In this example, the realism peace theories are applied to the West European cold peace after the Second World War. The transition of cold war in 1950s to cold peace was due to the emergence of realist mechanisms where the United States (US) pacifying role as the hegemon and the common threat produced from the Soviet Union to the US and Western Europe. The combined effects of hegemony and balance of power produced the cold peace between the key rivals France and West Germany after the World War Two in 1950-1954. The initial caused of conflict was due to a series of disagreements about the status of Germany (Steans, .et.al, 2005). During the cold war, France tried to control Germany and made the state powerless by drawing it into alliance. The states accepted each other’s existence through formal agreements and maintained diplomatic relations. The US and Soviet Union came forward to dictate the change in French policy and the involvement of US had influence the French-German relationship. Nevertheless, there were unresolved conflicts and high extent of mutual insecurity between the two states. At the same time, the Soviet Union took a precaution to ensure that Germany did not pose a threat.
In the 1950s, French insecurity feelings forced the state to strengthen its military and presumed Germany as their potential enemy. The state decided not to join the European Defence Community (EDC); where Britain and United States excluded, to stay away from its former archenemy. In other hand, the members of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO); particularly the hegemons US and Britain provided guarantees as the security providers to European in against potential German aggression. The guarantee triggered the French National Assembly to...
... middle of paper ...
...he international economic and political order. A study also suggest the liberal hegemon of US intention to use soft power to spread liberal ideas around the world would only give a negative impact on international stability rather than bringing peace it caused violence in certain states such as Iran, Iraq and North Korea (Jehangir, 2012). Other than that, the concept of nuclear peace had been criticised as it may causes the rise of terrorist organisation; thus, weaken the initial realist’s theory of conventional deterrence and nuclear peace. The introduction of nuclear weapons as promoting peace led to the emergence of terrorists groups and developed an unstable side in the post-cold war. This would result to aggressive state behaviour due to lack of trust and developed great suspicions between nuclear states and fear of high risk of accidental nuclear war.
The comparison of German forces in France in 1943 versus 1944 provides a compelling argument that allied forces should have transitioned from defense to offense at a decisive point in Western France. Clausewitz states that, “A sudden powerful transition to the offensive - the flashing sword of vengeance - is the greatest moment for the defense” (Clausewitz, 370). Handel also emphasizes “timing is everything” in relation to the optimal transition from defense to offense (Handel, 190). The Americans and British did transition in 1943 to the offensive with the invasion of Sicily and the Italian campaign (Murray, 375). However, they did not capitalize on the opportunity in 1943 to attack the weaker German forces in France to brandish the “flashing sword of vengeance” that Clausewitz advocates.
The foreign and domestic policies during the Cold War lead to both the separation of world powers and the fear of political and social systems throughout the world. After World War 2 had ended, tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union heighted. The agreements made at the Yalta Conference between Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt , were not being followed by the Soviets. The Soviet Union kept the land they reconquered in Eastern Europe and did not enforce a democratic government in those countries, as they promised. Instead, the Soviet Union decided to continue spreading communism in their reconquered lands. The United States’ feared the spread of communism and attempted to do anything in its power to stop it. Before the United
Scott D. Sagan, the author of chapter two of “More Will Be Worse”, looks back on the deep political hostilities, numerous crises, and a prolonged arms race in of the cold war, and questions “Why should we expect that the experience of future nuclear powers will be any different?” The author talks about counter arguments among scholars on the subject that the world is better off without nuclear weapons. In this chapter a scholar named Kenneth Waltz argues that “The further spread of nuclear weapons may well be a stabilizing factor in international relations.” He believes that the spread of nuclear weapons will have a positive implications in which the likely-hood of war decreases and deterrent and defensive capabilities increase. Although there
Survival and Love in Charles Frazier’s "Cold Mountain" I lie In vacant or in pensive mood, They flash upon that inward eye Which is the bliss of solitude; And then my heart with pleasure fills, And dances with the daffodils.
In the realm of international relations, war is generally thought of as irrational, especially if two countries have perfect information of each other. Having this information allows a country to assess the distribution of power and the potential costs of war for both sides if it did indeed happen. Thus, an explanation of why war do happen between two countries is that the two countries have incomplete information of each other. The U.S.-Soviet relationship in the late 1940s are a particular case of the concept of incomplete information. This concept provides another explanation to how these two superpowers came to conflict, albeit indirectly through proxies, starting with the Korean War. An inaccurate view of another country’s objectives can fuel the potential for disputes and even war.
The realism that will be the focus of this paper is that of Kenneth Waltz. Kenneth Waltz presents his theory of realism, within an international system, by offering his central myth that, “Anarchy is the permissive cause of war”. Kenneth Waltz’s central myth helps answer the question as to why war happens in the first place. During the cold war, there was a heightened sense of insecurity between Russia and the United States due to presence of nuclear weapons. The Movie Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb used cold war tension between the two countries to tell the story of a general who went crazy and decided to unleash his fleet of nuclear bombers onto Russian military bases.
The Cold War historiography, specifically the issue of nuclear deterrence has provided historians the classic dialectic of an original thesis that is challenged by an antithesis. Both then emerge in the resolution of a new synthesis. Unfortunately, each evolution of a new synthesis is quickly demolished with each political crisis and technological advance during the Cold War narrative. The traditional/orthodox views were often challenged by the conventional wisdom with the creation of synthesis or post revisionism. There appears to be a multiple historiographical trends on nuclear deterrence over the Cold War; each were dependent and shaped upon international events and technological developments. I have identified four major trends: the orthodox, the revisionist, the post revisionist, st and the New Left. Each of these different historical approaches had its proponents and opponents, both in the military as well as the political and
After the First World War that led to death of millions of people, many countries decided to put measures to avoid any future conflict. The League of Nations in the 1920s came up with the idea of collective security where countries acting together would discourage aggression and act to stop the aggressor. This did not work out well as countries failed to agree on common policies. As a result, appeasement was considered. It was a policy that was adopted by the British government in the1930s. It was formulated from the belief that some countries such as Germany were unfairly treated in the Versailles treaty of 1918-1919. Adolf Hitler came into power in Germany on January 1933 after exploiting the depression-afflicted economy and the vehement popular resentment against Versailles treaty. The Nazi leader started by alarming the diplomats on his hatred towards the parliamentary system of governance and democratic government. The policy of appeasement had good intentions, but failed to put measures against aggression by the Germany government, which eventually led to World War 2.
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
The Cold War was a time of great tension all over the world. From 1945 to 1989, the United States was the leader and nuclear power and was competing with the Soviet Union to create huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons. However, even though the Cold War ended, nuclear weapons are still a threat. Countries around the world strive to create nuclear power, and they do not promise to use it for peaceful purposes. Some examples of the struggles caused by nuclear weapons include the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Iran’s recent nuclear weapon program. Surely, nuclear weapons have created conflict all over the world since the Cold War era.
Growing up it seems every child has a dream at some point to be an astronaut. These children look up every night and see the moon looking back. They want to fly up and explore they lunar surface. This dream would eventually come true for a select group of American astronauts. The dream was not as easy as a grade school child thinks it should be. The United States’ adventure to the moon would come during a chaotic time in human history, the Cold War. The Cold War was a terrifying time for American citizens. Threats of war and nuclear action ran rampant throughout the country and world. A major component to this time frame was space—specifically the race to the moon between The United States and the Soviet Union. President of the United States,
Throughout history, negotiation has been a powerful tool used by world leaders to avoid violence and resolve conflict. When negotiation succeeds, all parties can feel that they have achieved their goals and met their expectations, but when negotiations go awry, countries and relationships can be damaged beyond repair. The Munich Agreement of 1938 is a primary example of this type of failure, which was one of the catalysts to the start of World War II and Czechoslovakia’s loss of independence. The Czech people were greatly overlooked during this agreement process, which still in some instances affects the country today. The 1930s were a challenging time for Europe and the powers within it due to the aftermath of WWI and the worldwide economic depression.
In relation to de Gaulle’s desire to raise France to the status of a great nation, he believed that France should possess its own nuclear weapon, ‘force de frappe’. De Gaulle was in favour of a shift towards a multi-polar world of nation states in which middle-sized powers would play a greater role. In terms of policies and objectives, De Gaulle did not develop a compelling case. He did not articulate detailed plans of how international stability would ha...
The Thirty Years War was a series of conflicts, not-knowingly involving most European countries from 1618 to 1648. The war, which was fought mainly in Germany, was started when Bohemian Protestants furiously attacked the Holy Roman Emperor in terms to impose a restriction on their religious and civil liberties. By understanding the Thirty Years War, you will notice the notable religious, political and social changes. The changes paved the religious and political maps of Europe. Not only did this war affect the religious and political demographic, it caused populations to perish and lose large amounts of their goods. What was known as a religious battle, turned out to be a political feud in competition of which state has the greater power affecting men, women, soldiers and civilians. “[The bohemians] had no idea that their violent deed would set off a chain reaction of armed conflict that would last thirty years and later be called Europe’s “first world war” of the modern era.” When the war ended, the lands were defiled and over 5 million people were killed.
Different from republican liberalism, military liberalists argue that military technology and interdependencies are creating greater international interests in peace and cooperation and that a reduction in the threat of military violence facilitates international economic cooperation. The revolution in nuclear war technology paired with the superpower relations that formed after the Cold War, military liberalism had gained a major surge in popularity. This increase in arms from the fear of war is referred to as a “security threat,” which is a structural dilemma because the influences of other countries are influencing how your country responds with respect to military force. Likewise, this strand is revealing systemic analysis because it is evaluating relations among nations and how actions of certain nations affect the actions of other nations and how they will act within the