Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the most offensive of them all? – Explaining the offensive bias in military tactical thinking

References

• Adams, K.R., 2003. Attack and conquer? international anarchy and the offense-defense-deterrence balance. International Security, 28 (3), 45-83. doi:10.1162/016228803773100075
   Google Scholar
• Adler, P.A. and Adler, P., 2003. The reluctant respondent. In: J.A. Holstein and J.F. Gubrium, eds. Inside interviewing: new lenses, new concerns. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE, 153–174.
   Google Scholar
• Bassford, C., 1996. Landmarks in defense literature: on war by Carl von Clausewitz. Defense analysis, 12 (2), 267–271. Available from http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Bassford/DefAnReview.htm
   Google Scholar
• Clausewitz, C., 1976. On war. Princeton, Guildford: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Corum, J.S., 1992. The roots of blitzkrieg: Hans von Seeckt and German military reform. Lawrence, Kan.: University Press of Kansas.
   Google Scholar
• Dunnigan, J.F., 2003. How to make war: A comprehensive guide to modern warfare in the twenty-first century. New York: Quill.
   Google Scholar
• Dunstan, S. and Dennis, P., 2009. The six day war 1967: Jordan and Syria. Oxford: Osprey.
   Google Scholar
• Finlan, A., 2013. Contemporary military culture and strategic studies: US and UK armed forces in the 21st century. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Försvarsmakten, 2013. Armé reglemente Taktik (AT) 2013 [SAF, Tactical army regulation 2013]. Stockholm: Försvarsmakten.
   Google Scholar
• Frieser, K.-H. and Greenwood, J.T., 2005. The blitzkrieg legend: the 1940 campaign in the West. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Frykvall, M., 2014. Doctrinal imbalance: a study of Swedish army doctrine. Thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in partialfulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. Available from https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a610961.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gudmundsson, B.I., 1995. Stormtroop tactics: innovation in the German Army, 1914-1918. West Port, Conn.: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Gustafson, M., 2014. The duality of tactical thought: A study of how Swedish land forces‘ commanders view tactics in irregular warfare. Helsinki: National Defence University.
   Google Scholar
• Handel, M.I., 2000. Corbett, Clausewitz, and Sun Tzu. Naval war college review, 53 (4), 106–124.
   Google Scholar
• Hertz, R. and Imber, J., 1995. Introduction. In: R. Hertz and J. Imber, eds.. Studying elites using qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, vii-xi.
   Google Scholar
• Heuser, B., 2002. Reading Clausewitz. London: Pimlico.
   Google Scholar
• Jans, N., 2014. Getting on the same net. In: Soeters, J., Shields, P. M. and Rietjens, S., eds.. Routledge handbook of research methods in military studies. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 19-28.
   Google Scholar
• Jans, N.A., Jans, N., and Schmidtchen, D., 2002. The real C-cubed: culture, careers and climate and how they affect military capacity. Published by Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Kier, E., 1995. Culture and military doctrine: France between the wars. International security, 19 (4), 65–93. doi:10.2307/2539120
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kier, E., 1997. Imagining war: French and British military doctrine between the wars. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kretchik, W.E., 2011. U.S. army doctrine: from the American revolution to the war on terror. Carlisle Barracks: U.S. Army War College.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, J.S., 1984. The offensive/defensive balance of military technology: A theoretical and historical analysis. International studies quarterly, 28 (2), 219–238. doi:10.2307/2600696
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen, J.A. and van Creveld, M., 2011. The evolution of operational art: from Napoleon to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Posen, B.R., 1984. The sources of military doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany between the world wars. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reus-Smit, C., 2005. Constructivism. In: S. Burchill, ed. Theories of international relations. 3rd ed. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 188–212.
   Google Scholar
• Schein, E.H., 2010. Organizational culture and leadership. 4th ed. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Storr, J., 2009. The human face of war. London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Van Evera, S., 1984. The cult of the offensive and the origins of the first world war. International security, 9 (1), 58‐107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Evera, S., 1999. Causes of war: power and the roots of conflict. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vego, M.N., 2007. Joint operational warfare: theory and practice. Newport, RI: Naval War College.
   Google Scholar
• Welch, C., et al. 2002. Corporate elites as informants in qualitative international business research. International business review [online], 11 (5), 611–628. doi:10.1016/S0969-5931(02)00039-2
   Google Scholar
• Wengraf, T., 2001. Qualitative research interviewing: biographic narrative and semi-structured methods. London, Thousand Oaks Calif.: Sage.
   Google Scholar