“For all their elegance, the foreign policies of Bismarck contained a fatal flaw: only Bismarck could make them work. Therefore, these policies are not worthy of praise.” Otto Von Bismarck was a militaristic and political genius. However, after Kaiser William II fired him, his policies and all that he had worked for fell through and failed. After the unification of Germany, Bismarck’s foreign policy was very isolationist towards overseas affairs. He knew Germany couldn’t be successful in another insulated war, so his after unification policies were committed to preserving the peace of Europe.
Civil War 1642 Why did war break out in England in 1642? Like most wars, the civil war of 1642 erupted because of many different reasons, but perhaps the greatest cause was the weak support parliament offered their king. Relations between parliament and King Charles were evidently unstable. Parliament resisted every attempt Charles made to quench the stirring unrest in the kingdom, and Charles in turn scorned their decisions and further complicated the clash of power. War broke out in England in 1642 because Parliament wouldn’t cooperate with their king.
As we can know from the first section, there are several of powers in the international relations, pursue of power in each state is unavoidable. Because anarchy, which means there is no world government, states do not have surely security .The only way to protect them harmless is to be powerful. According to Kenneth Waltz’s theory of international anarchy, international anarchy is the permissive cause of war. But diverse points of view have been proposed that power politics is not inevitable, there also other choices besides power politics in an anarchic global
Although declaring war against Great Britain seemed to be a deadly miscalculation, and an unnecessary one, that could have lead to their imprisonment once again, the reasons as to why America went to war against the British in 1812 were justified due to the conflicts over impressment and naval superiority, the willingness to prove that they were to be seen as a separate nation, as well as the popular idea of expansion as a
Roland H. Stromberg (1990) emphasized that Burke considered the revolutionary ideas as philosophes’ mistakes. Political rationalists whose method was unrealistic, and plenty of abstraction (p. 36). Therefore, Burke not only adopted a counter-revolutionary attitude, but a counter-enlightenment one. The contrast between Burke’s favourable attitude to the American Revolution and his direct rejection of the French Revolution is unusual. That is why there is a desire to understand the reason behind this radical change.
The Treaty of Versailles, a document of all the demands Germany had to fulfil due to them being ‘responsible’ for World War 1. The Treaty was said to be dictated by three countries, France, England and the United States. Many countries believed that the demands were to extreme and not well thought out, even the English Prime minister and the president of the United States had worries about the impact it would have on Germany. Even though these three countries stood together to create a punishment for Germany in the end, the French PM Georges Clemenceau got his way the most. Which didn’t bring the German people much joy as his way of dealing with the aftermath of WW1 was revenge paid in all what Germany had to offer.
They hated each other. So with the assassination of one of the Austrian royal member, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, This caused A-H to have a proper excuse to start a war. They actual had to start a conflict because if they ignore this assassination it would greatly injure their status and prestige as a great power. Prestige and status was important at the time, countries would want to compete each other, to be the most powerful nation in the European power. Because of its importance at the time, countries are forced to do action that was unnecessary and that would start conflict.
The thing about this was that one of the biggest countries involved in World War 1 was not even recognized in these peace talks. This is a problem because in order to acheive peace all the countries involved must agree equally on things and if the only people agreeing on matters is ones in an alliance, then there becomes problems within the other countries. This source shows the effects of the big four not taking into account anything that Germany has to say. The source shows that the treaty really didn’t resolve anything and that the council of four didn’t pay much attention to the big issues going on. One major problem that was occuring was the quick falling German government which would greatly affect the economy of the entire world.
This is seen as contradicting especially that realist theories and this empirical claim is now one of the greater disputes in political science. Numerous explanations have been proposed for the democratic peace. It has also been argued, as in the book Never at War, that democracies conduct diplomacy in general very differently from non democracies. Realists disagree with Liberals over the theory, often citing structural reasons for the peace, as opposed to the state’s government.
During World War II between 1939-1941 before the attack at Pearl Harbor, the United States did not formally declare war against Nazi Germany. President Franklin Roosevelt supported intervening in the war, yet public opinion strongly opposed. There was a national debate between the isolationists and the internationalists. Isolationists opposed getting involved in the war because they felt that the United States should focus on its own problems and opposed the debt that would surely follow involvement. Conversely, internationalists believed that the United States had a moral duty to intervene in the war and believed that by aiding Great Britain in her time of need the United States might avoid direct involvement in the conflict.