment of conquered people/surrendered soldiers if you want to exploit your enemies the most. The idea is that using conquered soldiers to fight is better than using your own citizens so your country exhaust slower by the war. The Germans made the mistake of hating their conquered people (but it is Hitler the evil, so erm...)
You start to see that Sun Tzu is a calm man over there. He want the country to win a war, not to make his country to merely "feel good". Pride and other "personal things" are something to be avoided at all cost if you don't want to turn your victory into a crushing defeat.
In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns. Thus it may be known that the leader of armies is the arbiter of the people's fate, the man on whom it depends whether the nation shall be in peace or in peril.
This is more like to criticize people who bring their country into a prolonged war. Most leaders know this except Japan, whose plan is to "exhaust" the Americans by military victories if they don't shock the Americans to peace, no wonder they epic failed - that should never ever be a part of the plan to victory.
It is not to say you shouldn't prepare for an accidental lengthened period of war, not preparing for winter is a pure stupidity rather than following the Art of War.
edit: 2nd chapter included.