Even if the situation of the two parties is exactly the same, or because the commander does not know the situation of the other side, and mistakenly believes that the situation of the two parties is exactly the same, it is still impossible to have intermittent because the political goals of the two parties are different. From a political point of view, one of the parties must be the attacker. If both parties are defensive, there will be no war. The offensive side has a positive purpose, and the defensive side inevitably has negative factors; the offensive side must take active actions, only in this way can the offensive goal be achieved. Therefore, if the situation on both sides is the same, and the positive purpose can also prompt the offensive side to take decisive action.
Because of this, the intermission in military operations is strictly in contradiction with the nature of war, because the two armies are hostile to each other, and either side should eliminate the other in a non-stop movement, just like water and fire. It can never be compatible. If one party is not completely eliminated, the struggle between them will never stop. However, how do we explain the long-term stalemate of the two wrestlers who wrestled together for a long time? Military operations should have been carried out all the time, just like a clock. When you wind it up, it will keep moving. However, no matter how cruel the war is, it cannot get rid of the constraints of people. On the one hand, people are afraid of danger, but at the same time they create danger. This kind of contradiction exists in war, and people will not be surprised by this.
Looking back at the history of warfare, we can often find examples that are contrary to the above-mentioned situation. In order to achieve the goal in a war, it is not always advancing continuously. The basic state of the army is intermittent and stalled, and advancing is the exception. This has to make us doubt the correctness of the above viewpoints. However, despite the fact that a large number of facts recorded in the history of war prove that this is indeed the case, a series of recent events have just proved the point made above. The revolutionary war fully demonstrated the authenticity of this view and at the same time fully demonstrated its inevitability. In the revolutionary war, especially in every war launched by Napoleon, the whole war has been carried out to the extent of exerting the greatest strength. We believe that this is the law brought about by the war. Therefore, it is possible for war to maximize one's power, and it also shows that it is inevitable.
If it is not for advancing, then what is the explanation for the forces expended in the war? In order to bake bread, the baker will heat up the stove; in order to use the cart, the person will set the horse on the cart. If you just want the other person to give the same strength as you, but don't want to get any other benefits, then why do you have to make a huge effort
In general, we will talk about this principle. Now let’s talk about the changes in reality. Of course, here only refers to changes caused by the nature of things, not changes caused by some specific circumstances.
There are three reasons for the change. They are the inner restraining force. They can stop the speed of the clock of war.
One of the reasons is the cowardice and indecision of human nature. It makes the action often have a tendency to stop, so it acts as a kind of restraint, it brings pressure to the spiritual world, but this is not caused by gravity, but by repulsion. In other words, it is caused by fear of danger or fear of responsibility.
In the raging fire of war, people tend to appear cumbersome, so if you want to move continuously, you must have a lot of motivation to push him. Only the purpose of war cannot overcome this kind of gravity. If you do not possess the spirit of being good at fighting and daring to do things, it is easy to stop, and there is no pressure from higher authorities, then moving forward is just empty talk. In war, this spirit is just as good as a fish in the water.
The second reason is that people's understanding and judgment are not perfect. In war, this is more prominent than in any other place, because it is difficult for people to know their own situation very precisely at all times. As for the enemy's situation, because of their concealment, they can only rely on some observations to speculate. However, it often happens that both sides think that waiting is good for them, but in fact it is only good for one side. So as we said before, both sides think that waiting is a wise choice.
The third reason is that the defense is relatively strong and powerful. It is like a braking device in a clock, which can stop the action at any time. Perhaps Party A feels that he is too weak to attack Party B, but cannot conclude that Party B has sufficient power to attack Party A. Defense can increase power, so if one party does not take defense but takes offense, then he will transfer this power to the other party and lose it. To make a vivid metaphor, it is as if the difference between a+b and ab is equal to 2b. Therefore, not only did both sides feel that they had no power to attack the other side at the same time, but in fact it was also the case.
As a result, people found a foothold for caution and fear of great danger in military art, and proved that they were all reasonable, and therefore the violent nature of war was suppressed.
However, these reasons cannot fully explain why there was a long time interval in the previous wars that were not caused by major conflicts of interest. In these wars, nine out of ten times were ineffective. Over. This is mainly due to the demands of one party and the conditions and emotions of the other party leading to this phenomenon in the war. We have discussed this in detail in the section on the nature and purpose of war.
Maybe all of this will have a huge impact, making war a nondescript thing. Such a war is usually just a kind of armed surveillance. It may only be a threatening posture to support the negotiation, or it may be a moderation action whose purpose is to put oneself in a more advantageous position and act by chance. Involuntary and reluctant coalition action.
In all such occasions, there is no major conflict of interest, and the hostile factors are not strong. Neither party does not want to take excessive actions against the enemy. The two parties are not very afraid of the other party. In short, there is no major interest in force. And urge them to take action. Under this circumstance, the bets invested by the two governments will not be large, and naturally this kind of mild war will occur, and the hatred sentiment of the real war will be restrained.
The more such a nondescript war, the less inevitability, and the more contingency, the less the basis and foundation necessary to establish a theory.