The Governing Principles Of The Balance Of Power Theory And Polarity Failed

Decisions for War, 1914-1917 by Richard Hamilton and Holger Herwig investigates the origins of the First World War detailing individual country’s reasons for entering the war. Historians at War by Anthony Adamthwaite explores how scholars have understood the origins of the Second World War throughout varying times and differing national view points. Both works share a common theme of determinism; a retrospective notion placed on historical events by historians that Europe was inescapably predestined to go to war and that nothing nor anyone could inhibit that. Both remark that this popular approach does a disservice into the explanation of war as it does not accurately depict the economic and social agency present in Europe at the time. In

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.

Mearsheimer states that war is more likely in multipolarity that bipolarity for 3 reasons. Potential conflict dyads in a system, the imbalance of power which eventually favours the great powers which makes deterrence more difficult and war more likely and the potential for miscalculation is also high in this system. Mearsheimer defined unbalanced multipolarity as a situation that involved three or more super powers in which the power between them is unbalanced. This is the worst case scenario as it usually leads to war. A good example for unbalanced multipolarity could be the Second World War. Following Mearshiemer’s explanation war broke out in this case because of potential conflict dyads and mainly imbalance of power between

For quite a number of reasons, World War II was largely inevitable. In this text, I will take into consideration some arguments that have been presented in the past in an attempt to demonstrate the inevitability of the Second World War. These arguments range from the creation of the Treaty of Versailles to the conditions imposed on Germany to nationalistic issues. Many historians consider German's invasion into Poland the official commencement date of the Second World War.

Realism has dominated international relations theory since emerging in the 1930’s. The era of state conflict lasting from the 1930’s to the end of the cold war in 1947, proved the perfect hostile environment to fit the largely pessimistic view of world politics. While many aspects of realism are still alive in International Relations today; including the dominant presence of states, intrinsic of war and the decentralised government. However, realism only reaches so far in explaining and creating a structure for international relations. Whilst the strengths of the theory lie in its pragmatic approach to power politics and conflict. However, the realist view is weakened by changes in the way that conflict is fought, the ineffectiveness of the balance of power model and the increasing global and interconnected world. Thus, using realism as a structure to explain international relations today is to some extent, a theory of the past.

Whether a regime was or was not democratic during the time that World War I, World War II, and the Cold War took place has no influence on being the exact cause of the war, because the determining factors of why the previously listed wars occurred lies among the many constraints; protecting alliances, attempts at deterrence, balancing power, acting on misinterpretation, rise in aggression, and difference of beliefs and ideologies in relation to those of people from other countries. It just so happens that the Countries that are not democratic are in a position where they have to deal with appealing to their allies in order to not be alone at war. When approaching World War I, through the use of textual evidence from “Why Nations Go to War” by John G. Stoessinger and information from Professor Roeder’s lecture course the reason for why the rise in aggression, protection of alliances, and acting on misinterpretation are the causes of this war and can be easily merged into one flowing argument by using the concept of what the “Blank Check” is and how it’s application in World War I resulted with Germany turning a small event into a global war. Moving into World War II, lecture will be the road map to providing the necessary factual information, being relative to what Hypernationalism is and its influence on Nazi Germany’ aggression, the difference of beliefs and ideologies in relation to people from other countries, what is to be accomplished with Nazi Germany acting out in

While reading this chapter I was fed a lot of new information, things I probably should know from 4th grade history. The key concepts I took away were World War 1 was a war trying to balance power. Many would say that balance of power causes stability, but that doesn’t mean peace; more so maintaining independence. Power conversion is the capacity potential power to realized power and is measured by others changed behaviors. Though, power resources are context dependent, for example Mismark’s use of railway technology. The origins of WWI became less flexible as the alliance system did, the balance of power became less and the chances of war started to increased. While understanding that WWI was determining who had power, I still believe that

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.

Allies bound by treaty, as well as compelled by defensive nature, began to acquire mass weaponry. Once these countries entered the war, they had to keep gaining power; i.e. spending money, and building on to military, thus putting financial burden on their countries for the benefit of their alliance. Britain and Germany especially, began an arms race, acquiring submarines as well as conventional weaponry. Powers were participating in naval warfare. This force of action solidified alliances. Countries chose sides and entered into alliances for personal benefit and gain. They pledged their allegiance to stronger countries in a “gang like” mentality which stressed an ideology of work with me, or be destroyed by me. This describes an effort to create a balance of power. However, the security dilemma was in full effect as everyone accumulated weaponry. It was hard for any nation, especially Germany, to keep tabs on the power that everyone had gained.

In order to fully understand how Britain’s decision to go to war against Germany is best explained one must engage into the debate revolving around the question of the extent to which Britain and other countries were responsible for causing war. This helps explain the intention Britain had for war which is vital in understanding their decision making process to cause war in the first place. Some schools of thought have come to the conclusion that it was everybody or nobody- the continent “slithered over the brink into the boiling cauldron of war without any trace of apprehension or dismay.”1 That analysis will be considered in this essay as will the widespread thesis that it was Germany’s aggression which not only created the preconditions for war, but also triggered Britain into war with the political imbalance of power being created from the growing naval and colonial expansion of Germany. Other factors that help explain why Britain went to war against Germany

In Diplomacy, authored by Henry Kissinger, the lack of respect to the differing the balance of power principles in separate countries of europe Europe, the bullying strategies by Germany, the poor diplomatic alliances of Germany, Austria, France, Britain and Russia, and the lack of understanding of differing Military policies by Germany all lead to the Doomsday Machine. The Doomsday Machine was made up of all the actions that resulted in the ripping apart of the diplomatic alliances, with each alliance having too much at stake to permit the Concert of Europe diplomacy to function. Instead, the Concert of Europe and its ideas about the balance of power were abolished. Kissinger mainly discusses the multiple diplomatic alliances that led to the inevitable breakout of war. Most of the conflicts could have been avoided, but many of the leaders of the European countries, mainly Germany and Russia, seemed not to consider the long-term implications of their decisions. Germany’s actions started diplomatic disputes with France, Britain, and Russia. The three countries inherently formed an alliance with each other and isolated Germany in Europe.

After the First World War (1914-1919), the world was faced with the questions - who was responsible and what was reason for the outbreak of the war. Ultimately it was agreed on the 28 June 1919 that “the Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage” from the First World War. However, there have been many other interpretations on whom and what was responsible for the war. On the one hand, some historians would agree with David Lloyd George’s notion of all “the nations slithered over the brink into the boiling cauldron of war”, however, on the contrary, others would agree with Fischer in arguing that Germany’s aggressive foreign policy was responsible for the First World War. Whether you agree with Lloyd George or Fischer, it is important to understand some of the other possible reasons for the outbreak of the First World War – including the growth of nationalism and imperialism, the alliances within Europe and the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Although this essay will argue that Germany’s aggressive foreign policy was responsible for the outbreak of the First World War, it will also illustrate why other historians have argued against that notion.

Historically, war has often been used a means to achieve the interests of a state. Hitler, although misled, was able to utilize the fragile state of the German economy to achieve the interests of the Nazi’s. Liberals would argue that had there been an institution created to oversee domestic politics from an international perspective, World War II would not have happened.

"The League of Nations was doomed To failure from the start" Adam Jenner Many may believe that the League of Nations was doomed to failure as soon as the doors of their Geneva headquarters were opened; many may say that it was built on unstable foundations; that the very idea of it was a grave misjudgment by the powers that were. Indeed it is true that the League of Nations, when it was set up was marred with many fundamental flaws. The League of Nations was formed after the end of the First World War. It was an idea that President Wilson introduced as an international police force to maintain peace and to ensure the devastating atrocities like the First World War ever happening again. The principle mission of the League of Nations was to maintain World Peace. Their failure as the international peacekeeping organization to maintain world peace brought the outbreak of Second World War. Their failure in policing and preventing peace in settling disputes throughout Europe, erupted into the most devastating war ever. Through my analysis of the failures of the League of Nations to maintain world peace, my arguments will demonstrate the understandings of the reasons and events that created the most devastating environment for the Second World War.