It can be seen that in a war where one party cannot make the other party completely give up resistance, whether the two parties are willing to make peace will vary with the size of the possibility of victory and the amount of power needed. If both sides hope to make peace, their political differences will be resolved in a compromise, and a compromise will be reached together. When one party's desire for peace is more eager, the other party's desire for peace will be relatively weaker. Only when both parties' hopes for peace are combined and reach a certain level, peace will become possible. In this case, it is of course more advantageous to the party who had less thoughts on making peace.
We deliberately do not discuss the difference caused by the positive or negative effects of political goals in military operations; although this difference sometimes plays a very important role, we will only make a general discussion here, and we will elaborate on the following chapters. . Because the initial political intentions may change greatly as the course of war evolves, and may even become completely different in the end. This is because political intentions are also affected by the results achieved and the results that may be achieved.
So how can we increase the probability of winning? First of all, it is natural to use the method usually used when defeating the enemy, that is, to completely eliminate the opponent's army and occupy the opponent's land. However, the two methods used to increase the probability of winning are not exactly the same as when used to defeat the enemy. When we launch an attack on the enemy’s army, we want to continue to carry out a series of attacks on the enemy after the first strike, until the enemy’s army is completely wiped out, or we only want to rely on the first victory to deter the enemy and make the enemy Feeling that we have an advantage and feel unpredictable about the future, the results produced by the two are completely different. If our goal is the latter, then we only need to eliminate the number of enemy forces that can achieve this goal. In other words, when the goal is not to defeat the opponent, it is also different to take the method of occupying the enemy's land as another means. On the premise of defeating the enemy, destroying the enemy’s army is the most effective action, and capturing the enemy’s position is just the result of destroying the enemy’s army. Without destroying the enemy’s army, the enemy’s position is occupied. It can only be regarded as The last resort. On the contrary, if our goal is not to defeat the enemy, and we are convinced that the opponent does not want bloody decisive battles, and is afraid of bloody decisive battles, then occupying areas where the opponent’s defense links are weak or there is no defense at all can bring about this in itself. interest. If this kind of benefit is so great that it even makes the other side worry about the outcome of the war, then occupying the other side's area is a shortcut to peace.
Now we have to propose a special method that can increase the probability of victory without defeating the enemy. This is a measure that has a direct interest in politics. Since some measures are very suitable to destroy the enemy's alliance or make the alliance no longer play any role, and can win new allies for oneself, so as to carry out favorable political activities, it is not difficult to understand that these measures will inevitably greatly increase the percentage of victory. It is a simpler method than defeating the enemy to achieve one's own goals.
The second question is what methods can be adopted to consume more of the enemy's power and make the enemy pay a higher price.
The depletion of the enemy's power includes the depletion of the army and the loss of land, that is, the army is eliminated by us and the area is occupied by us.
They are both destroying the enemy's army and occupying the enemy's land. Their role in situations where the enemy's consumption is increased is different from that in situations where other purposes are achieved. This point will be clear if you study carefully. This difference may be small in most cases, but we should not be confused because of this, because when the motivation in reality is very weak, even the smallest difference will often determine the way in which power is used. effect. Here, we just want to show that under certain conditions, other methods can also be used to achieve one's own goals without having to break out a war. This is neither contradictory, nor unreasonable, nor is it a mistake.
In addition to the two methods mentioned above, there are three other special methods that can directly increase the enemy's power loss. The first method is to invade, that is, to seize a certain area of the enemy. The purpose is not to occupy it, but to demand military taxes or even destroy it. At this time, the direct purpose of the invasion was neither to occupy the opponent's land nor to defeat the opponent's army, but merely to cause the enemy to suffer certain losses. The second method is: Our main purpose of action is to increase the enemy's loss. It is not difficult to imagine that there are two uses of military functions. One is that direct military strikes are more effective when the enemy can be defeated, and the other is that political offensives are more advantageous when the enemy cannot be defeated or the enemy does not need to be completely defeated. According to customary terms, the former are more military operations, and the latter are more political activities. But from the highest goal, both are both military, and as long as they are compatible with the conditions at the time, either method is appropriate. The third method is exhaustion tactics, which is the most extensive and the most important method in terms of application range. We use the word "exhaustion" not only because it can vividly express the characteristics of this method, but also because it can accurately illustrate the essence of this method. In combat, the meaning of the word "exhaustion" should be: Gradually consume the enemy's material strength and wear down the enemy's will through the use of protracted warfare.
If we hope to defeat the enemy through protracted war, then we can only be satisfied with small goals, because achieving larger goals consumes more power than achieving smaller goals. The smallest goal we can set for ourselves is pure resistance, that is, fighting without any positive intentions. In this case, the means we use will relatively exert the greatest effect, and the results obtained will be the most sure. But is there any limit to this negativity? Pure resistance cannot develop into absolute passivity, because pure tolerance is not fighting. Resistance is also a kind of military activity, through which it can consume a lot of the enemy's power. When this consumption reaches a certain level, the attacker will have to abandon his original intention. This is what we need to achieve in pure resistance, and the negative nature of our intentions is manifested here.
Of course, the effect of negative intentions in individual actions is worse than that of positive intentions under the same circumstances (if positive intentions can be achieved). However, the difference between the two is precisely that the former is easier than the latter. Realization means greater control. The shortcoming of negative intentions that are less effective in individual actions can only be compensated by time, that is, by extending the duration of the war. Therefore, simple resistance based on negative intentions is a natural means of defeating the enemy through protracted warfare.
This is why the difference between offense and defense can be seen everywhere in the entire field of war. Here, we still can’t study this issue in depth, just explain it briefly: negative intentions themselves provide all favorable conditions and a strong form of combat to achieve this intention. Between the magnitude of victory and the certainty of victory, philosophical The laws of mechanics are embodied in this intention. We will do further research on these issues later.
If the negative intention, that is, the concentration of all forces for simple resistance, can obtain favorable conditions for the struggle, and this superiority is large enough to offset the enemy’s original advantage, then as long as the enemy’s power consumption is gradually increased through protracted warfare , So that their political goals have been achieved, and it is not worth the price paid for them, which forces the enemy to abandon the original political goals. It can be seen that this kind of "exhaustion" method is the most common method used by the weak to resist the strong.
In the Seven Years' War, Frederick the Great could not have defeated the Austrian Empire. If he acted like Charles XII, he would surely be defeated. However, he used his forces in a genius and reasonable manner, so that the powers that united against him saw that his strength was consumed much more than originally imagined in seven years, and he had no choice but to make peace with him.
In summary, there are many ways to achieve goals in war, and they are not limited to defeating the enemy under any circumstances. It can either directly destroy the enemy’s army, occupy the enemy’s area, or simply occupy the enemy’s area, simply invade the enemy’s area, or even adopt directly politically related measures or simply wait for the enemy’s attack, and so on. Both methods can be used to frustrate the enemy's will, but which method is more effective to choose depends on the specific circumstances at the time. In addition, we can also cite many shortcuts to achieve the goal. These are collectively referred to as different methods for each individual. In every field of human communication, there are sparks of personal characteristics that transcend all interest relationships. In war, personal characteristics play a very important role both in the government and on the battlefield. This spark of life is everywhere. Here we just want to explain the existence of these methods, if you want to classify them, it is simply the practice of nerds. Since each person has different characteristics, it can be said that the methods used by individuals to achieve their goals are also different, and it can even be said to be endless.
In order not to underestimate these shortcuts to achieve the goal, and neither treat them as rare exceptions nor ignore their impact on wars, we must see that the political goals that cause wars are diverse and strive for There is a big difference between a desperate war for the survival of a country and a war that is forced to fulfill its obligations due to a forced alliance or an alliance that is about to collapse. In the real world, there are many types of wars between the above two kinds of wars. If we have the right to deny one of them theoretically, then we have the right to deny them all. This approach completely ignores the real world.
Above we have discussed the goals that people are pursuing in wars. Now let's talk about the problem of means.
The only means is struggle. No matter how many forms of struggle there are, no matter how different a struggle is from a brutal struggle to vent hatred, and no matter how many activities are involved in the struggle, it should not be regarded as an activity within the scope of the struggle. All the effects of the war must come from the struggle. This is inherent in the concept of war.
Even in the extremely complicated reality, it will always be the case. This is very easy to prove. Everything that happened in the war was manifested through military actions. Where there is an army, where there are people who use weapons, there is bound to be a struggle.
Therefore, everything related to the army, that is, everything related to the formation, maintenance, and use of the army, belongs to the category of military activities.
The establishment and maintenance of the army are only means, and the use of the army is the end.
The struggle referred to in the war is not a contradiction between individuals, but a whole composed of several parts. We can distinguish the various parts of this huge whole according to two standards, one according to the subject and the other according to the object. In the army, a certain number of soldiers are often organized into units, and a certain number of units constitute higher-level organizations. Therefore, the struggle of any unit in these organizations constitutes a more or less distinguishable unit of struggle. In addition, according to the purpose of the struggle, that is, the object of the struggle, the struggle can be divided into units.
We call each part of the struggle that can be distinguished from each other a battle.
If the use of the army is based on the concept of struggle, then the use of the army is the decision and deployment of several battles.
All military activities are directly or indirectly related to combat. Soldiers are drafted into the army, put on military uniforms, take up weapons, receive training, and even sleep, eat, drink, and march. The purpose of all activities is to fight at the right place and at the right time.
Since all clues to military activities ultimately fall on the battle, when we understand the deployment of battles, we also have all clues to military activities. The effects of military activities can only be produced from the deployment of war and the conduct of combat. It is impossible to directly judge and produce from the conditions that existed before the deployment and conduct of combat. In battle, all purposes are to destroy the enemy, to be precise, to completely incapacitate the enemy. This is inherent in the concept of combat. Therefore, it can be said that the elimination of enemy forces is always a means to achieve combat goals.
The purpose of the battle may be to destroy the enemy's army, but this is not absolute, and the purpose of the battle may also be something else entirely. We have already pointed out that defeating the enemy is not the only means to achieve political goals. There are other things that can be the goals pursued in war. It goes without saying that these things may become the goals pursued by certain military operations. May become the purpose of the entire battle.
Some battles are subordinate parts, and their ultimate goal is to defeat the enemy's army, but it does not mean that the elimination of the enemy's army must be our direct goal.
The organization of a large army is extremely complicated, and when there are many factors that affect the use of the army, the struggle process carried out by the army is also very complicated, consisting of several subordinate and interconnected parts. The goals pursued by each part are many and complex. Perhaps these goals themselves are not directly destroying the enemy's army, but they can play a great role in destroying the enemy's army. They are only indirect. When an infantry battalion is ordered to expel an enemy in a certain highland, bridge or other place, it is generally their real purpose to occupy these positions, and destroying the enemy in these places is just a means or a secondary thing. If the enemy is driven away with just a feint, the goal will be achieved. To seize this high ground or bridge is generally to eliminate enemy troops more effectively. Since this is the case on certain battlefields, it is even more so in the entire theater. The entire theater is not only fighting between one army and another, but also between one country and another country, one nation and another nation. contend. Throughout the course of the battle, the various possible relationships will inevitably increase, and the corresponding modes of action will inevitably increase. The deployment of battles is even more diverse. Due to the subordination of the objectives, the initial means are far from the final. The purpose is getting farther and farther.
It can be seen from this that defeating the enemy's army, that is, eliminating the part of the enemy's army that is confronting us, may not be the real goal of a certain battle, but just a means. In this case, the number of enemy troops to be eliminated is not the key to the problem. Fighting here has become a measure of strength. It has no value in itself, and only its result, that is, its ending, has it. value.
But in the case of the disparity in power between the two sides, one can measure which one is strong and which is weak as long as it is estimated. Fighting is impossible at this time, because the weaker side will immediately make concessions.
The purpose of the battle is not to eliminate the enemy soldiers participating in the battle. Since there is no need to go through the battle of bullets, just deploy the battle and pass the resulting situation to achieve the goal of the battle. This is sufficient to explain why military activities were frequent throughout the war, but the smoke-filled battle did not play an obvious role.
There are countless battle examples in the history of war that can illustrate this point. As for how many of these battle cases have adopted this bloodless method to achieve their goals, and what reputations they have earned are worth the test, I won’t talk about it here for the time being, because we just want to explain that this is not the case. A bloody war process is possible.
The only means in war is to fight. However, the application of this method is diverse, and we can adopt different usages according to different purposes. In this case, our research seems to become meaningless. But this is not the case, because a clue can be found from the study of this only method. This clue runs through the entire military activity, and it can link the entire military activity.