Comparing War And Osiander's The Peace Of Westphalia

In this essay, I will discuss about the importance of the Treaty of Versailles for Germany. Personally I believe that it was of crucial importance for Germany and I will show why this is the case and why I believe this. I will also expand the points which I have taken into consideration before coming to my conclusion.

Through the book ‘Europe’s Last Summer’ David Fromkin tackles the issues of pre WWI Europe, and the surrounding political, economic, social, debacles that led paranoid countries to go to arms after nearly a full century of relative peace within the European continent. While Fromkin certainly points his fingers to all the nations of Europe his primary focus lies with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Though he continues to stress throughout much of the book that Kaiser Wilhelm II and Archduke Ferdinand were fervent keepers of the peace within their nations, the fault of the war ultimately could be laid at the feet of their two nations and their constant attempts at war-mongering. He claims the war could have been avoided for the moment, had all the nations of Europe wanted peace, but the two bad eggs of Europe drew them all into an unavoidable general war.

Case Study 2: A Review of Comments of the German Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference on the Conditions of Peace (October 1919) President Woodrow Wilson had secured the political clout to establish foreign policy after World War I. However, the Europeans, especially the two major powers in Europe, England and

Why did peace fail in 1914? Promptly after the First World War had ended there were many debates about who or what caused the war. Historians such as Fritz Fischer argued that Germany was the to blame for the entirety of the war but there have been many more ideas of what was the cause of the war and therefore causing peace to fail. The main ideas amongst historians for the underlying causes of the war are the different balance in power due the formation of alliances, imperialism, militarism and also the July Crisis of 1914. This essay will argue that the alliances were the main cause of peace failing as with the constant conflict of interests and increasing tension it made it almost impossible to create peace in Europe in 1914.

The Successes and Failures of the Treaty of Versailles in Addressing the Causes of Conflict and Restoring Peace and Normality

Following many years of strife between Catholics and Protestant Reformers, war broke out in the Holy Roman Empire in 1618. This long lasting conflict, known as the Thirty Years’ War, would not cease until the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The political, economic, and social causes had been intensifying since the Protestant Reformation and the Peace of Augsburg. With a nation divided vastly, in massive debt, and in continuous religious conflict, there was only one solution: war. The Thirty Years’ War was a turning point in modern European history because new strong nations emerged, but the war also brought devastation to European populations and economics.

International Relations between the numerous European nations experienced a metamorphosis within the 17th and 19th century. Within this period, a conceptual policy known as raison d’état was developed by Cardinal de Richelieu of France. With raison d’état, a nation may seek its own self-interest in the presence of other nations, which create a counter-balance-of-power. In as such, the fundamental attributes of a nation-state emerge upon raison d’états exploitation in the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars. A nation state is comprised of a definitive territory with internationally-recognized borders, legitimacy in political government, a collective national identity, economic stability, and military power. Throughout Europe, France became one of the first European-nation-states; simply because the French Emperor, Napoleon Bonaparte, pursued a relentless quest of legitimacy, imperialism, and universal principle. The key factors which inspired France in their revolution are the idealistic associations of a republican government, liberty, fraternity, and equality. Accordingly, France pursued a hegemonic position in Europe by pronouncing this conceptual leap through international relations under Napoleon Bonaparte’s implementation of Raison d’état. The Napoleonic Wars produced a series of boundary orientated conflicts over the borders each European state possessed, such as Prussia, Russia, Holland, Great Britain, and the German confederate states. The principle of a defined nation-state originates from the 17th century Treaty of Westphalia, which gave rise to

Deep were contradictions between Germany and France. Their sources were, on the one hand, the desire of Germany to perpetuate Alsace and Lorraine, taken from France as a result of the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871), and on the other, - the determination of the French to return these areas (Audoin-Rouzeau & Becker, 2002).

In order to capture Tuchman’s argument on Germany’s behavior, it is essential to understand that realism asserts that all states seek power and that anarchy dictates the laws of the international system. Despite the internal divisions between classical and structural realism on how anarchy leads to war, this paradigm emphasizes the enduring propensity for conflict between self-interested states due to the lack of a central authority to regulate or control nation states. States are concerned with the distribution of power and seek to ensure their own survival and security in the international system. From a realist perspective, the outbreak of the war was a result of the increasingly multi-polar nature of arrangements and the entanglement of alliances, treaties and military plans all of which were diplomatic attempts to overpower nations and prevent hegemony. Therefore, Germany entered in an alliance with Austria which made it inevitable to avoid a two-front fight but also focused its diplomatic efforts to overcome the Anglo-Japanese Treaty which was viewed “as an unnatural alliance” (p.22, p.74). Realism also emphasizes that states are willing to do anything despite public and foreign opinion to gain power and size. It suggests that since its reunification in 1870, Germany viewed its national interest in terms of power and acted aggressively to secure its means of authority. It can also explain why the “probable effect on world opinion,

This war, which lasted for four years instead of its intended four months, marks a paradigm shift in the concept of warfare. Benefiting from the Industrial Revolution, this conflict was to shape the following century. Interestingly enough, this clash of super nations was expected to be “The War to End all Wars.” These nations believed that war was inevitable for the prosperity of Europe and the world. However, from a contemporary perspective, this is erroneous. The changing of warfare, the Treaty of Versailles and the reluctance of many nations, made it impossible for

The Congress of Vienna and the Treaty of Versailles are two of the “most significant international agreements in the history of modern Europe” (Packet). They not only ended drastic and intense wars, but they rearranged and changed the face of Europe. The Congress of Vienna aimed to restore the principles prior to the Napoleonic Era, including conservatism, legitimacy, and the balance of powers. The diplomats of this treaty agreed on a collective security, to protect one another from future revolutions. The Treaty of Versailles, on the other hand, had several different aims. One of the main goals was to restrict Germany from anymore fighting in the future. Another included the right of self-determination for newly established states. The diplomats, however, had trouble completely agreeing on the components of the treaty. The overall similarity of the Congress of Vienna and the Treaty of Versailles is the creation of alliances and “systems of international relations”, such as the Concert of Europe and the League of Nations, as a means of protection against future complications (Packet). The main difference between the two treaties is the treatment towards the crushed powers, France and Germany. Although the Congress of Vienna and the Treaty of Versailles are similar because of the creation of alliances and systems, overall, the two treaties are different because of the contrasting treatments of France and Germany after the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War.

While the Thirty Years War ultimately began in 1618, this was not the beginning of religious tension and conflict within Europe. In 1555 the Peace of Augsburg was signed stating “Cuius Regno, Eius Religio” meaning whoever is in ruling gets to dictate the religion of their territory. This became an issue when a Catholic leader began ruling over a primarily Protestant population. So if the Thirty Years War was simply a religious war, then why was so much of the political system affected by the conflict between the Catholics and the Protestants? In this essay, I hope to explore other factors that influenced the Thirty Years War.

“Diplomacy would rely more on naked power than on shared values” (Kissinger, 1994 page 94). In world history we can reflect on two treaties that had the intention to achieve the same goal of stability; however they had diverse approaches. Henry Kissinger and other proponents of The Congress of Vienna argue that the great period of peace in Europe, between all great powers, was successful in creating longevity in peace due to the realist theories encompassed in The Congress of Vienna. Further, many realists also believe that The Treaty of Versailles produced “the precise opposite of what they had set out to do” because, unlike The Congress of Vienna, it was composed of liberalist, constructivist and ideological principles (Kissinger, 1994, page 245). I agree with Kissinger’s argument and further argue that The Treaty of Versailles, which failed to include legal obligations and concrete mechanisms, was a primary cause of World War II. Even though there are numerous explanations for why the Congress of Vienna produced greater stability than the Treaty of Versailles, in this essay I will compare two major reasons. The first is that the Congress of Vienna focused on restoring the balance of power, while the Treaty of Versailles wanted to enforce collective security. The second reason is evident through comparing the outcomes of both treaties; while the Congress of Vienna produced the Concert of Europe, the Treaty of Versailles produced the infamously unsuccessful League of

The European conflict known as the Thirty Year’s war drastically changed the power balance of Europe at the time. The conflict forced independent states into alliances that can still be seen today and which in part shaped following conflicts within European nation states. Initially, the Thirty Years’ War was solely a religious conflict, but that swiftly escalated into a more comprehensive power struggle within the Holy Roman Empire. The Thirty Year’s war ideally can be viewed generally speaking from two different points of view the European and German one. From the European point of view it was the “last of the great wars” the war that would finally put an end the influence and control of the Catholic powers. The war would prove to the catholic

1003338827 The significance of the Peace of Westphalia has long been lauded as beginning of international relations as it is recognized today. Many have attributed the popularity of this belief to the article, Peace of Westphalia, 1648-1948 by Leo Gross which was published in 1948. It