Stine Bekkos 14753469 Is the concept of ‘total war’ useful for understanding the history of the two world wars? ‘Total War’ for historians can seem to be an endless minefield where one is destined to step wrong sooner or later. With the extensive diverse research on the topic and the numerous definitions of ‘total war’, it can be challenging to use the concept of ‘total war’ for understanding the history of the two world wars, as it can and already has be interpreted in diverse ideas. ‘What, after all, is the term total war meant to describe: a specific period, particular wars or only certain aspects of such wars? Some precision would clearly be welcomed.’ This essay will attempting to argue that the concept of ‘total war’ can be used to
The reason why realism can only really be used as an explanation for war is that the growth of another state’s power can only be perceived as threatening, even if it is done so defensively. States in this international system bound by the constructs of realism are unable to take a passive approach towards the balance of power, and are therefore encouraged to seize opportunistically what they can when the opportunity arises. Moreover, in the climate of the Cold War this system created powerful incentives for aggression . In 1951 Morgenthau stated that the United States and Russia were at a point where they “Can advance and meet in what is likely to be combat, or they can retreat and allow the other side to advance into what to them is precious ground.” Indeed this is what happened in Europe during the Cold War, deadlock and a status quo maintained a peace whereby war was avoided at all costs. However in the Middle East wars between the US and Soviet Union were fought by proxy and influence was to be gained via alliances.
In order to assess the link between the three stages or theories and my contemporary example it is important to first clearly understand and define the characteristics of Walt’s different arguments. EXPLANATION: One of the primary causes of war, underlined by the author in his first image, is that wars occur due to men’s behaviour: selfishness, from
Nationalism creates a division in society as nations begin belonging to their own specific classes. The mindset of divided nations and conquering those of less worth, led to the necessity of militarism. That militaristic mindset, promoted aggression and approved violence. Militarism was funded on the idea of building a strong military in comparison to other, especially the neighboring nations (“The 4 Main Causes of World War One”). It created a culture of paranoia and a lust/need for competition, to prove their nations worth; which resulted in a larger pressure to act out aggression.
What a tempting opportunity for any irresponsible leader of government! History and the headlines are loaded with such opportunities and the leaders who capitalize on them. Out of the weaknesses of individuals, governments justify and construct new warfare. War becomes a tool: loyalty can be assured, imagined threats can be inflated into seeming realities, and promises of safety can become magnets for the weak. Across the whole human world, we find societies which seem to have built the process of war-traumatization into their systems.
Its ineffective nature could be because of getting involved in conflict that we could actually avoid. An example is Yugoslavia. How then can chaos theory make deterrence more effective in the future? Considering that the international system could be in a state of self-organizing criticality, then war can be an example that shows that parts of a system went into
Waltz addresses this scenario by suggesting that education can be a remedy for war (Waltz, 21). Although Waltz suggests that this image is an explanation of war he states that not just one image alone can explain the cause of war and peace. Waltz argues, “too much concern with the “primary” cause of conflict leads on away from a realistic analysis of world politics,” (Waltz, 33). Human nature alone cannot explain why wars occur and therefore it is unrealistic to resume that woe can understand the cause of war by understanding human
Great powers are primed for offense. They will defend balance of power when looming change favors another state but will undermine the balance when direction of change is in its favor. Specifically in World War I, the struggle for power was exacerbated by the three major assumptions of the security dilemma: Absence of central authority (anarchy), States all have offensive military capability, and states can never be certain about other states’ intentions. The result is fear, self-help, and power maximization, and so, the security dilemma ensued and ultimately led to the outbreak of World War I. Thus, the most persuasive theoretical explanation of the outbreak of World War I is the cascading security
Just America or Just in War? Throughout the decades, history has recorded all the wars in which the United States has participated in. Some may consider that the United States’ participation in foreign affairs may have been cruel, or unnecessary; while in other cases, others find it essential for the United States to fight for the common good. Therefore, philosophers—in the pursuit of justice—have designed methods that dictate how a nation can justly engage into a war, one of this methods being the Just War theory. The Just War theory, invented by Saint Augustine around the 4th century, allows to determine when to initiate a war and the level of violence that is justified (Maiese, 2003).
The question whether war is ever justified, and if so under what circumstances, is one which has been forcing itself upon the attention of all thoughtful individuals in looking at the utilitarian and deontological view on the ethics of war I found that both schools of ethics lead to difficulties when considering the rights and wrongs of warfare. To analyze the ethics involve I started with researching what is war and the history surrounding my topic of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. War is considered an armed conflict by a government or other large organization to stop or defeat something that is viewed as dangerous or bad. August 6th and August 9th 1945, were days that brought an enormous change to the history of the world. On these days in Hiroshima