WW2 is a global war which had two military alliances, one called Allies, and another one was Axis. In 1939, British entered WW2. Some people think the British should enter WW2, but some persons think the British shouldn’t enter WW2. In my opinion, the British should enter WW2 for three reasons. The first reason is that the British and Poland had a Treaty.
Unsurprisingly, forcibly removing someone from their homes and enslaving them to work on another continent, if they did not die on the dangerous trip there, does not foster peaceful relationships. This tension, built upon hostilities over colonization, and other poor treatment of African people, has helped contribute to the violence in Africa in the past. Furthermore, it is clear Europeans, and in turn, Americans, have always had a superiority complex towards Africans. This would lead to views of Africans as being inferior, which can lead to ideas of them being less civilized, and more dangerous. This compounds on the actual violence in Africa, and results in the world viewing the entire continent as violent and
The states that joined NATO were willing to put their personal state goals aside to cooperate and achieve a goal for the common good; in the case of the Cold War defeating the Soviet threat based on its communist ideologies (Walt, 1998). During the Cold War NATO strengthened the trans-Atlantic relations between the countries while simultaneously deterring the Soviet threat through its various institutions (Webber, 2009). Many of NATO’s members had common economic, political and social values thus the connection between the countries was strong, and I believe that this was a driving factor in the outcome of the Cold War. In the late 1980’s, toward the end of the Cold War, Gorbechuv realized that the Soviet Union’s economy was failing and was unable to keep up with NATO so he created liberal policies that were inline with NATO’s policies and ideologies (Doyle, 1996). These new policies led to even further weakening of the Soviet Union, economically and politically and as a result there were revolutions against the communist governments of many of the Warsaw Pact alliance member (Doyle, 1996).
President Franklin Roosevelt was the president during the war. He was born January 30th,1882 in New York. President Franklin helped during the war by aiding our allies. He gave Britain a lot of reinforcement after the Nazi Party captured France. He also established an alliance with Joseph Stalin the leader of the Soviet Union, and many other axis powers.
Let's start with the fact that NATO was originally created not only for the purpose of containing the Soviet Union, but also it was used as an instrument for cooperation with key European countries and also to prevent the resurgence of Nazism and to ensure the growth of the political integration of Europe. By joining the United States and Europe, NATO has conducted
World order is a system controlling events in the world, especially a set of arrangements established internationally for preserving global political stability. Henry Kissinger, in his book, World Order, defines it as “an inexorably expanding corporative order of state observing common rules and norms, embracing liberal economic systems, forswearing territorial conquest, respecting national sovereignty, adopting participatory and democratic systems of government.” This definition is rather a reflection of American Consensus that has been upheld by Truman and his successors since the World War two. Henry Kissinger, for having served the United States for six decades as National Security Advisor and later as the Secretary of State, believes strongly
This causes security competition among states. The previous cases prove the offensive realists righteousness rather than defensive realists. For instance we see the security competition of great powers in Cold War in which the USA and Soviet Russia were great powers. There are also other examples which are Imperial Germany, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany which are great powers but not rational because defensive realists claim that great powers do not focus on their prospects to maintain their survival but they mostly try to maximize their power. According to defensive realists states are not rational and they mostly act in foolish ways.
It is important to first define realism the context of the argument, as the theory that seeks to explain or account for conflict. Schroeder’s assertion that realism is a good theory for explaining war, but not peace, can certainly be applied in the context of this question. John Mearsheimer’s “offensive realism” describes an international system that offers Great Powers little choice other than to seek the subversion of other powers (even those which pose no direct threat) “if they want to maximise their own odds of survival”. He argues that the construction of the international system forces powers to act offensively towards other states from a position of fear. With that said, traditional realists, such as Cold War American policy advisor
Institutionalists also focus on the free riding problem, which assumes that nations will tend to cheat and not do their part in producing public goods. International institutions, such as the United Nations or World Trade Organization, can help in establishing and sustaining cooperation among states by reducing transaction costs, helping with monitoring (free riding problem), and offering third party mediation. Neorealism and institutionalism have their differences, but they share also some common assumptions. Therefore, both perspectives agree that states are the main actors in international relations, act in rational self-interest, and are faced with anarchy as an obstacle to cooperation. However, neorealists view anarchy as a threat to survival, while institutionalists see it as a threat to cooperation.
From time to time, Realism has insisted that cooperation in the system will be impossible due to states self-interest. As state as composed of man who were by nature is self-centered thus making his society focused on the personal gain rather on the absolute gain. International Treaties became International Law due to agreement of sovereign states. Yet with the explanation with accordance with the realist perspective a state will rely its own power for self-protection thus a sovereign state will act only according to their sovereignty and not act with accordance of the law. This papers aims to uphold its stand regarding that there is no international political system at present because of the following arguments: Realist perspective on Human Nature as source of conflict and Anarchy in the system as suppose to self-help.