John Lewis Gaddis, a famous cold war historian and great strategic researcher, was once called "the master of cold war historiography" by The New York Times, and now he is Professor Robert A. Lavitt of Yale University.

About this book

On Grand Strategy was written from the Persian War more than 2,500 years ago to the Second World War in the 20th century. From the Roman leader who ruled the ancient Mediterranean to the American president who changed the new continent of America. Rich in literature and profound in thought, it not only has a deep interpretation of fables, but also analyzes the essence of many strategists' strategic thoughts at all times and in all countries. In the author's view, Gaddis's grand strategy is to reach an agreement on goals and abilities, and make timely adjustments according to changes in the environment.

Core content

First, what kind of thinking mode do you need to master to formulate the correct strategy?

Second, what pitfalls need to be avoided when formulating strategies?

3. What are the similarities of successful strategies?

Hello, welcome to listen to a book every day. The book I'm going to tell you today is called Grand Strategy.

You listen to the title "On Grand Strategy", is it particularly tall? Who is the author who can master this level of topic? The writer is John Lewis Gaddis, a professor at Yale University. He is an authority in the field of cold war history, and was once praised as a "master of cold war history" by the famous The New York Times. You know, during the Cold War, great strategists came forth in large numbers. All the wisdom about strategy in human history has been brought into full play in the process of hegemony between the two great powers, the United States and the Soviet Union. Many outstanding strategists, such as former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, made their mark during the Cold War. Gaddis, the author of this book today, as a famous figure in the history of the Cold War, has a profound understanding of strategy. The book "Grand Strategy" can be said to be the crystallization of his lifelong efforts, so it has been widely concerned by the academic community since its publication.

You may think that strategy is something that big people should care about, but no matter what industry you are engaged in, you will gain something from this book, because it is particularly practical, grounded and operable. Take the definition of "strategy" as an example. We often mention this word, but if we are suddenly asked "what is strategy", it may be difficult for us to understand it in a few words. Today, the book comes up with a particularly concise definition of strategy: "The so-called strategy is the balance between goals and capabilities." To put it bluntly, it is to set goals according to one's own ability, constantly accomplish small goals, and at the same time improve one's own ability and constantly approach the big goal in that dream. Don't underestimate this sentence. I don't know how many heroes died because they failed to grasp the balance between goals and abilities. Napoleon, for example, almost unified Europe, but it was because he overreached himself that he led an expedition to distant and cold Russia and finally lost the game. Napoleon's mistake, in the final analysis, is the mistake of strategic judgment. People who can constantly balance goals and abilities are well-deserved great strategists.

I understand everything. What exactly should I do? How can we avoid repeating the mistakes of our predecessors and make our life journey smoother? I will convey the wisdom of the author's life to you from the following three aspects: 1. What kind of thinking mode do you need to master to formulate correct strategies? Second, what pitfalls need to be avoided when formulating strategies? 3. What are the similarities of successful strategies?

first part

Let's look at the first aspect. The correct strategy is first manifested as a "mental method", that is, a way of thinking. So what exactly is this way of thinking? The author points out that there may be two kinds of personality fighting in everyone's heart, one is called "fox" personality and the other is called "hedgehog" personality. This first comes from an ancient Greek proverb: "The fox is clever, but the hedgehog has only one trick." It means that foxes are cunning and full of tricks. Hedgehogs have only one trick to deal with anyone, and that is to curl up. There is a famous contemporary British philosopher named isaiah berlin, who published a book entitled The Hedgehog and the Fox in 1953. This book extends the ancient Greek proverb to describe the difference between two kinds of thinking. The so-called fox thinking is to flexibly adjust goals and strategies at any time. The so-called hedgehog thinking is to always adhere to a single goal and adhere to fixed principles. Today, the author of this book thinks that hedgehog and fox represent two basic strategic thinking respectively. The value of hedgehog lies in its sense of direction, and the value of fox lies in its sensitivity to the environment. Only by combining the two can we conceive a successful grand strategy.

Why does the author say so? Let's look at the consequences if we can't balance the thinking of fox and hedgehog. Leaders only have fox character, but lack hedgehog character. What if they lack a sense of direction? To make it easier for you to understand, let me give an example of China. Simple fox character has a corresponding word in the history of China, which is called "hooliganism". The so-called hooligans are wandering around, shooting for a place, without clear goals and long-term planning. In the history of China, many peasant rebels made the mistake of being a rogue, and the most typical one was Li Zicheng the conqueror. The characteristic of Li Zicheng is that he is particularly good at dealing with the immediate situation, but he has never had a long-term goal. For example, he was once trapped in a narrow canyon by the Ming army and faced the danger of total annihilation. As a result, he surrendered to the Ming army, rebelled again after walking out of the canyon and escaped. Li Zicheng at this time, like a fox, scheming. Later, Li Zicheng led an army to fight at the gates of Beijing, which seemed to destroy the Ming Dynasty, but he did something puzzling. He sent someone to negotiate with Emperor Chongzhen, saying that he could seal the northwest region to me and let me be a vassal there. If you agree, I'll quit at once. Many historians believe that Li Zicheng's behavior shows that he didn't replace the plan of the Ming Dynasty at all, so he can play wherever he wants. Chongzhen's reaction is also very interesting. He thought it was too shameful to negotiate with the anti-thief, so he didn't agree. As a result, Li Zicheng attacked Beijing and Chongzhen hanged himself. At that time, Li Zicheng's rogue habits were completely exposed. After fighting for so many years, he has no plan at all about what to do after the war. After entering Beijing, his army thought it was accomplished and quickly corrupted. As a result, Li Zicheng stayed in Beijing for only 42 days and was forced to leave. Finally defeated and killed. Li Zicheng's tragedy shows that if a leader only has fox character, lacks hedgehog character and has no sense of direction, it will be difficult to win the final victory. What about the other way around? If a leader only has a hedgehog character, likes to find ways to go dark, and lacks fox's sensitivity to the external environment, what will be the final result? The author gives an example in the book, the protagonist is Xerxes I, the emperor of the Persian Empire.

Speaking of Xerxes I, you may feel a little strange, but he is very famous in the west, because he once led the Persian army and launched a war against ancient Greece. Athens, Sparta and other ancient Greek city-states formed an alliance against the Persian army for self-defense. A few years ago, there was a movie called "Sparta 300 Warriors", which told the story that 300 soldiers of Sparta kingdom fought to the death with Persian army in order to guard the hot spring pass, and all of them died in the end. The enemy that these 300 warriors faced at that time was Xerxes I.

As can be seen from the film, the power contrast between the two sides of the war is very different, and the Persian army is much stronger, which is indeed the case. According to Herodotus, an ancient Greek historian, Xerxes I led an army of1.5000, which may be exaggerated. Some scholars estimate that there are as many as 500 thousand Persian troops. Even so, it is a terrible military force. How many people are there in the Greek Coalition forces? According to historians' research, there were 40,000 heavy infantry and 70,000 light infantry in the Greek Coalition at that time, which added up to only 1 1000. You see, the strength contrast is obviously beneficial to Persia, but the result of the war is that Greece won. Xerxes I led the defeated army back to Persia. Soon after, he died in a palace coup. Why did the Persian army fail when it had obvious advantages? Xerxes I himself bears a great responsibility.

According to the existing historical records, Xerxes I is an ambitious man, full of self-confidence, thinking that he is on the top of the world, and all sentient beings can only worship in front of him like ants. In this state of mind, he thinks that the Greek Coalition forces are vulnerable and Greece is in his pocket. At first, the war seemed to go smoothly, and the Persian army under the command of Xerxes I won one victory after another. At this point, he lost his sensitivity to changes in the external environment and his perception of the distance between his goal and his ability. He even said at that time that after conquering Greece, he would conquer the whole of Europe. At that time, Xerxes I was accompanied by a minister named Ardaban, who expressed concern about the war. He said that to lead a huge army across a large area of land and water, we need to face great risks, such as communication may be blocked, supplies may be cut off, and morale may be hit. However, Xerxes I refused to accept the proposal, and was finally defeated by the Greek Coalition forces in a naval battle, which ended in the failure of the Persian Empire.

Xerxes I's failure was later repeated in countless historical figures. Napoleon, whom I mentioned at the beginning, was finally defeated because he led a great army to attack Russia. Toyotomi Hideyoshi, which once unified Japan, also tried to conquer Korea and the Ming Dynasty, and the result was a crushing defeat. The fundamental problem of these characters is that hedgehogs are too prominent in character and too persistent in a certain goal, regardless of whether their abilities can match or not.

In a word, strategy is a balance between goals and capabilities. If a leader wants to make a correct strategy, he needs to balance the "hedgehog" and "fox" thinking modes in his mind. Without hedgehog thinking, you will lose your sense of direction and find your goal. Without fox thinking, you will lose your sensitivity to the external environment and do something stupid. This sounds easy to understand, but there are still countless heroes who have made similar mistakes because they have not well balanced these two personalities. Why on earth is this? The author points out that this is because they have fallen into a similar trap. Let's see what these traps are. Core content

First, what kind of thinking mode do you need to master to formulate the correct strategy?

Second, what pitfalls need to be avoided when formulating strategies?

3. What are the similarities of successful strategies?

the second part

The author points out that in order to make a correct strategy, the first trap to be avoided is called "fog". The so-called fog is the unknown field and the infinite possibilities contained in the unknown. If you have played Warcraft, StarCraft and other games, you should be familiar with something called "fog of war", that is, the map seems to be covered with fog. You can't see where you haven't been, and you don't know what's hidden there. Even if you haven't played a similar game, you should feel similar in life. When you get something, there are always some things that are not understood, which makes people uneasy. The author points out that in order to formulate a correct strategy, we must first find out which conditions can be grasped and which conditions are shrouded in fog. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the various situations currently faced and divide them into three categories: one is known, the other is unknown, and the third is possible. Both the known and the unknown are well understood, and the most difficult and important thing is the so-called "possibility". Possibility means probability and randomness. This may or may not happen. An unexpected possibility, if realized, may have disastrous consequences. Having said that, let me give another example of China, which happened in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894- 1895.

Speaking of the Sino-Japanese War, we are all familiar with it. The most crucial battle in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 was the Yellow Sea naval battle, and beiyang fleet lost to the Japanese joint fleet. So why did beiyang fleet lose? You may have heard of many reasons: for example, beiyang fleet's military expenditure was used by Cixi to build the Summer Palace, and the fleet had no money to update its equipment; For another example, the officers in beiyang fleet embezzled military expenses, but they didn't buy enough shells, so they didn't have any shells under the guise of fighting. All these explanations are reasonable, but if we restore the whole process of the Yellow Sea naval battle, we will find that there is another important reason: in this naval battle, beiyang fleet has no supreme commander at all, and all warships are fighting on their own. As we all know, in this naval battle, Deng Shichang, a national hero, commanded his warship to crash into the Japanese warship "Yoshino" in an attempt to mutually assured destruction. He didn't succeed because he was hit by a torpedo. But have you ever wondered why Deng Shichang can take the liberty of ordering mutual destruction with the enemy? This is because no one cared about him at that time. So the question is, where's the commander? Beiyang fleet originally had a supreme commander named Ding, but as soon as the two fleets got angry, Ding was hit by shell fragments, seriously injured and unable to command. The supreme commander has left. Who will take his place? No one took his place, because Ding didn't think of the possibility of injury and didn't make corresponding plans. Therefore, from the beginning to the end of the Yellow Sea naval battle, beiyang fleet did not have a unified command, and failure was inevitable. You see, this is a classic case of possibility leading to disaster. Ding didn't anticipate the possibility that he couldn't command, and beiyang fleet suffered a fiasco. Strategy is the art of possibility. We often say that a person is "wily", but in fact he is experienced enough to predict various possibilities. So how can we be wily? This requires us to estimate all kinds of situations, both known and unknown, and pay special attention to list those possibilities before making a strategy, and then prepare a plan for all kinds of possibilities. This process is called "net assessment" in modern strategy. Evaluate understanding, what does this "net" mean? "Web" first refers to thoroughness, that is, trying to obtain all available information. The word "clean" also contains the meaning of clean, that is, to remove those untrue interference information and keep the real and useful information. The word "net" can also refer to purity, that is, processing information and seeing the essential problems behind it. Finally, the word "net" has another meaning, which is a little difficult to understand. Let me talk slowly, or we can refer to our advantage over the enemy, which is the so-called "net difference" in mathematics. In order to do this, we must spread out the advantages and disadvantages of both sides, carry out sand table deduction, find the most obvious place of our advantages, and then try our best to give full play to our advantages when the two sides exchange fire. If you still find the concept of "net assessment" difficult to remember, it doesn't matter. In 1936, Mao Zedong wrote an article entitled "Strategic Issues in China's Revolutionary War", which contains a complete summary of online comments, which you can use. This passage goes like this: "Commanders should use all possible and necessary reconnaissance means to extract the essence from the rough, discard the false and retain the true, think of the other side from one side, and study the contrast and relationship between the two sides with their own situation, so as to form judgments, make up their minds and make plans."

You see, in this passage, "using all possible and necessary reconnaissance means" means trying to obtain all available information, which is called "thoroughness". "Get rid of the rough and get the essence, get rid of the false and keep the true", that is, get rid of those annoying information and keep the real and useful information, which is called "cleanliness". "From here to there, from outside to inside" is to process information and see the essential problems behind it, which is called "purity". Finally, we should "study the contrast and relationship between the two sides", that is, we should take into account the situation of both the enemy and ourselves, do a good job in sand table deduction, and find the most obvious place of our own advantages, which is the so-called "net difference." If we can give consideration to these four points and make a net assessment in advance, we can find those hidden possibilities in advance to the maximum extent and make a good plan. I just told you an example of the Yellow Sea naval battle. If Ding can do the last point and do a good job in sand table deduction, it is likely to find out who will command the fleet after the commander is injured, and beiyang fleet will not fall into a leaderless situation. Well, that's the first trap to avoid when making a strategy: all kinds of possibilities under the fog, so a net assessment is needed. In addition, we need to avoid another trap when formulating strategies, which is called "friction".

You must have heard the word friction. In physics, it refers to the force that hinders the relative motion of objects. In fact, friction exists not only in physics, but also in many other fields. The strategy also borrows the concept of friction. Clausewitz, a great strategist, pointed out that friction in strategy refers to the resistance in the process of implementing strategic intentions. This sounds a bit abstract, so you can understand it by giving an example. In the process of marching, the longer the army marches, the more problems it will face, such as insufficient supplies, physical overdraft, and declining morale. These are all so-called "frictions" in strategy.

There is an old saying in China that "a spent force is a spent force, don't wear a sore thumb." In other words, the arrow shot by the powerful crossbow flew to the end, even the one made by Lu could not penetrate. The so-called silk cloth is famous for its thinness, but arrows can't penetrate it. This idiom refers to the influence of friction on strategic implementation.

In the history of war, we often see a spent force. For example, during the Three Kingdoms period in China, Cao Cao led a great army south and occupied Jingzhou, with the intention of destroying the Sun Quan Group in Jiangdong. Sun Quan's advisers were all in a panic. Only Zhou Yu stood up and said that Cao Cao was numerous, but it was not terrible, because he had several weaknesses: First, Cao Jun was exhausted after a long journey; Secondly, the weather is cold now, and Cao Jun's war horses have no fodder, so they can't fight at all. Northerners come to the south again, acclimatized and prone to illness. In a word, as long as we command properly, we can completely defeat Cao Jun. You see, all these problems listed by Zhou Yu are the frictions that Cao Jun is facing. It can be said that the key to Zhou Yu's final defeat of Cao Cao was that Cao Jun's strength was greatly reduced because of friction, and failure was an inevitable outcome. If leaders want to avoid the friction trap, they must do two things: self-knowledge and self-control. Self-knowledge means knowing where your limits are. Self-control is to retreat in time when the limit is about to be reached. This is easier said than done. When making strategies, leaders should learn to analyze problems dynamically and calculate the losses suffered by the team because of friction in advance. When implementing the strategy, leaders should always pay attention to the subtle changes of the team caused by friction, and once they find that the limit is coming, they should quickly withdraw. Please note that the most terrible thing about the friction trap is that the more unstoppable the army is, the more likely it is to approach the limit of friction by singing the song of victory.

Speaking of which, let me give another example of China. 1962, China launched a self-defense counterattack against India on the Sino-Indian border, which can be regarded as a sample to avoid the friction trap. At that time, our army won a great victory in the war against the Indian army, but at this moment, the leader ordered the initiative to retreat. This move seems incredible, but it is actually very understandable. The Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, where the Sino-Indian border is located, has rugged roads and inconvenient transportation. In addition, with the arrival of winter, there will be heavy snow to close the mountain. The deeper our army goes into India, the greater the friction it faces. Once the front line is stretched too long, there is a danger of total annihilation. Therefore, the leadership decided to withdraw troops in time and stop as soon as possible. This is the embodiment of self-knowledge and self-control.

Well, the two main pitfalls to avoid when making a strategy: fog and friction, just stop here for you. Although strategists need to face these dangerous traps, there are still many people who have made successful strategies and have the last laugh. Although these successful strategies look very different, there are some similarities in essence. Knowing these similarities, you may have a clearer idea when making a strategy for yourself. Let me tell you what these similarities are.

the third part

The first similarity of all successful strategies lies in the emphasis on speed. There's an old saying in China that "your soldiers are swift". As mentioned earlier, clausewitz once put forward four principles in large-scale battles, one of which is "Don't waste time, you must act quickly." You see, strategists in both the East and the West think so. In the past, we have all heard the truth that soldiers are expensive and fast, but we don't necessarily know the principle behind it. After listening to the previous interpretation, you may have a deeper understanding of these four words. The reason why soldiers are expensive is that "fast speed" can bring two benefits: First, the faster the speed, the less likely it is to face and respond, and the corresponding risks will be reduced. Second, the faster the speed, the smaller the friction force that needs to be faced, and the lower the possibility of failure due to friction. You see, speed can help us avoid the two traps mentioned above, so "high speed of soldiers" has always been the biggest similarity of various successful strategies. The second similarity of a successful strategy lies in sizing up the situation and adjusting the strategy at any time. The author points out that although strategy has the function of guiding the overall situation, it needs to face all kinds of possibilities and frictions in the process of war, and it is absolutely impossible to stick to the established strategy and adjust it at any time according to the changes of the situation. It was precisely because Napoleon was too obsessed with the goal of conquering Russia that he lost the game. In contrast, American President Lincoln is a positive case. Speaking of Lincoln, we all know that he was the liberator of slaves and led the northern United States to win the Civil War. But when the American Civil War just broke out, Lincoln did not really abolish slavery. This is because at that time, several states in the United States were still swinging north and south, and these states also practiced slavery. If slavery is completely eliminated, these States may be pushed into the arms of the enemy. But as the war went on, the situation became more and more unfavorable to the north. Lincoln decisively adjusted his strategy at this time, promulgated the Emancipation Proclamation, announced the abolition of slavery, and mobilized a large number of freed blacks to join the northern army. The nature of the American Civil War has undergone a fundamental change here, from a war to safeguard national unity to a revolutionary war to liberate slaves. After turning over, the vast number of slaves actively participated in the war, and finally turned the tide and the north won. You see, Lincoln can be said to be a typical example of sizing up the situation and adjusting strategy. Of course, the premise of sizing up the situation is to be able to perceive the subtle changes in the situation. The author points out that this requires insight into the situation, which is similar to an artist's ability and needs to be acquired in long-term practice. Some battle-hardened commanders often have a sixth sense and keep abreast of the ever-changing battlefield situation, which is the embodiment of insight.

The third similarity of successful strategies lies in breaking down tasks and getting closer to goals. A long-term strategy usually has lofty goals, but leaders must not have the idea of "fighting to the end", that is, they must not be impetuous and do things well after thinking about it. People who think this way usually fail. Because doing so will lead to the maximization of risks and frictions faced by leaders, and once they are out of control, they will suffer a fiasco. There are countless negative examples, so I won't say it here. Let me tell you a positive case. Today, the author of this book especially praises Octavian, the first head of the Roman Empire, and regards him as a model of strategy. Octavian is Caesar's adopted son. Caesar tried to monopolize power, offended a group of Roman nobles and was killed. Caesar once designated Octavian as the heir in his will, so Octavian is most qualified to inherit Caesar's power. But Octavian's influence was still very weak at that time, so he had to submit to humiliation and form an alliance with Caesar's two old people. Two old people, one is Anthony and the other is Rebida. Octavian formed an alliance with them and stabilized his fundamentals. Later, he married his sister to Anthony to win his support and isolate Rebida. Then Octavian threatened Rebida, saying that he was disloyal to the country and asked him to return the military power. Unable to confront Octavian and Anthony at the same time, Rebida had to hand over power and retire to the countryside. At this time, Octavian only had Anthony as the enemy. It happened that Anthony was hot-headed and made a big mistake. He fell in love with the famous Cleopatra and promised to give a piece of land in Rome to Cleopatra's sons. Octavian seized on this matter, saying that Anthony was a traitor and incited the Romans to oppose him together. Therefore, Anthony became a public enemy of Rome. Octavian saw that the time had come and formally declared war on Anthony. Anthony was losing ground and finally committed suicide with Cleopatra. Octavian finally monopolized the power and became the first emperor of the Roman Empire. You see, Octavian was not in a hurry when formulating his strategy. Instead, he broke down the tasks, completed the small goals first, and finally the big goals became the bag. Successful strategies throughout the ages have generally achieved this. Having said that, I want to share with you a famous saying by Tokugawa Ieyasu, a Japanese man of the hour: Life is like going out with heavy things on your back, so don't be impatient! This seemingly simple sentence actually points out the essence of a successful strategy. abstract

Ok, that's all for today. Let's summarize today's knowledge points:

First, leaders need to balance the two ways of thinking of "hedgehog" and "fox" in order to formulate correct strategies. Have a clear sense of direction and be sensitive to the environment. Only by combining the two ways of thinking can we conceive a successful grand strategy.

Second, the correct strategy also needs to avoid two traps. The first is to avoid various possibilities under fog, for which a net assessment of various conditions is needed. The second is to avoid friction traps, which requires self-knowledge and self-control.

Third, those successful strategies in history have several similarities: first, they value speed; Second, they can assess the situation and adjust their strategies at any time; Finally, they break down the task and gradually approach the goal.