“ 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
Summary
B. H. Liddell Hart’s Paris is a treatise on military strategy and the ethical dimensions of warfare, examining the lessons of the Great War and the changing role of technology in conflict. Focusing on themes such as the futility of complete destruction, the interdependence of attack and defense, and the moral implications of modern weapons like tanks, aircraft, and gas, the text argues that war’s true objective lies in compelling the enemy’s surrender rather than causing physical devastation.
Drawing on historical analysis and strategic thought, Hart emphasizes the importance of reducing human and economic losses while ensuring that military actions align with the broader objectives of national security and international peace.
Quotes from Paris (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. ”
