Liddell Hart, in Strategy, attempts to sell his readers what he believes to be the panacea to war fighting, the Indirect Approach. Hart also goes to great pains to dismiss the relevance of Clausewitz's On War. Like many British historians of his time, Hart reveals his seemingly reflexive distaste for anything Prussian or German. Although Hart provides a rich history of warfare from the time of the Peloponnesian War to World War II, he only supplies examples that support his thesis. Upon reading, I felt like Hart had a preconceived thesis, and then set out to prove it. However, true scholarship requires one to acknowledge contrary points of view, and deal with them. His criticism of Clausewitz is so unfounded as to make me question how deeply Hart actually read On War. Many of Hart's ideas are perfectly consistent with Clausewitz. Their main point of difference would be that Hart claims to have found the secret strategy that will always prove victorious, while Clausewitz painstakingly avoided writing a prescriptive work, emphasizing that each war is a unique situation, and the approach will then be unique. Hart is a good read, but ultimately falls short of his goal.