World War I and II - Essay Example

? Topic: Lecturer: Presentation: Introduction The world politics is dominated by struggle for power between states each trying to maximise its national interest through balance of power mechanisms (Baylis et al. 2008). According to this realism view, war is a natural condition of world politics. To balance power, states are involved in bargaining and forming alliances that would ensure one state does not dominate the others. The First World War can be attributed to change in distribution of power in the international system and the many alliances which had been formed prior to the war to protect interests of different states (Dickson, 2011). This enabled all the European states to be drawn into the war making it the greatest war ever fought. However, there are many other causes which led and intensified the war. These include; arms race, nationalism, imperialism and militarism among others. The great powers involved in the war included Britain, Italy, France, Germany, Russia, and the Austria-Hungary Empire. The Second World War on the other hand, was as a result of dissatisfaction with the conditions of the peace treaty signed after the First World War and struggle for power by states. However, there are other important factors that contributed to the war such as the great depression of 1930s, the rise of totalitarianism, policy of appeasement, failure of the League of Nations as well as ideologies such as anti-communism, fascism, nationalism, and militarism among others (Dickson, 2011). The powers that fought as allies included; Britain, U.S, France, and Soviet Union but Italy joined them after 1943. The Axis included powers such as; Germany, Italy, and Japan as well as German colonies. The paper will discuss the causes of the two world wars with special attention to the nature of international system. World War I The world war was triggered by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary by Serbian assassins in Sarajevo in 1914. However, this was just an excuse for war as tensions had been building between nations prior to the assassination. The nature of international system at the time was dominated by politics of power sharing. According to Cashman and Robinson (2007, p. 29), leaders followed social Darwinist ideas which view war as “the only powerful force of nature through which stronger nations prevail over the weaker ones in an international struggle of the fittest.” The international system culture was also that of tolerance to war; disputes between nations were better settled through war rather than negotiation and this created a good environment for nations to wage war against each other in order to maintain or gain power over others. Dickson (2007) argues that the culture of tolerance enabled European powers to assert their power and influence. This is what led Germany to support Austria-Hungary in its quest for war against Serbia after it failed to honour an ultimatum issued by Austria-Hungary demanding justice. Austria-Hungary had severed relations with Serbia as it had a lot of influence on the Balkans hence had long planned to wage war against Serbia. The war was supposed to be small scale but due to the alliance system, the war escalated to a great magnitude. The alliance system began with Bismarck’s desire to unify Germany with the confederate states hence the war with Austria in the north and France in the south. The two were defeated by Prussia and the confederate states united to form the German empire. The loss of Alsace and Lorraine to Prussia left France yearning for revenge against Germany and was just waiting for an opportunity to attack. Germany’s desire to become a world power led it into acquiring more states and hence needed protection against the other powers. It thus started forming alliances with other powers so as to guard against any attacks from France or Russia. Germany formed an alliance with Austria-Hungary and Russia but Russia withdrew later hence the dual alliance to aid each other in case of attack by Russia. Italy later joined the alliance to protect itself from French invasion; however, it also formed a secret alliance with France where it promised to remain neutral if Germany attacked France. Russia on the other hand, allied with France to protect itself from Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy. Britain later formed an alliance with France to curb Germany prominence in the region but the alliance was diplomatic in nature. Russia joined the alliance to form the triple entente based on a moral obligation to protect each other in case of war. Russia was sympathetic to the plight of the Slavic people and hence had ties with Serbia. Another alliance was between Britain and Belgium whereby Britain was to protect Belgian interests. All these alliance played a great role in spreading the war to the rest of the world. By Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia, Russia was drawn into the war due to its ties with Serbia hence declared war on Germany. Russia saw this as an opportunity to regain its lost glory after a defeat by Japan. France entered the war due to its alliance with Russia but it was also an opportunity it had been waiting for to recover its lost states from Germany. Italy remained neutral due to its involvement with Germany and France although it later supported the war against Germany. Britain on the other hand, was drawn into the war when Wilhelm II breached the schlieffen plan and attacked Belgium in an attempt to invade Paris hence declared war on Germany (Cashman & Robinson, 2007). All these states had an agenda while forming alliances which was to protect their interests and maintain a balance of power which had been destabilized by Germany. Germany was emerging as a more powerful state economically, demographically and militarily. According to (Dunne & Brian, 2008), the global distribution of power was also altered by Germany through the Austro-Prussian war and Franco-Prussian war whereby the two states lost to Prussia. He also asserts that leaders’ perceptions of power distribution affect the way they evaluate threats leading to war with each other. Britain saw its position as the most powerful nation as being threatened by Germany which was expanding very fast hence the reason for entering into alliances. The World War I therefore was a suitable arena where the world powers struggled to maintain a balance of power in the international system. Another cause of the First World War was the arms race prompted by Germany. To achieve power, nations have to have military strength to conquer more colonies and protect the territory from invasion (Cashman & Robinson, 2007). As a result, the secretary of German’s navy engaged in a massive naval build up so as to outdo Britain as world’s most powerful nation. Britain felt threatened by German’s action and thus responded by building more sophisticated weapons and battleships such as the dreadnought and also formed a military alliance with Japan to limit colonial gains by Germany. France and Russia were also strengthening their military hence Germany felt it was losing the arms race and therefore decided to wage a preventative war against its enemies. These militaristic attitudes are prevalent even today where countries that have military strength are viewed as powerful. Furthermore, states are always preparing for war against any intrusion; they do not trust each other. Consequences of the War The triple alliance was defeated by the triple entente assisted by the United States in 1918. The victorious nations which included France, Britain, Italy and US formulated a peace treaty to end the war. The US president Woodrow Wilson had prepared a 14 point document which was to guide a peaceful transition but France wanted revenge on Germans for the damages the war had caused. A treaty was signed at Versailles which put harsh conditions for Germany, Austria-Hungry, and Ottoman Empire (Fearon, 1995).The German was to reduce its army strength, take responsibility for war, pay repatriation, and give up the lands it had acquired and was not to have a treaty with Austria. Austria was separated from Hungary and both were to pay repatriation and give up some land. These terms were considered harsh by many states and the tensions build up culminated into the Second World War. World War II The World War II can be attributed to dissatisfaction with the peace accord after World War I. Desire for France to revenge against Germany led to formation of a treaty not generally accepted. The disarmament and territorial clause left resentment by Germany especially as nations believed acquisition of territories and military strength was a source of power. There was growth of fascism in Europe as strong leaders were believed to steer economy to prosperity. For example, German chose a powerful leader (Adolf Hitler) who promised to disregard the treaty of Versailles and ensure prosperity for the German people (Schilling, 2002). True to his word, Hitler began strengthening the military by building warships and air force as well a constricting people to the army. He also took troops to Rhineland in pretence of protecting herself from enemies. Hitler was also determined to recover the land lost as a result of the treaty and also to unite with Austria a relationship which had been prohibited by the treaty. Austria was against the idea but its people advocated for union with Germany hence the recapture of Austria. Britain and France feared a recurrence of another world war hence accommodated German’s actions and settled the issues through negotiations. It formed new alliance such as the Rome-Berlin Axis pact between Germany and Italy and the Anti-comitem pact between Germany and Japan (Waddington, 2007). Hitler also began regaining lost land by invading various states such as Czechoslovakia and Poland hence raising tensions within the region. A league of nations had been established to deal with disputes among states instead of waging war against each other. The idea that only war could solve problems was thus not recommended anymore. However, some nations did not join the league therefore making it difficult to implement it effectively. Germany was prohibited from joining the league; Russia was refused entry due to its communist ideals whereas the new US president refused to join the league. It was to settle disputes by imposing trade sanctions on errant nations and if it did not work, war could be waged against the nation. However, trade restrictions were imposed on an errant country; it could still trade with non-member states (Schilling, 2002).This made the implementation of the contents of the league to fail. Moreover, due to the great depression nations could not risk losing trade hence were reluctant to accept trade sanctions. Such was the case when Japan military invaded China against Japan’s government approval and refused to leave forcing Japan to quit the league. Italy also invaded Abyssinia and no action was taken thus encouraging Germany to follow suit. Furthermore, the league depended on military from member states who were reluct to provide the army and states feared another war due to repercussions of World War I. The league also failed to respond quickly to members’ needs since a meeting had to be convened, deliberations made and accepted by all states. States thus continued to result to war to solve conflicts. The policy of appeasement by Britain also failed to prevent another war from recurring. Due to fear of another outbreak of war, Britain and France opted to accept Germany’s demands but with conditions. Moreover, they thought Germany could help curb the spread of communism by Russia to other parts of Europe. This enabled Germany to continue expanding its territory, strengthening its military, forming alliances with Austria. Japan was also able to expand its territory to the mineral rich China without hitches. According to Millman (2001), British changed its war tactics and decided that war was not to achieve victory but to enable it be in a position to survive inconclusive war. France and Britain also feared engaging in a war with Italy. The growth of nationalistic ideas in Europe also gave rise to the war. Austria and Hungary and Germany were multiethnic and the ethnic communities were fighting for their independence. The Slavic people had long been fighting for reunion and independence and to have an identity as a nation (Brevilly, 2008). This idea did not go well with Germany which considered other ethnic groups are inferior and considered Aryan language as superior. This created tensions and climate suitable for war. The tensions between Serbia and Austria-Hungary during the First World War had been as a result of the Slavic people fighting for nationalism and Russia was very crucial in enhancing these ideals. The search for identity continued during World War II. All these circumstances led to the Second World War but the invasion of Poland in 1939 by Germany was the immediate cause. France was not satisfied with Britain’s appeasement policy and pressured it to declare war on Germany. Italy joined the war as an ally of Germany as it was not satisfied with the outcome of World War I. It did not get what Britain had promised at the end of the war (Cashman & Robinson, 2007). The Soviet Union had ties with the Nazis and therefore assisted Germany but later fought against Germany. The United States continued its isolation policy by just providing supplies to the troops but later joined the war as a result of Japan invasion of Pearl Harbour. The European powers also engaged their colonies in Africa and Asia in the war. The axis was defeated by the allies in North Africa bringing to the end the war. Conclusion As nations struggle to gain power, the balance of power in the international system is destabilized. According to the realist theorists, the only way to maintain a balance of power is through war. War is viewed as a natural condition of world politics hence is inevitable. The international system provided a suitable climate for war by allowing disputes to be settled through war and not illegitimating it. A change in balance of power was due to change in demographics, economic and technological dynamics. German through its defeat of France and Austria thus uniting German destabilized the balance of power. Britain was the most powerful in Europe but German wanted to assume the position thus engaging in an arms race with other powers. This led to tensions and anxiety and war prospects. It also colonized many states hence was a thereat to other powers. To consolidate its power, it formed alliances which later led to many nations being involved in the war. World War II was an aftermath of the peace agreements reached after World War I. The treaty of Versailles, inefficiency of the League of Nations, failure of the appeasement policy as well as the rise of nationalism, communism, and fascism among others contributed to the war. Today, nations continue engaging in war preparations by strengthening their military. However, war is not legitimate unless it is necessary; nations engage in negotiations to solve conflicts. References Baylis, J., Smith, S., Owens, P. (eds). 2008. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. 4edn. USA: Oxford. Brevilly, J. 2008. Nationalism. In: John, B., Steve, S., Patricia, O. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. 4edn. USA: Oxford. Cashman, G., Robinson, L. 2007. An Introduction to the Causes of War: Patterns of Interstate Conflict from World War I to Iraq. USA: Rowman & Littlefield. Dickson, K. 2011. World War II for Dummies. Indiana: Wiley Dunne, T., Schmidt, B. 2008. Realism. In: John, B., Steve, S., Patricia, O. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. 4edn. USA: Oxford. Fearon, J. 1995. “Rationalist Explanations For War.” International Organization. 49, 3: 379-414. Millman, B. 2001. “A Counsel of Despair: British Strategy and War Aims”. Journal of Contemporary History. 36, 2: 241-270. Schilling, D. 2002. “The Second World War.” Journal of Contemporary History. 37, 2: 303-315. Waddington, L. 2007. “The Anti-komintern and Nazi Anti-Bolshevik Propaganda in the 1930s.” Journal of Contemporary History. 42, 4: 573-594. Read More