J. F. C. Fuller (1878–1966)

One more very surprising and beautifully written book. If certain political views presented seem to be litany for Westerners up 'til our times (especially views on USSR as solely Asiatic country, apparently pains and resentment of Russia's October Revolution still very fresh in the minds of Allied forces post 1920, so wild Asians are only way to portray Russia) therefore not something that is unexpected, author's view on the ways how conflict and wars have modeled the world and society are show more extremely down to ground and realistic.

In eight chapters author goes from ancient times culminating with Rome's, followed by Eastern Roman Empire's, rule of what might be called civilized world, period of chivalry and feudal warfare in Middle Ages, age of gun powder starting with fall of Constantinople through Renaissance, social revolutions, appearance of mass armies (coupled with rise of infantry and rifle), steam engine revolution, combustion engine revolution that caused appearance of airplane and tank up to the time and start of atom age. At all times weapons of war were suited according to the beliefs and views of the society where they showed up, they were expression of social culture and approach to life and, when they became mass produced and could make every adult into functioning soldier, they affected the inter-national relations across the globe because every nation now had huge manpower under their control.

Author manages to describe in a exquisite way that war always was and will remain part of human society. War was and remain mean of resolving issues between various human groups. To name it any different would be as stupid as saying, as author says, that lion and the lamb will lay down one near the other and live in peace. While ideal that is worth chasing, this is something that on our mortal plain is not something that will be taking place in a foreseeable future (if ever).

While war was always synonym for destruction, it was not until industrial age that it became business on its own. Previously it was linked to politics and achieving one's national goals through use of armed forces that were limited in force and used with relatively narrow goals since everything was controlled by the elites who governed their nations that were self-sufficient in every way.

With the rise of industrial society nations became inter-dependent and wars for the sake of control of resources began. As wars became more complicated and larger they became the engine that started to power the peace industries. Technology and advances for war purposes gave the same to peace/civil industry and progress started to grow and soon (especially with WW1 and WW2) civil industry became so advanced that people were no longer needed in numbers as before to make sure industry functions. As usually happens industry leaders pushed this issue to state (with statesmen controlled through industrial lobbys) and what to do with the surplus of manpower? But of course one needs to find the external enemy. This will start the war, power the technology advances that will shut off more people and this will require new wars, the longer the better and circle starts again. Basically war became racket (as stated by general Smedley Butler).

Author also marks significant differences that are hallmark of modern times - (i) propaganda and its use without any control that starts more and more wars of hate where calls are always for the utter destruction of the enemy and destruction of their lands (unfortunately still alive even today, and most distressingly coming from the "advanced" Western side) and looking at establishing any peace as "sign of weakness", (ii) loss of concept of political goals and letting armed forces rampage around the world on various battlefields even for decades for the sake of war itself and (iii) constant urge to create Supra-state to control everything and everyone, constantly loosing the view of the fact that organizations of this kind are never neutral, they are either dominated by group of interested parties or, in case full control is not possible, they are just skipped over and left behind thus creating dangerous precedents (League of Nations being one case, and UN the newest considering its week (if any) voice whenever powers to be decided they need to wage war in Middle East, Arab Peninsula, Iraq or Afghanistan).

War is for soldiers, true, but it needs to be controlled by elected politicians - and this means parliaments, congress or equal body that represents the people, not by persons controlled by financial interests and living far away from any danger. Author also talks about rise of cult of death, direction of negating life as anything constructive, basically turn towards destructable forces of nature that could doom us all. Again, something that resonates with modern world that looks at war and destruction as video game and is not aware of what warfare actually is.

Author ends on a relatively positive note, but almost 80 later I can only say that author was overly optimistic - technocrats are still keeping rest of the world in their grasp and politicians brought to power through former interests are what they are, tools they rely on rhetoric, propaganda and fiery hateful speech to stir up international political relations instead of solving problems.

Fact is that inter-dependency between nations is sickness, nations need to be self sufficient and able to hold their own. In groups nations behave as individuals - they are susceptible to group behavior and usually behave as hooligans, with no responsibility, and if last few years showed anything it is that they are as ready to stomp their own as they are ready to attack people from the outside.

Hopefully this will change, but I would not hold my breath. At the moment author's comment that industrial society of huge levels of productions can only come to being and prosper through authority and full control of populace, proves to be true. Profit does not allow for differences of thought or, oh horror, slowing down the process (give me that money, now, now, I want it yesterday!). And again last few years have shown that so called free West and rest of the world are not different at all when it comes to political structures. They all aim for financial gains, so they cannot have different political structures. And while people (citizenry) knows what financial and social difficulties are (especially in wartime) they tend to fall under the influence of their emotions and thus are easily controlled. Therefore they are not something from where to expect any resistance to disastrous decisions of their statesmen. Propaganda is powerful weapon and each society has their own percentage of zealots that terrorize the others (again do not look further than last 3 years and "holy" laymen and media persons that crucified the others just for asking questions).

Excellent warning of a book, still very much contemporary as it was when it was written.

Highly recommended. show less

The author is a British military historian who approached the study of these two famous Civil War generals from an objective, neutral viewpoint. And the conclusions that he draws would be controversial indeed. For so long the standard view was that Lee was the outstanding general of the war and that Grant won mostly by superiority in numbers without regards to casualties. JFC Fuller presents a convincing argument to the contrary, including casualty figures, disproving this long held show more conclusion. He elevates Grant to the supreme position. Judge for yourself. If you dare. show less

Well done and controversial, read it.

Fuller's point here is this: Grant is the true genius of the war and Lee is an overrated hack. I think most Americans familiar with he war will scoff at the very notion of that, but Fuller makes a well rounded and forceful argument (like he always does). Good stuff.

Early chapters of weighted towards British interpretation of American Revolution and War of 1812. More strategy than baseline tactical, til Mexican War. The chapter of Mexican campaign is fabulous, ending in the storming of Churubusco by US forces.

Seven Days chapter is confusing and not cohesive, though he does not hesitate to find fault with commanders. He is very critical of RE Lee throughout, basically saying he was a weak garrison commander who could neither train nor feed his show more army.Other Civil War battles were good, as was San Juan Hill.

Overall good for context and strategic info. A bit dry reading at times show less