I chose to evaluate realism and liberalism as theoretical approaches that are connected to the Treaty of Versailles and the Paris Peace Conference. The key concepts of the war, such as the need for security by building alliances, economic development in order to pursue personal interest and security to protect from enemies are described by the context of realism theory. Liberalism is discussed in this essay mainly because of Wilson’s ideals and his League of Nations, which was established, based on his liberal views. This chapter first describes the main aspects of theories in order to understand why these two theories are essential for this time period. It shows certain examples of realism and liberalism directly relating to World War I and the period of the conference in Paris. Liberalism was inspired by “the desire to avoid …show more content…
In the aftermath of the First World War, the ‘idealists’ focused on understanding the cause of war in order to remedy for its presence. According to the realists, the inter-war scholars’ approach was flawed in more ways. They, for example, ignored the role of power, overestimated the degree to which human beings were rational, mistakenly believed that nation-states shared a set of common interests, and were overly optimistic that humankind could overcome the scourge of the war.” Realists have considered the balance of power to be one of the crucial mechanisms that are essential to preserving the liberty of states. The most common definition of concept of the balance of power holds that “if the survival of a state or a number of weaker states is threatened by a hegemonic state or coalition of stronger states, they should join forces, establish a formal alliance and seek to preserve their own independence by checking the power in which case no one state or coalition of states is in a position to dominate all
Viewing Ambassador Power’s statements through both the lens of liberalism and realism allows one to better understand the policies and ideas which she presents throughout her speech. The theoretical tradition of liberalism, specifically the neoliberal framing of it, assists in clarifying why it is necessary, in Ambassador Power’s mind, that states both cooperate and create a shared understanding of expectations by abiding to rules which have previously been defined and outlined. Ambassador Power argument shows that it is imperative that states join and posture to prevent Russia from taking any further actions, specifically ones which may jeopardize the security of the United States. Realism explains how the pursuit of power dictates the behaviors of states and the policies which they push. Given that there is a net amount of power, the prevention of another state, in this instance Russia, from gaining power inherently increases the power of all other states while at the same time escalating the security of said states.
Since the beginning of time, war has been practiced for numerous reasons ultimately to benefit a group of people or nations. But, when war divides the world into two different sides with the capability to destroy faster than we can create, it makes us question, is war really worth it? With the aftermath of World War One, people we’re still divided, but for a different reason, after a war with a catastrophic amount of deaths we had militarists advocating to fight and pacifists demanding peace. The two sources I have used from this essay comes from a European militarist, Friedrich Von Bernhardi with his book “War a Biological Necessity” and United States pacifists, William James, in his book “Moral Equivalent of War”. Therefore this essay will review the
War is described here as a “Chronic Illness”. Furthermore, Remarque writes this to also take a stab at the faulty idea of Nationalism which causes way more harm than good and basically forces people to enlist in the army who have no business being involved
The great critic and supporter of Great Britain President Franklin Roosevelt, at one of his “fireside chats” speaks about the problems of discord and disillusionment from WWI. The aim from the groups that tried to bring discord and disillusionment was to create confusion, indecisiveness and eventually a state of panic regarding America entering WWII. Roosevelt states, “new forces are being unleashed, deliberately planned propaganda to divide and
The First World War was a lengthy and brutal affair that claimed the lives of over 17 million individuals. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, its effects were equally as ferocious on the intellectual front, where it marked a turning point in the clash of European intellectual values. Philosophers such as Nietzsche had already challenged established institutions of Positivistic thinking toward knowledge and progress; however, his movement lacked widespread support. It was the disaster of WWI that accelerated their movement by inspiring culture-wide undermining of prior intellectual beliefs through newfound uncertainty: authors such as Erich Remarque and Vera Brittain drew upon sudden doubt underscored by the war to completely reverse prior thinking by breaking down pre-war notions of intellectual
The Allied victory was far from inevitable. The author analyzes all the dynamics and all the factors that influenced the final results of the conflict. In the first chapter “Unpredictable Victory: Explaining World War II,” Overy gives an overview of the causes that brought to war. The geopolitical legacy of World War I and the economic crisis of late 1920s certainly contributed to the raise of the Nazism in Germany, and the consolidation of capitalism in the US and of communism in the Soviet Union. The clash of these ideologies quickly evolved a major confrontation in the military, industrial, and resources’ field.
Next is an excerpt from Raymond Aron, a French philosopher, sociologist, journalist, and political scientist who published The Century of Total War in 1954 (Document
After World War I had ended in November 11, 1918 with the victory of the Allies, the people of many nations were in distraught. They had sought the leader they hoped would bring back their nations glory and prosperity. Some even hoped for even better than before the World War. Through all this chaos and distraught even more had been produced as few stepped up to lead the people of the nations. These few people had held all the power through a totalitarian government which centralizes all the government’s power to one person known as a dictator.
The First World War (WW1) was one of the most destructive and adverse wars in contemporary reality. Approximately, ten million soldiers lost their lives because of hostilities. In January 1918, ten months ago the conclusion of war, the President of the United States of America Woodrow Wilson had prepared a list of proposed war aims, which he characterized them as the “Fourteen Points”. Nonetheless, eight of these points wrote off, especially the points, which included territorial and political solutions, accompanying with the dominance of the Entente Powers, bearing in mind the idea of national self-determination for ethnic peoples in Europe.
Looking back over the development of the Security Studies field, there can be no doubt that the realist tradition has exercised enormous influence. Even the harshest of critics can acknowledge that with their focus on power, fear, and anarchy, realist theories have provided centrally important explanations for conflict and war (Williams, 2013). One interpretation of realism that is unbroken amongst most commentators of the theory is that realists are individuals that believe the State is the principle actor in international politics and that they are very concerned with the balance of power (Marsalis, 2013). They argue that all the State’s actions and choices are a reflection of the collective will of the people, which is also an argument
The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919-1939: An Introduction to the study of International Relations, the book for which E.H. Carr is perhaps most remembered was written just prior to the outbreak of World War Two (WWII). This particular work of Carr’s is primarily a study of the fundamentals of International Relations, which is exemplified especially by the events of the two decades before 1939, the year the book was published. In the Twenty Years Crisis, E.H. Carr explores the interplay of the worldview between Utopians and Realists. Carr’s work examines why the League of Nations and the peace as implemented by the Treaty of Versailles failed, ultimately resulting in WWII.
Idealism and Realism are two strongly opposed views of foreign policy. At the core of this opposition is the issue of power and security in politics. Realism establishes a separation between politics and ethics in order to understand and comprehend international events. Realists don’t oppose morality to politics, nor power to law, but rather oppose the utopian peaceful society to the nature of society.
Assess the claim that Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism have far more similarities than differences. Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism, two of the most influential contemporary approaches to international relations, although similar in some respects, differ multitudinously. Thus, this essay will argue it is inaccurate to claim that Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism have far more similarities than differences. On the contrary, it will contend that there are, in an actual fact, more of the latter than there are of the former on, for example, the nature and consequences of anarchy, the achievement of international cooperation, and the role of international institutions. Moreover, it will be structured in such a way so as to corroborate this line of argument.
The current work is meant to explain the differences and similarities between the most dominant theories in international relations, Realism and Liberalism, both theories have some similarities and differences but much more important and interesting is to discuss and explain what differs and makes similar both theories. Conflicts and wars, Similarities and differences between Realism and Liberalism: Both Liberalism and Realism believes that there is no world government that can prevent countries to go to war on one another. For both theories military power is important and both Realism and Liberalism can understand that countries can use military power to get what they need or want. Also, both theories are conscious that without military
Preventive and preemptive war in Utopia, Book II. When we saw the title of the chapter for the first time, we thought that it would deal with how Utopians prevent war, but what More is trying to say goes far away from this. In fact, the chapter is a detailed exposition of casus belli, military strategies and techniques. The meaning of Utopia is connected to America’s discovery, the world that serves as the location of fictional presentations of political ideas. At the same time, “this production means for the author to express genuine and real political views about his own circumstances” (pp. 57, The Ethics of Foreign Policy).