For Frederick the Great; the prescription for warfare was simple: kurz und vives ("short and lively") - wars that relied upon swift; powerful; and decisive military operations. Robert Citino takes us on a dramatic march through Prussian and German military history to show how that primal theme played out time and time again. Citino focuses on operational warfare to demonstrate continuity in German military campaigns from the time of Elector Frederick Wilhelm and his great "sleigh-drive" against the Swedes to the age of Adolf Hitler and the blitzkrieg to the gates of Moscow. Along the way; he underscores the role played by the Prussian army in elevating a small; vulnerable state to the ranks of the European powers; describes how nineteenth-century victories over Austria and France made the German army the most respected in Europe; and reviews the lessons learned from the trenches of World War I. Through this long view; Citino reveals an essential recurrent pattern - rapid troop movements and surprise attacks; maneuvers to outflank the enemy; and a determination to annihilate the opposition - that made it possible for the Germans to fight armies often larger than their own. He highlights the aggressiveness of Prussian and German commanders - trained simply to find the enemy and keep attacking - and destroys the myth of Auftragstaktik ("flexible command"); replacing it with the independence of subordinate commanders. He also brings new interpretations to well-known operations; such as Moltke's 1866 campaign and the opening campaign in 1914; while introducing readers to less familiar but important battles like Langensalza and the Annaberg. The German way of war; as Citino shows; was fostered by the development of a widely accepted and deeply embedded military culture that supported and rewarded aggression. His book offers a fresh look at one of the most remarkable; respected; and reviled militaries of the past half millennium and marks another sterling contribution to the history of operational warfare.
#1250664 in Books University Press of Kansas 1995-01-18Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.01 x .95 x 6.09l; 1.07 #File Name: 0700608079320 pages
Review
30 of 50 people found the following review helpful. An exceedingly poor; revisionist work of pseudohistoryBy Integrity ReviewsOnly a professor writing for a university press could get a book this poor published. Matthews views are on the most extreme fringes of revisionist interpretations of American history; and may be summarized as follows: Thomas Jefferson was idealistic and good; James Madison was materialistic and bad. If you are inclined to think that this is an exaggeration; I will quote 4 sentences from the very last page of this book (consistent with .com's guidelines; I am limited to only 4 sentences of quotations): "It was Madison; not Jefferson; who designed the system. Madison's...dream has; as he knew it would; turned into a nightmare for increasing numbers of marginalized Americans. Instead of the chance to pursue happiness; they have neither the opportunity; the hope; nor even the illusion of either. America....has metamorphosed into an intriguing Orwellian-Kafkaesque labyrinth; where a few Ks still search for the reality behind the ideological myth; while the rich find meaning in each of their possessions." If you think that this makes sense; if you believe that this even remotely resembles the vision of James Madison; one of the fathers of our nation and its greatest expert on the American Constitution he did so much to create; then this is your kind of book. If not; I recommend that you save your money and order other books of real value on the life and works of Madison.0 of 4 people found the following review helpful. Three StarsBy Kelly EOk10 of 16 people found the following review helpful. Groundbreaking WorkBy G. F GoriThis work is truly goundbreaking. The comparison of the liberal/commercial views of James Madison with the radical democratic views of his close friend; Thomas Jefferson are truly enlightening. Matthews shows how Madison was closer to Hamilton than to Jefferson in political philosophy. Madison was obsessed with balance; and order in the liberal tradition. Jefferson;on the other hand; had a vision of radical democracy in the republic. Ward republics; and local democracy were infused into Jefferson's thought. Madison was more concerned with balancing the interests of society and controlling "factions". He viewed government from a more Hobbsian view than other Jeffersonians.Madison was far less trusting of human nature and more concerned with "stability" in society than with experiments in government. This book goes against the grain of current scholarship which unites Jefferson and Madison in philosophy when in fact in many ways they were poles apart. A great book.
