1648 Peace of Westphalia after Europe 30 years war, all European leaders met to balance power to create equilibrium (multipolar) ----Concert of Europe Rise of nationalism/liberalism and Loose Concert of Europe and ultimatley collapse of Concert of Europe 5 wars and German rise of power but Bismarck held it together Bismarkian concert of europe Bismarks successors could not mantain balance of power which led to beginning of conflict Lost all flexibility because of alliances. 1) Triple Entente (France, Britain, and Russia) Triple Alliance (Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Germany)
Individual: Mediocrity of leaders Kaiser Wilhem II old and relied on Leopold Von Berchtold and Defense Minister to make all decisions for him. Lord Grey who is really irresolute They all had bad ideas The war would be short due to the german wars of unficaition Offesnive advantage because the german wars had been won using cult of the offensive doctrine Overconfidence (This is debatable- Rubicon effect has thin evidence BUT johnson/tierney say once leaders pass a certain point and conflict becomes closer, they become overconfident with their strategies and less likley to be objective. Domestic: Internal issues in Germany Government was run by domestic coalition of landed aristocrats and industrial capitalits, called the Coalition of Rhye and Iron Labor party pressuring government to reform after rapid German industrialization Government wants to ignore domestic issues and focus on foreign adventures to distract people Multinational empires being threatned by rise of nationalism (Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empires) which led to Serbia assasination of Franz Ferdinand (Austrian Crown Prince) and Austria-Hungary went to war with Serbia because they didnt want Austria- Hungary to be a magnet for Balkan Slavs Cult of offensive- summer 1914 System: Balance of power changing (German rise in economic power (GDP, Industry), military power, etc) Loss of flexibility (Alliance system) Vague British and German policy British- German Naval Accord which pissed off France Rise of nationalism/ social darwinism (rise in complacency about peace)
Causes: Deep: Balance of power changes, rise in nationalism, and some domestic political issues Intermediate: Mediocrity of leaders, social darwinism, german/british policy Precipertating: Assasination of Franz Ferdinand and crisis instability (cult of the offensive)
Analyze the origins of WWII Individual: Hitler failed to see benefits of american pluralistic society, anti-semetic expelled key scientists, insatiable desire to conquer- pursued expansionist policy Domestic: Internal crisis in Germany leads to Hitler ascending to chancellorship through constitutional means and then overthrowing Weimer Republic Great depression and lack of security led to rise of Nazism US isolationist policy, Germany had no threat of deterence SU dealing with Russian revolution British appeasment Western democracies torn up by class cleavages and ideologies Systemic: Weak attempts to counterbalance German power Versailles treaty too harsh
Analyze the origins of the Cold War
Phase One: Lend lease program ends and Soviets continue to ask for money, US denies them, leads to economic tensions Soviets dont follow through on commitment to free Polish elections Soviets refuse to leave Iran Germany- unsure as to how to restructure, and who should pay East Asia-Outer Manchuria Atomic bomb- Stalin ignored Baruch plan
Phase two: British couldnt afford to allocate funds to Western European countries so the United States stepped in to give economic aid (Marshall plan/Truman doctrine) Allies introduce currency in Western Europe which prompted Stalin to increase pressure on Eastern Europe
Phase three: Stalin explodes the atomic bomb Chinese communist party takes over mainland China and nationalists are forced to flee to Taiwan Stalin permits invasion of south korea by north korea (KOREAN WAR) Vietnam war Domino theory- Eisenhower (1954) Good doctor thesis Non transformative vs. transformative change (Johnson vs. Kennedy) Domestic explanation, Truman lost a domino no one else wants to Cuban missle crisis: (1962) Kennedy administration US responds to soviets placement of missile in Cuba with a naval blockade and threat to go to war if necesarry Soviets withdrew because we had tactical advantage, geographical advantage They withdrew and US promised to remove weapons from turkey and not invade cuba
Detente: Nixon administration (height in 1973 and 1974) nuclear non profileration treaty 1) arms treaty with SU 2) increase trade with SU 3) diplomatic relations with China 4) link it all together didnt last long because of soviet military buildup and invasion into countries like angolia and bc US conservative (surge towards right wing)
End of cold war: Gorbachev take power, end Breshnev doctrine (doenst invade when Eastern European countries have revolutions) Berlin wall falls, Germany unified by treaty of final settlement 1991 Open door policy and top leaders of soviet union were more inclined to democratic ideals because America was prospering economically TWO THEORIES: bennet, ideational change, soviet leaders stopped thinking us was out to get them AND wolforth who says due to poor institutional arrangments soveits failed imperial overstretch (soviet union exhausted) US military build up
What was the goal of League of Nations and why did it fail?
Goal/Development: Woodrow Wilson 14th point to establish association of nations to mantain collective security which was a change from balance of power politics Collective security says that there can be no predetermined coalitions because yu dont know who the agressor will be, but when there is an agressor all work together to fight back US failed to join due to isolationistic policies and return to normalcy All states had veto powers so it was ineffective because if something happened with an agressor state they would veto against action against them TWO major failings were: 1) Manchuria Rise of Chinese nationalism led to increase tensions with Japan. Japan feared for the port of Manchuria because it was a vital economic asset so they instituted a puppet government in Manchuria and the CHinese appealed to the league of nations and league of nations released report saying league shouldnt recognize the japannese occupation so japan left league of nations and nothing happened. 2) Ethiopia Italy wanted Ethiopia during colonizaiton but never got it. Due to new fasict ideology they invaded. The league of nations imposed sanctions which Italy ignored and after Italy finished colonizing Ethiopia sanctions were repeled and Italy allowed to keep it. League of nations fell apart during WWII (Hitler left)
What is a security dilemma and how to different actors influence them? A security dilemma occurs when one state takes an indpendent action to increase its security and it is percieved by another state as a threatning action even though it may very well not be. This leads to that state increasing its security. Heightens fear and hostility and can escalate to conflict. Leaders (individuals who shape foreign policy) States(soverign and territorial political units that have large miltiaries, ability to tax, ability to create/enforce law, create foreign policy, etc) Non-state actors (operate across borders) NGO, terrorist orgnization, intergovernmental organziation, mafia groups, multinational coporations
What are the differences between international and domestic politics? Explain the consequences of anarchy. International system there is no mechanism to enforce law/justice, weak global community, no monopoly on force, varying ideologies Domestic system clear, enforced law, similar values, government has monopoly on legitimate use of force International system is one of anarchy since there is no higher instittuion to regulate use of force, acceptance of commitments, etc (WALTZ ideas) So it is a self-help system Heightened uncertainty Prisoners dilemma/security dilemma Lack of cooperation Constant risk of war Hobbs state of nature
What is a theory? What are the main IR theories? How can we classify the main IR theories? Waltz- has three main characteristics Mental picture of relationships in some important domain of activity 1) A law like regularity 2) Explanation for why 3) Ability to falsify Systemic, domestic-structural, individual (three images-waltz, three levels of analysis- singer) Realism Hobbs-state of nature, constant threat of war, pervasive security dilemma, no cooperation. main actors are states. level of analysis is systemic Liberalism Doyle-democratic peace thesis, main actors are domestic instituions and individuals. level of analysis is domestic. Constructivism Culture shapes political thought. Government systems arise from habits/norms. There is always an ability to clarify a percieved threat as not one. main actors are individuals. level of analysis-individual Marxism beleif that politics is a function of economics capitalism/greed will lead to collapse of government doesnt account for nationalistic impulses
Explain the democratic peace thesis and the failings/support for it.
Doyle: The chance that two democratic states will go to war is low compared to the change that a democratic and a non-democratic state will go to war.
Support: There have been very few wars between democratic states Wealthy states tend to be demcoratic and have more to loose so they are less likley to go to war Normative logic- democratic norms (diplomacy, compromise) Instituional logic Slow to mobilize due to need for public support/ institutional constraints Dem leaders have to remain in power through re-election so less likley to pursue policy against peoples will and less likley to enter wars they wont win Critique: Rosato Normative logic fails bc democratic states often dont externalize domestic norms and use force Instituional logic fails bc we are capable of surprise attack, mobilizing quickly (especially in emergency situaiton) there must be another reason for democratic peace- american imperialism Downes leaders arent always likley to JUST enter wars they think they can win examples of how underconfident kaiser and british pm were before ww1
Was world war one inevitable or could the train have been stopped? When several causes of a war exist we called the situation over-determined and since ww1 was overdetermined it was highly probable but not inevitable and this is due to the deep, perciptating, and immediate causes LIST ALL CAUSES OF WW1 which we have above
What do realist, liberal, and constructivist approaches add to our understanding of WW1? Realism is every state for its own, emphasizes the role of international anarchic system and the use of force with state as primary actor When states feel a threat to their power (Britian vs. Germany) they are going to act to protect what they feel is rightfully theres. Serbia attacked Austria-Hungary bc they felt as though it could be a magnet of nationalism Since it emphasizes the system look at how it shifted from multipolar to alliance system (hegemonic transition theory-AFK Organski, war is especially likely) and balance of power policy Leaders that use balance of power policy have realist ideology Liberalism Democratic peace thesis, domestic/institutional level liberals argue that realists do not pay enough attention to domestic politics germany is run by coalition of rye and iron and they divert attention away from doemstic social issues by focusing on foreign adventure britain just wants peace so it can focus on internal issues such as ireland problem GORDONs thesis Constructivism Focuses on individual level of analysis and how culture/public opinion influences leaders/institutions social darwinism, rise in complacency about peace, cult of offensive ( belief in short wars with low casualties and that defensive strategy was death)
What are some lessons from 1914 that might help policy makers avoid war today? To distinguish between appeasment and deterrence and the effects of both Instead of appeasing Germany in ww1 we deterred them but we should have appeased them To know that offensive doctrine is not always advantageous Snyder (defensive doctrine would have been better) Sagan (cult of the offensive doctrines) stability is not assured by the distribution of power alone (constructivist argument) beware of complacency about peace or that the pattern of the last crisis is going to fit the crisis of the next it is important to have military forces that are stable in crisis railways timetables made it difficult for leaders to buy time for diplomacy
How did the concept of collective security differ from balance of power politics? Is the notion of collective security utopian? If not, how might collective secuity worked better during the interwar period? Focus is on the agressive poliices of a state rather than its aggresive capabilities Stability is not necesarrily a result of the distribution of power so there needs to be collective secuirty to ensure stability regardless of balance of power politics balance of powers rest on predetrmined coalitions (alliances) where as collective security makes none and waits for an agressor to arise yes because there is no means by which the league of nation or todays UN to enforce their resolution (in the end, states are more powerful) if collective security was not too idealistic it may have worked better because it wouldnt have aimed to incorporate the desires of every state (ex. japan and italy having vetoes) instead of league of nations taking into account ALL it should overrode and took into account just the rational actors
Was WW11 inevitable? If so, why and when? If not, when and how could it have been avoided? When several causes of a war exist we called the situation over-determined and since ww1 was overdetermined it was highly probable but not inevitable and this is due to the deep, perciptating, and immediate causes it would have best been avoided right after ww1 if the treaty of versailles was not as harsh as it was if the us didnt pursue policy of isolationism the great depression would have been less likley and thus hitlers rise would have been less likley if we appeased germany early on and treated it less harshly than the democratic government could have been preserved if US had ratified treaty and stayed in europe to preserve the balance of power, hitler may not have risen to power
To what extent can the outbreak of WWII be attributed to the personalities of the leaders involved?
Was Japan irrational to attack the United States? What are the pathways to peace?
1. Democratic peace thesis a. Normative logic b. Structural logic Slow to mobilize due to need for public support/ institutional constraints Dem leaders have to remain in power through re-election so less likley to pursue policy against peoples will and less likley to enter wars they wont win c. Rosato critique, Downes critique (democratic leaders arent always likley to enter wars they think they are going to win) 2. Economic interdependence theory a. If two countries have close financial ties they are less likley to go to war one another because they are mutually dependent on each other for their economic viability. b. Grieco found non-democracies have no relation (slope =0) and democracies have negative associaiton c. Critics point to 1914- all countries had economic ties but still went to war d. EU countries have same economic structure/currency so they wont fight with one another e. Mexico-US 3. Diplomacy a. Liberal theory that countries with democratic norms are more likley to use compromise, etc 4. Nuclear deterrence a. Second strike capability b. Mutually assured destruciton c. Just war doctrine (cant kill innocent civilans, effects of atomic bomb on Japan devastated everyone involved) d. Critics (Mueller thesis- nuclear peace is illusion, WWII effects were what caused cold war peace) e. Leads to crisis stability f. Tannenwald- nuclear taboo too terrible to even consider using again and reinforced deterrence g. Problem with relying on nuclear peace is that it is so expensive (India and Pakistan)
When did the cold war begin? When did it end? What do realist, liberal, and constructivist approaches contribute to your answers? The traditionalists say that it began when the soviet union decided to establish a sphere of influence despite the united states establishing the idea of collective security and the united nations The revisionists say it began when Roosevelt died and Truman took over because he was harsher on SU, cut off lend lease, democratic party shifted to the right. America was stronger than SU and it really had the power to decide which way the world would go. Stalin found out about american development of atomic bomb. American capitalism relied on economic hegemony. Feared that soviets would create an autonomous economic sphere. The postrevisionists say that it started as a result of the bipolar structure where the SU and the US had different interests (TANGIBLE possesion goals of SU vs. milieu (idealistic, liberal goals of US) Six changes eventually led to change in American policy 1) development of atomic bomb 2) SU had promised free eletions in Poland but didnt follow through 3) Roosevelts death and shift of democratic party to the right 4) Soviets refuse to leave Iran (started getting involved in Medditeranena countries) 5) German reconsturcition/reperations debate 6) end of lend-lease program 7) Soviet expansion into Outer-Manchuria End of cold war Gorbachev comes to power and instituted open door policies that allowed for revolutions, he ended Breshnev doctrine and didnt support expansion of communism Imperial overstretch Berlin wall comes down, Germany reunified in 1991-treaty of final settlement Failed coup (Gorbachev is weakened and SU collapses) Liberal ideology begins to have more appeal when SU is eocnomically strained and US is doing well due to market based economy Fukyama said end of cold war marked end of ideological war and liberalism had won Wolforth- due to poor instituinoal arrangments SU lost (couldnt support war anymore because poor economy and lack of innovation) Bennet- ideational change (soviets leaders stopped thinking america was out to get them, accepted liberal)
Was Cold War inevitable? Post revisionists say yes because of the power vacuum/bipolar balance of power but they fail to account for structural/individual level analysis Inevitable because of ideological war and territorial disputes Domestic-Roosevelt policies (demanded Germanys unconditional surrender, wanted a more liberal trade system which pissed off Soviets because expanded US influence) Harder bargaining may have limited some events but appeasment would not have worked because the root of the problem was ideological not concession based Needed more willingness to negotiate
Why were leaders unable to restore a ninteenth century Concert system after WWII? What sort of system evolved? US and SU were two superpowers in a bipolar system There was not a multipolar system and a balance of power system like during concert of europe
How important were first and seocnd images in the development of the Cold War? What were the views of American and Western leaders on the Su and its ambitions? And what were SU views on the rest of the West? Individual Roosevelt policy was more liberal trade system, expand US influence through more trade/UN/spread of democracy (milieu goals) Soviet policy was to expand communism to restrict US influence and to gain territory/mantain it Domestic Politcical culture in SU favors absolutism (Russia was geographically vulnerable, desired a strong leader due to fear of anarchy, isolationist to cut off influence from west, used US as an objective enemy to increase control over Soviet people, secrative Su was weakened by war American political culture favored fragmentation of power, plurlaism, liberal democracy so public, moralistic policy America was strengthened by war
What is containment? How did this American policy emerge and how was it implemented? What were Soviet responses? Containment is the effort to contain the spread of the ideology of an adversary Specifically it was the basis of US foreign policy during the cold war It emerged after the Truman doctrine. The Truman doctrine is the first time that we made a diffentiaiton between restricting Soviet power and communism. This led to wars of Vietnam and Korea (Domino theory) It was implemented through Marshall plan (12 million to Western Europe to spur economic growth) and Truman doctrine (assistance to Greece and Turkey) Soviet responses were invasion of SK by NK, invasion of Outer Manchuria and occupation (which Truman rejected at Potsdam conference)
Is Mueller correct that nuclear weapons are not the cause of the obsolescence of major wars among developed states? What other factors does he consider? Mueller is partially correct. We believe nuclear deterrence does have some effect in creating peace. Yet we agree that the historical implications of WWII also affected reasons for peace Countries fear HUGE land wars that will have devastating affects on their human capital and industrial capital. He also said major powers were content with the status quo and that the SU was more supportive of internal revolutions rather than wars between states in order to spread ideology Says NATO and Warsaw pact were a result of WWII not nuclear weapons (trade interdependence is a reaon for peace) Strength of economy/military plays role
PARADISE POISONED: Learning About Conflict, Terrorism and Development from Sri Lanka's Civil Wars. by John Richardson.
Published by the International Centre for Ethnic Studies, Kandy, Sri Lanka in 2005.