Realism Theory And The International System Essay

Germany and why it has gone through First World War has been subject of debate among scholars, academics and historians. Several documents have been analyzed in order to understand the subject and aims of Germany were when it went on war. Wide ranging literature is available on the subject, which concentrates on discussing the start of World War I. History is based on evaluation and examination of facts. The

This paper focuses on the underlying causes of world war I instead of just immediate causes. In this article, I will answer the question what were the underlying causes of world war I. ("DBQ: What Were the Underlying ...", 2010, p. Doc 1) Some of these causes consist of militarism, nationalism, and imperialism. The immediate causes of the war were the ones that set it off but the underlying causes are the ones that had been building up over time. ("DBQ: What Were the Underlying ...", 2010, p. Doc 1)

European states ended the Thirty Years’ War with the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which laid the foundations for a system of independent, competing states. They also mutually recognized their rights to organize their domestic and religious affairs and agreed that political and diplomatic affairs were to be conducted by states acting in their own interests.

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.

Many historians argue that the reason for Germany going to war was due to the aggressive behaviour of Germany in the build up to the war. Throughout this essay I will be addressing this issue looking at whether Germany was responsible for the outbreak of a general European war in August 1914. There are many factors which contribute to the outbreak of the war from a short-term trigger such as the assassination of Franz Ferdinand to the long-term annexation aims Germany implemented in the years building up to the war, the most important reason was Germany’s aggressive foreign policy, they had provided

In addition to the damaging consequences of the First World War with the requirements of the Treaty of Versailles, certain features of Germany caused the state to be susceptible to the influence of this dangerous ideology. Along with the damage to the national ego as a result of the First World War, Germany had co-existing and conflicting highly modern strands of development forced to integrate with powerful remnants of archaic values and social structures, and had a deeply fractured parliamentary political system, and the weaknesses of this system reflected the social and political differences within the population. This shame and failure after World War I was superimposed onto a modern country which once had an advanced economy, a sophisticated state

This essay will examine all nine readings. There will also be insight given to why the United States entered World War I, and whether or not the reasons were persuasive. Other things will also be discussed, including: what America’s war aims were, and how Wilson’s goals were unrealistic, misleading, overly idealistic and moralistic. The fact that Wilson expected too much of international law and international organization. Also, why Wilson’s goals were not achieved. That the national interest is what should guide American diplomacy. There was also a lot of questions of loyalty and civil liberties that were raised by the war.

For the longest of time, Europe was led and controlled by the same powers, and to add another country into the already delicate mix, one with drive and determination to become a leading power, would inevitably upset powers, and escalate tension to a further extent. One must also take into account that in order to accomplish this goal of becoming a world power, industrialization was imperative. This brought forth wealth to the middle-class and jobs to the poor, increasing incentive to carry out Weltpolitik. Its significance, however, is highlighted through the increasing of tensions. Countries viewed Germany as an obvious threat, since before the Kaiser himself, and the installation of Welpolitik only heightened such worry.

Leading up to the First World War (WWI) was a series of crises -- Serbian unification efforts, the Ten-Point Ultimatum from Austria to Serbia, the Kruger Telegram, the Dreadnought Race, the Moroccan Crises of 1905 and of 1911, the Balkan Wars, and the Bosnian Crisis -- that generated significant conflict and division among the countries of Europe, all of which seemed to lay the foundation for the start of WWI. With concern for its own power and security in a rapidly changing Europe, Germany set out to undermine the power of as well as the alliances between other European countries. In his book The Sleepwalkers: How Europe went to War in 1914, Christopher Clark points out that, while ‘not one of the great powers has escaped the

World War I occurred as a result of a number of political, social, and economic changes that were taking place at a rapid pace in the region. A prominent transformation was the onset of industrial revolution that accompanied these changes. Many countries were investing significantly in industrialization while undergoing transformation that was changing the face of society. To enhance patriotism and to achieve objectives that were otherwise impossible, political forces were utilizing notions like nationalism. In this scenario, the colonies of European nations became the cause of significant rivalry and disputes, settled only after the blood of millions was shed. The war had far-reaching consequences for all nations that were involved in the conflict such that the entire boundaries of many countries were remarked. This paper will discuss the impact of nationalism, industrialization, and colonialism on WWI and its occurrence.

In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst

When discussing whether or not a nation-state should enter a war and when to do so, three beliefs on foreign policy and war exist. The three different diplomatic stances are that of pacifism, just war theory, and political realism. Political realism, or realpolitik as it is often referred to, is the belief war should only occur when it is in the national interest of the particular nation-state. Henry Kissinger, a political realist, in his book Diplomacy argues that realism is the only logical answer. Just war theorists, along with pacifists, on the other hand oppose these arguments and therefore critique of this form of diplomatic action. To construct a valid understanding of the realist perspective the arguments Kissinger puts forth in

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 discusses the merits of the agreement in sparking the establishing the modern state system. A more recent piece, Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth by Andreas Osiander takes an entirely different approach by attempting to debunk what Peace of Westphalia stands for in the current world. Both articles have strongly argued for their respective views on the issue, however it is clear that when it comes to whether or not the two treaties that make up the Peace of Westphalia actually contribute as much as ???? However it is clear that Osiander is more convincing??? While both articles make strong arguments to convince the reader of their respective views, Osiander employs By

The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power

Social humanitarian sciences focus on studying global political processes and the object of its research are social phenomena, which are defined as “international relations” in the world we know. International relations are comprised of many different categories, such as foreign policy, international politics or world politics. However, the central issue of international politics is the international relations. The term “international relations” has been first used by English philosopher J. Bentham at the end of 18th century. It is important to note that it is not accidentally that the term appeared at that particular time, as the border line of 18-19th centuries is marked by evolution of the international relations’