Gift Guide
Customer Reviews for

Strategy: Second Revised Edition

Be the first to write a review
( 0 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star


4 Star


3 Star


2 Star


1 Star


Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation


  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing all of 5 Customer Reviews
Page 1 of 1
  • Anonymous

    Posted July 30, 2010

    Too broad and yet too narrow

    I read this book as a part of a 19th-20th century warfare class I was taking for my history minor. I found it to be interesting, yet ultimately biased and (dare I say) a bit pushy. Liddell Hart really pushes his theory of the indirect method as the ultimate strategy of war, but his definition of the "indirect approach" is as broad and confusing as his definition of the "direct approach" is narrow. By literal definition, "indirect" is anything that is not "direct," but to say that an indirect approach is the only way to win is pushing it. Liddell Hart's distinctions eventually become blurred as he spends half of his book summarizing 25 centuries of combat and declaring victories "indirect" and defeats "direct." He criticizes several generals I have always considered (warning: opinion) successful: Frederick the Great, Moltke the Elder, etc. At one point he declares that someone's "indirect approach was too direct." It seemed a strange comment to make in the midst of his thesis. Furthermore, he disparages any disciples of Clausewitz as bloody-minded and destructive, claiming that they have a narrow reading of the Prussian, only to later demonstrate his own narrow reading of Clausewitz, who he widely discredits in the second half of the book. Another issue that discouraged me from the book was the absence of any battles or wars that didn't agree with the overall thesis. Specifically, the Russo-Japanese War was relegated to less than a page, and the Boer War didn't make an appearance at all.

    In the end, I simply found Liddell Hart biased and confusing. It is as if he chose a broad thesis to defend and then refused to admit that there may be problems with it or exceptions to the rule.

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted September 8, 2008

    Strategic Intelligence

    This book has all the details you want from the first wars back 16th Century. Every 100 years a country becomes military powerful and conquer lands with there ecomoical strengh. Mostly this book tell you how to lose battles from WWI and WWII on the hittler side. I bought this book from my personal information that I got some of it. Basically, just tells the same thing every chapter so there is no change to strategy when new weapons for the infantry, tanks, and other combat units out there today.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted August 11, 2006

    Required reading

    There are so many military books that are a toast to the author's acuity. There are no doubts about Liddel-Hart's confidence in his understanding of the subject. But then, by the end of the book, you have confidence in your own understanding of the subject. What Clauswitz does for definitions of war, Liddel-Hart does for clarifying how and why to move the pieces. This book belongs, well worn, next to On War. It should be required reading for captains and above.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted December 28, 2002

    "Business", "Theatre", " Politics"

    "Business", "Theatre", or "Politics"; that B.H. Liddell Hart was a soldier and a military theorist/historian rather than businessman, a playwright or a politician is the only reason this work is not otherwise so named, and thus focused. His own limited martial experience, later enlightened and informed by exhaustive professional study, enabled his use of the history of warfare for a verdant field of analogy, metaphor and example. An alternate approach to the study of waging war is expressly not his chief intent, however. Advocacy for the "indirect approach" in his ultimate purpose. Unlike many military writers, ancient and modern, who reduce their theories to slim maxims out of "superficial obfuscation" more often than "genuine profundity"; Hart's readers are treated to illustrations from the Hoplites of classical Greece, to the hydrogen bomb and the early Cold War. That the "consequences of failure in war are greater than in any other human enterprise", Hart's use of military examples is especially useful in communicating his main; though not necessarily exclusively military, premise. The author does not offer a cursory introduction and overview to military history and strategy, but carefully selects and examines contests of will, some of them bloodless, which convincingly support his central theme: the superiority of "expending brains instead of blood", of "fighting with the legs instead of the fists". Moving always along the "line of least expectation" and striking with the greatest surprise. A commander's grasp of the "indirect approach" while quantifiable in material and geographic victories; is best understood through its impact psychologically - the havoc and confusion it achieves in the mind of the opponent. The aim of "grand strategy" then is the engineering of conditions, circumstances and perceptions which make ultimate defeat of an enemy on the battlefield an historic inevitability or a mere useful finality for a specific contest. Though every vignette is culled from military history, minimum imagination and extrapolation will yield the obvious applicability of the "indirect approach" to business, romance, entertainment or politics - any field of human endeavor where one will contends for supremacy or influence over another.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 22, 2009

    No text was provided for this review.

Sort by: Showing all of 5 Customer Reviews
Page 1 of 1