“ A single man can be beaten by the simple process of killing him. Not so a nation—for total extermination, even if it were possible, would recoil on the heads of the victors in the close-knit organization of the world’s society, and would involve their own ethical and commercial ruin—as we have had a foretaste from the attrition policy of the Great War. But besides being mutually deadly it is unnecessary, for a highly organized state is only as strong as its weakest link. In a great war the whole nation is involved, though not necessarily, or wisely, under arms. ”
B. H. Liddell Hart
Biographical details
Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart (1895–1970), a British military historian and strategist, is renowned for his theories on warfare, particularly the "indirect approach," which emphasized psychological and economic pressure over direct assaults. A former soldier disillusioned by World War I’s devastation, he advocated for mobile armored forces and strategic adaptability, ideas that influenced both pre-war military thought and post-war historiography.
His seminal works, including Strategy (1941) and Paris (1925), dissected historical campaigns and critiqued traditional tactics, while his postwar interviews with German generals, compiled in The Other Side of the Hill (1948), sparked debates about his role in shaping perceptions of blitzkrieg. Though controversial, his legacy endures in modern strategic doctrine, reflecting his lasting impact on military theory and the complexities of 20th-century conflict.
Quotes by B. H. Liddell Hart
“ It is clearly not, despite the assertion of military pundits, the sole true objective in war. Clear the air of the fog of catchwords which surrounds the conduct of war, grasp that in the human will lies the source and mainspring of all conflict, as of all other activities of man’s life, and it becomes transparently clear that our goal in war can only be attained by the subjugation of the opposing will. All acts, such as defeat in the field, propaganda, blockade, diplomacy, or attack on the centres of government and population, are seen to be but means to that end ”
“ Thus, should the millennium of Universal Peace fail to arrive, and nations still continue to settle by an appeal to force questions which vitally affect their policy, it may be that they will learn to wage war in a manner less injurious to the interwoven fabric of modern civilization, and incidentally to their own prosperity and ultimate security, than proved the case in the Great War of 1914–1918. Security—yes, because the greater the injury inflicted, the deeper are the sores of the body politic, and in these the toxins of revenge fester. ”
