When the nature of things can only be explained clearly with lengthy reasons, the criticism must rely on the relevant truths that have been determined theoretically. Of course, when commanders follow such theoretical truths in war, they must deeply understand the essence of these truths, rather than treating them as rigid and immutable provisions. Similarly, when criticizing, this truth should not be regarded as an external rigid law. When using it, there is no need to re-explain its correctness. It is like proving a mathematical formula. The key is to understand the spirit of truth, and to be accurate and detailed. Proving these truths can be done by theory. In this way, you can avoid using obscure language when criticizing, and use concise and clear language to express your views more clearly and straightforwardly.
It is true that it is not so easy for critics to truly achieve this. They must work hard to achieve this goal. When expressing, you must avoid using those complicated words and concepts as much as possible, and you cannot use the "auxiliary line" as a omnipotent tool. Only the insight that is not restricted by any system can clarify everything accurately.
It is a pity that until now, this kind of pious effort can only be seen in a very small number of critical investigations, and most of the investigations, because of the existence of vanity, are mostly full of showing off their erudition.
In the criticism, there is a notable drawback, that is, a certain one-sided theoretical system is regarded as a golden rule, so that it is abused to the point of unbearable. It is not difficult to point out the one-sidedness of this type of theoretical system, and once pointed out, its judge-like majesty suddenly loses its power. Here we only involve certain objects. After all, this kind of one-sided theoretical system is few and the harm caused is not great.
Another major drawback is the abuse of terms, terminology, and metaphors. Like many court guards, they follow various systems at all times, and sometimes they run rampant everywhere like criminals. Although some critics do not fully agree with any system, or have never fully mastered any system, it is impossible to use a system completely. However, they often break out of the context of these systems as a point of reference. The theoretical basis for a certain commander's action is wrong. Most of them would not be able to criticize if they did not take some fragments from various military theories as a basis. Terms and metaphors are the smallest of these fragments and are often embellished in critical discourse. All the terms and terms that originally belonged to a certain theoretical system, once they are extracted and used as general axioms, or as small crystals of truths that are more convincing than ordinary language, then they will gradually lose their appearance or even lose their appearance. The original correctness.
Therefore, the following situation has occurred: theoretical books and critical books are not discussed in a simple and simple way of thinking. At least they should make the authors understand what they are saying and make readers clear what they are reading. The opposite is that, The works are full of ambiguous and difficult terminology, so that the reader's understanding and the author's understanding are quite different. To make matters worse, nouns are often empty words with no substantive content. Even the author himself is not clear about what they want to express. They are satisfied with these vague conceptual nouns, and in everyday language, they often reveal Doubts about these conceptual terms.
In criticism, the third malady is more common, that is, to cite historical examples indiscriminately to show how knowledgeable oneself is. We have said before that history has a certain effect on military art. Below we are going to use a special chapter to discuss some views on examples and war history. If a historical event is quoted without thorough and in-depth research, it is inappropriate. Maybe someone else can use the same example to prove the completely opposite point of view! If three or four historical examples are taken from historical facts that are far apart in ages and countries, and in very different situations, and put them together, this approach will only cause ambiguity and confusion in judgment, and it will not explain any problems at all, nor does it have Persuasive. Because, as long as you study them carefully, you can see the errors in them. These criticisms are completely useless, but the author shows that he is knowledgeable.
These ambiguous, plausible, confusing, and arbitrary concepts have no benefit in real life. If the theory adopts this concept, it will only be opposed to the objective reality, and it will also be ridiculed by the capable generals.
However, if the theory can seriously study various issues of warfare, make arguments within its own capacity, and express them in concise and easy-to-understand language, it can avoid misusing historical citations to pretend to be self-defeating, truly attach importance to facts, and be able to connect with reality on the battlefield Operation, then the theory will not produce the above mentioned ills.
About historical cases
Historical battles can explain all problems, and in empirical science, it is the most convincing. This is especially true in the military field. General Scharnhorst wrote a handbook that best describes the real war. He believes that historical examples occupies a very important position in military art, and his accurate use of historical examples in his exposition is very admirable. If he hadn’t died in that battle, he had already revised the fourth part of the Artillery Manual. This will provide us with a better and more powerful evidence of his research spirit. Lessons learned from historical experience.
Ordinary theoretical writers are rarely able to use historical examples in such a clever and reasonable way. Their use of historical examples not only does not help readers, but sometimes hinders readers from understanding problems. Therefore, we believe that the accurate use of historical examples and the prevention of abuse of historical examples are equally important.
There is no doubt that all kinds of knowledge as the basis of military art should belong to empirical science. Although most of this knowledge is obtained through cognition of things, most of the nature of these things can only be truly understood through practical experience. Moreover, in different specific situations, the ways of using this knowledge are not the same, so it is impossible to fully understand its role only by relying on the nature of the means.
Gunpowder, one of the huge driving forces of modern military activities, is only recognized by people through practice, and people are still constantly experimenting for more in-depth research. Thanks to gunpowder, the speed of the projectile can reach a thousand feet per second. As long as any creature it touches will be killed, it goes without saying that this is something that can be known without further experimentation. However, to judge this effect and the hundreds of other conditions related to it very accurately, some conditions can only be understood by experience. Here, the effect of material should not be our only concern. The effect of spirit should also be discussed in depth. To understand the effect of spirit and give an appropriate evaluation, there is no other method besides relying on experience. In the Middle Ages, when the firearm was first invented, its structure was not perfect and its power was not great. Relatively speaking, its material effect was naturally much smaller than it is now, but its spiritual effect is far greater than it is now. If you want to know what an army that has been tested in danger, has won many victories and has a higher goal for itself, you must look at the army that Napoleon trained and commanded when he was fighting. The tenacity shown in the fierce war. People can't believe these just by relying on imagination. In addition, experience also tells us: in the European army, there are still some troops that can disrupt it with just a few shells. However, any kind of empirical science cannot always testify to historical examples of theories put forward by oneself, and the same is true for theories of military art. On the one hand, it is because the process of using historical examples to testify each truth is too cumbersome and impossible; on the other hand, it is also very difficult to use individual phenomena to demonstrate experience. If a very effective method is found in a war, it will be used repeatedly; and it is very likely to become popular for a while. In this way, this method has been widely promoted and used through experience, and it occupies a certain position in the theory. In this case, the theory will only rely on the simple quotation of experience to explain the origin of the method, and it is not necessary. Demonstrate it.
However, if one wants to use experience to deny a certain commonly used method, or introduce another new method, the situation is quite different. At this time, historical examples must be cited to prove it.
Now, we further study the application of historical examples, and soon we will find that there are four points of focus:
First, historical examples can help illustrate certain thoughts of the author. In all abstract investigations, the author’s thoughts are most easily misunderstood or not understood by people at all. If the author is worried about this happening, he can quote historical examples to supplement his point of view to ensure that readers can correctly understand The original intent.
Second, historical examples help illustrate the use of certain ideas. Historical examples can point out the handling of details, but it is generally impossible to include all situations when discussing certain ideas. This is the difference between theory and experience. The above two cases are pure examples, and the following two cases are proved by historical examples.
Third, the use of historical examples can prove one's own point of view. If you want to prove a certain phenomenon or result, then just use this method.
Fourth, by narrating a certain historical example in detail, or enumerating a certain lesson learned from a number of historical examples, at this time, the historical example itself provides a strong proof for the lessons learned.