World Wars on the Perspective of Realism and Liberalism
World Wars on the Perspective of Realists and Liberals
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the First World War and the Second World War on the perspective of two significant international theories; realism and liberalism. The first step of this study is, giving brief information about the World War I and World War II, moreover, summarizing historical background with comparing these two important events with each other. After that, the study defines realism and liberalism with mentioning the representatives of these theories, when these theories were appeared, and analyze that, how realists and liberals understand politics and international relations. After giving brief information about the historical background of wars, and defining theories, this study combines the understanding of realist and liberal theories with the events of World War I and the World War II, to find out that, how these theories understand the war. In order to analyze and explain these wars and theories with one another, articles, archives, quotes, interviews, research papers, were used in this study, and, thoughts of several historians, and political scientists were taken as references and added into bibliography, therefore this study was written with objective and scientific view.
Realist Understanding in the International Relations
Realism is a theory in the international relations that has, one of the longest historical process. According to political scientists, it is possible to see realist understanding in the writing of ancient historian Thucydides, called as the History of Peloponnesian War. After that, political philosophers and theorists wrote books that include realist understanding, such as, Machiavelli and “Prince” in the 16th century, Thomas Hobbes and “Leviathan” in the 17th century and so on. However, as a modern theory, realism, emerged in the World War era. Before realism, there was idealism as a dominant theory in the international relations, but after the World War I, idealist theory was failed, and this theory could not prevent another world war (the World War II), therefore realism emerged as an opposition to idealist theory[1]. Realists criticized the understanding of liberals, such as democratization, individualism, collective security, common law mechanism, and for realists, idealist understanding was utopic, and none of the idealists, could understand the realistic order in the international relations, it means that, realists saw idealists, as one of the reasons of the World War II[2]. Apart from the arguments of realists on facts, we need to look at the features of realism. The key idea of realism is about international system. According to realist understanding, there is an anarchy in the international system, therefore there is a self-help system for states, and when states need a help, there is no 911 to call. It means, states are the actors of international system. Under this anarchic order, the only concern of states is to survive, and the reasons of these acts of states are related to protect their security and gain as much as possible, but there are two different ideas within realist theory about, how power can be gained. One of these theories is defensive realism (supported by theorists like Stephen Walt), and the other one is offensive realism (John Marsheimer). As we can imagine, defensive realists are against the invasion of other countries, or using hard power on other countries for getting power, and maintaining the security, but on the other hand, offensive realists argues that, if a state wants to be a hegemon on its continent, it cannot do that with peaceful policies, for example, nowadays, the rise of china in the Far East. The source of realists’ concerns about power, security, anarchy is, their pessimistic view of human nature. They believe that, humans by nature, care only their self-interests, and the idea of state also a self-interested instrument for them.
Liberal Understanding in the International Relations
Liberals have a very different understanding of international relations from realists. Both theories have positivist mentality, but their explanation of politics, is not similar. According to liberalism, human nature was not that bad as realists stated, and there was complete equality and freedom among human-beings. Individuals are rational and able to understand basic laws and have the capacity to improve their conditions. About the structure of states, liberals argued that, states are not unitary actors, and there are different institutions, organizations[3], non-state actors in the international relations, moreover they believe in alliances and cooperation among states. We can give Immanuel Kant[4], John Locke, Michael Doyle, Woodrow Wilson, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, and J.S Mill as key figures of liberalism. As positivists, they believe in role of institutions and democracy, as saying, two traders and democracies are less likely to go into war with each other.
The Historical Background and Importance of the World War I
Pre-War Period and the Balance of Power
The First World War was appeared as a result of political, economic, and military rivalry that negatively affect the situation and order between states in the late 19th, and early 20th centuries. The endless rivalry of the European States caused polarization among them. The states were separated into two groups, as; Central Powers and Entente Powers. At the beginning of war, German Empire (2nd Reich), Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Italy were the Central Powers; Britain, France and Russia were the Entente Powers[5]. When we look at the situations within the states, first of all, German Empire (1871), Italy (1861) completed their political unification in the late 19th century, and they wanted to take place next to great powers of Europe, such as; Britain and France, because these two states also were colonial powers and their power was coming from their colonial strength, therefore Germany and Italy knew that, they had to build colonies for themselves. While forming the political unification, Germany, especially fought against France, moreover when the war ended between German Empire and France, Kaiser Wilhelm I was crowned in the Palace of Versailles. It was a humiliation against France, and German Empire invaded Alsace-Lorraine and took it from France, therefore we can understand that, the relations between German Empire and France were tense. For Britain, German Empire was also a thread, because of their colonial aims. In that point, German Empire had only the Austria-Hungarian Empire as an ally (Dual Alliance), then Italy will join (Triple Alliance), but Italy will betray them at the beginning of the war. The alliance between German and the Austria-Hungarian Empires, was the diplomatic success of German iron chancellor, Otto von Bismarck. Actually, while Germans were forming their political unification, they fought against Austria in the Seven Weeks’ War in 1866[6], and this war ended with the certain victory of German army, moreover Germans army had a chance to siege Vienna, the capital city of Austria, but Bismarck rejected to do that. The most significant reasons of that was, Bismarck wanted to keep Austria, and then Hungary, as an ally in the southern border of the German territories. This political movement of Bismarck proves his talent in international relations, because Bismarck knew that, Germany was strong, but he had a fear to fought at the same time, in two different fronts, as in the west, against France, in the east, against Russia[7]. Bismarck had a realpolitik understanding, and this understanding made him successful during his duty as an iron chancellor. Bismarck left France isolated, and put the Austria-Hungarian Empire in the eastern border against Germany, and according to Bismarck[8], Germany could not be beaten by any force with this political situation, therefore we can understand that, Bismarck had no colonial mentality, and he was comfortable with this situation, and there was no need war an international war in the world, but Bismarck was taken from power by Kaiser Wilhelm II, and Wilhelm II decided to create a Germany with strong colonial territories with using the most dangerous tool, war. According to Michael White from “the Guardian”, he stated that, Bismarck created a Germany that only he can drive, and if he was not taken from power, the World War I could be prevented, with his anti-war behavior[9]. The first global war of humanity started in 1914, and states were separated into two blocs as, Entente Forces[10] ( Britain, France, Russia, the U.S, Romania, Japan, Brazil, Greece, Serbia etc.), and Central Powers ( Austro-Hungarian Empire, German Empire, Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria, Italy[11]). As a result of that war, Entente Forces defeated Central Powers. Many empires that joined that war as a Central Power, were dissolved.
The First World War and Realist Understanding
First of all, the political system of 1914 was completely anarchic, as realists argued. There were no any world police to call, or no any international institution to increase cooperation among states rather than offensive behavior. For realists, the most significant reason of the emergence of First World War, is balance of power. Otto von Bismarck wanted to keep German influence only in Europe, without claiming any colonial territories, but after Bismarck, new Kaiser Wilhelm II decided to get colonial territories for political and economic reasons, because about political reasons, other European powers, such as, Britain and France had lots of colonies all around the world, and it was making Germans weak against them. Because with their colonies, Britain and France, had resources, manpower, geostrategic power and so on[12]. About economic reasons, there was an economic crisis in the late 19th century, and with colonies, Britain and France were not affected from crisis that much like other non-colonial states, therefore for Wilhelm II, it was necessity to have colonies[13]. The biggest reason of the war, this colonial rivalry among states and according to realists, if one state increases its power over the other, it means war, like in the Peloponnesian War that Thucydides mentioned. In the First World War, the German Empire wanted to increase its power over other European states, like Britain and France, and they felt threatened and it caused war. The assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria became the excuse of war[14]. Apart from Western Europeans, since Bismarck, Germany was afraid of a double-front war, and the source of this fear was Russia. The imbalances of power caused tense relations between those states. When we look at the perspective of Britain rather than Germany, Britain was the hegemon power in Europe, but with the rise of Germany, Britain felt that, they had to stop German expansionism and possible future hegemony of them, and if someone want to be a hegemon in Europe, for offensive realists perspective, it could only be possible with war and aggressive behavior[15]. The last subject that I want to mention for the relation between realism and First World War, is alliances. For realist perspective, states are unitary actors[16], and act according to their self-interests, therefore we can say that, alliances are not necessary for states, and when it lost its benefit, it can be dissolved. Related to that mentality, in the First World War, Britain, France, and Russia formed an alliances as the Entente Forces, but it is not logical to say that, they had common interests, or their ideologies, structures were completely same, for example, France and Britain had very tense relations since the Napoleonic Wars, and they had rivalry about colonies[17], but in the First World War, they fought in the same side, also we saw Russia as an Entente Force in the First World War, but in the earlier years of the Second World War, we will see Russia (the USSR) in the opposite side of Britain and France. With these examples, we can understand that, realists support alliances only if they are beneficial, and serve the interest of that state, but they do not believe in long-term relations[18].
The First World War and the Liberal Understanding
Actually, liberalism was developed in the post-World War I period, as a result of the failure of states to prevent this kind of a war. As we can understand from the word, this theory has an ideological background, but we will put our interest on its theoretical context in the international relations, rather than its economic mentality. Liberals support the role of international institutions, international law, trade, democracy and so on, but in that period, we cannot talk about any international institution. According to liberals, the most significant reason of the emergence of First World War, is offensive and expansionist behavior of non-democratic states, because for two key liberals; Immanuel Kant, and Michael Doyle, “two democracies are less likely to go into war with each other.[19]” They supported spread of democratic states to prevent wars. Also, Immanuel Kant stated that, “there should be a federation of free sovereign states, for protection of international law, and moreover there should be international institutions apart from unitary states in the world politics[20].” In relation to Kant’s and Doyle’s arguments, during the First World War Period, there was not any of them, and without protection of law, democratic order, the international war was inevitable for liberals. According to Forsberg (University of Tennessee), “the war had prevented by diplomacy until 1914, but at the end, as a result of the Schlieffen Plan[21], it was failed, because Germans expected a British neutrality.” In conclusion, liberalism became popular just after the First World War, liberals took lessons from that war, and after the war, President of the U.S, Woodrow Wilson, appeared as a key liberal figure in the international politics, and took the initiative of establishment the League of Nations, as an international institution to increase cooperation, protecting peace, and collective security[22].
The Historical Background and Importance of the World War II
Pre-War Period and the Balance of Power
This war was the second international war that affected international relations, and it had more casualties than the First World War. We can accept that war, as second part of the First World War, because it was appeared as a result of the failure of peace treaties that signed just after the First World War. Apart from that reason, we can count growth of radical parties, and 1929 Economic Crisis as reasons of the emergence of Second World War. In order to explain, the pre-war period, we should start with the Paris Peace Conference (1919-1920). This conference was assembled for deciding on peace treaties that will be signed with the members of central powers and creating a new political order to prevent any possible future war that could be transformed to a global war. In that conference, leading powers were Britain and France, not the U.S, because in those years, the U.S was not a superpower as in today, and this conference was a huge embarrassment for them[23]. As a result of that embarrassment, the President of U.S, Woodrow Wilson, lost the elections, and the U.S adopted isolationism like they did before with Monroe Doctrine[24]. For international relations, especially for liberals, Wilson was the most significant political figure of the Post-World War I Period, because he was the representative of liberalism, and he supported the foundation of League of Nations. Apart from the U.S, the status of Germany was one of the key issues of that period, because after the war, German Empire was dissolved, and Weimar Republic was founded in German lands, but in 1933, Weimar Republic was replaced by Nazi Germany under the leadership Adolf Hitler[25]. Both in the Paris Peace Conference, and until 1939, there were disagreements about the status of Germany, between France and Britain. As a geographical location, France and Germany have common borders, still in today, and Germans attacked France, both in 1871, and in the First World War, therefore France wanted to keep Germany down, under its control, but for Britain, Germany should be recovered, and take its place in international trade, moreover without Germany, France could be the leading power of Continental Europe. Also, the U.S helped Germany to recover its economy with “the Dawes Plan”[26]. We can understand that, Britain and France fought side by side during the First World War, but they had completely different interests, and as a result of it, they agreed on following “policy of appeasement” against Nazi Germany, but it was a huge fault, and gave a chance for them to recover themselves economically, but moreover, militarily. With that recovery, Nazi Germany started to violate the Versailles Treaty[27]. Firstly, they remilitarized Rhineland in 1936, then in 1938, they invaded Austria, in 1939, they invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland, and until the invasion of Poland, Britain and France remained silent against offensive behavior of Nazi Germany[28]. With the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany, Britain and France left the policy of appeasement, and declared war to Nazi Germany. In the First World War, there were Entente and Central Powers, but now, the world was separated as Axis and Allies. In the Axis powers, there were Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Japan, and as Allied Powers, there were Britain, France, the Soviet Union (1941), and the United States (1941), and these world powers fought with one another until 1945. The war lasted with victory of the Allied Powers[29].
The Second World War and the Realist Understanding
In that period, realists put their arguments on the failures of liberals. After the First World War, liberals, especially Woodrow Wilson, supported establishment of international institutions, expansion of international trade, and democracies for preventing any possible future war, but especially with the Great Depression in 1929, international trade got damage, and as a result of economic crisis, radical parties started to be elected in the elections. Apart from that, the League of Nations could not be able to react political conflicts around the world, for example; Fascist Italy invaded Ethiopia, Japan invaded Manchuria, but the League of Nations could not raise its voice. Consequently, realists criticized liberal ideas as not being able to prevent the Second World War[30]. Therefore, although there was an international institution, as the League of Nations, it had no function, and it means, there was an anarchy in the international system, it was self-help system. According to realists, the other problem for that war was Nazi Germany. After the recovery of country both militarily and economically, Nazi Germany, under the totalitarian leadership of Adolf Hitler, aimed to be hegemon power in Europe. Their offensive behavior caused problem in the balance of power, because as a result of German expansionism, the other countries of Europe felt threatened, and in 1939, to protect their securities, Britain, France, and Poland declared war to Nazi Germany to balance its power[31]. On the other side, Germany was punished in a very harsh way, after the First World War, with the Versailles Treaty. Moreover, with the Great Depression, they could not get the economic support from the U.S (Dawes Plan). Therefore, Nazi regime adopted offensive policies to make Germany great again, and Hitler knew that, he could not do that, with defensive policies. It means that, in the Second World War, Nazi Germany acted according to offensive realists’ mentality. We can also define the situation of Germany with security dilemma. When we look Germany, geographically it was too big for other European countries, and they could not feel safe against this kind of a country, but on the other hand, when these Europeans became allies, now, Germany could not feel safe or comfortable. As a result of that, Germany always used war strategies that they could defeat others, in a quick way. For example; in the First World War, firstly, they attacked western front to eliminate countries like France, Belgium etc. until Russia could mobilize itself, for preventing a double-front war. Nazi Germany followed same strategy as calling it, “Blitzkrieg”. In the later years of Second World War, the U.S intervened the war, next to the Allied Powers[32]. The realist perspective about the Second World War is like that, but apart from war, holocaust should be mentioned. Radical regime of Germany adopted fascist policies against minorities, especially Jews, that were living in German lands. Hitler justified his fascist policies, as mentioning security problem, and declaring Jews as dangerous people, but even in realism, defining that policy of Nazi regime, as security problem, is impossible, because it was a crime against international law and human rights.
The Second World War and Liberal Understanding
Liberalism was in a disadvantageous position against realism with the emergence of Second World War, because firstly, the League of Nations failed to do its duties. Ethiopia and Manchuria were two members of the League of Nations, and both invaded by expansionist powers like Fascist Italy and Japan, but the League of Nations did nothing to protect its members[33]. Then, the Great Depression appeared in 1929 as an economic crisis, and it undermined liberalism in very harsh way. Before the depression, with the Dawes Plan, the Treaties of Locarno, and the peaceful policies of the Weimar Republic and its leader Paul von Hindenburg, no one could guess, they will experience a new world war, but the Great Depression made the war inevitable. According to liberals, reasons of that war were clear, the failure of League of Nations, and idea of collective security, decline of democracies all around the world and rise of radical populist parties, and decline of international trade as a result of an economic crisis. In the liberal understanding, without a liberal order that provide international trade, democracy, and international institutions, it is impossible to create a peaceful world order. In the contemporary politics, we have organizations as, NATO, the UN, IMF that provide those three elements, and we do not experience any new world war, but still there are conflicts in all around the world, therefore still in today, liberal theory is on debate. Another point that we can touch about liberals is the issue of war reparations. According to Immanuel Kant, and his perpetual peace[34], war indemnities should not be contracted after the war, because peace cannot be provided with them. Moreover, before the Second World War, France wanted to suppress Germany, to protect its security, but it made Germany more aggressive. Therefore, according to Kantian theory[35], the behavior and policy of France, against Germany was very wrong to provide peace[36]. British policy was more friendly and helpful for Germany, and they wanted a strong Germany for cooperation in Europe, and this could be successful according to liberals, but with the 1929 Great Depression, and as a result of it, Nazi victory in German general elections, harmed liberal order in Europe, and created rivalry[37].
In Conclusion
The First and Second World Wars are two significant cornerstones of world history and international relations. We can define these world wars as continuation of each other. In the period of these wars, the most popular two theories of international relations, were liberalism and realism. Especially, both criticized each other with being wrong. Realist criticized liberal theory, as not being able to prevent a new world war, and liberals defended themselves, as mentioning the problems of not having democracy, international trade and institutions. Moreover, they blamed realists because of their power-love. They saw this power issue, and expansionist radical policies as reasons of two wars. Still in, the distinctions continues between these theories, but when we look at the world, especially since the establishment of NATO and the UN, we can say that, liberals are more popular in the international relations in the contemporary politics, but in the last decade, radical and populist parties started to be dominant in countries, and still there are wars, conflicts, terrorism around the world. For most of the realists, NATO and the UN have no function in the international relations, they can only be seemed as deterrent, but cannot respond conflicts in the world, but on the other hand, humankind do not experience a new world war, as the Third World War. Therefore, saying one of them is hegemon or more popular, is not true. This distinction has no certain answer, there can be debated about that, but at least until today, none of them can become hegemon over the other.
Bibliography
1) Oral Sander, Siyasi Tarih: İlkçağlardan 1918’e, İMGE Yayınevi, 2016
2) John Kennedy, the Rise and Fall of Great Powers, PDF
3) A. Wiest ,the Illustrated History of World War I, Teas Press
4) Owen Booth, the Illustrated History of World War II, Teas Press
5) Foralbe Krapa ,World War II – Realism and Liberalism perspective
6) https://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/samplechapter/0/2/0/5/0205059589.pdf
7) Oral Sander, Siyasi Tarih: 1918-1994, İMGE, 2018
8) Basil Liddell Hart, the History of Second World War, Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları
9) Jane Caplan, Hitler Germany, İnkilap Yayınları
10) Kont Ciano, War Diaries, Kronik Kitap
11) Immanuel Kant, What is Enlightenment, PDF
12) Basil Liddell Hart, the History of First World War, Türkiye İş Bankası
13) C. G. Fenwick, The “Failure” of League of Nations, American Journal of International Law, Cambridge University Press, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2191024?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
14) Charles Pickar, Blitzkrieg: Operational art or tactical craft, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/37163854_Blitzkrieg_operational_art_or_tactical_craft
15) Atila Eralp (der.), State, System, Identity; Basic Approaches in the International Relations, istanbul, Iletişim, 1996
16) Introduction: Diversity and Disciplinarity in International Relations Theory, Steve Smith
MERT CAN UZUNOĞLU
[1] Atila
Eralp (der.), State, System, Identity; Basic Approaches in the International
Relations, istanbul, Iletişim, 1996, p. 57-88.
[2] Edward
Hallett Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study
of International Relations, Harper Parennial, March 25, 1964
[3] Introduction: Diversity and Disciplinarity
in International Relations Theory, Steve Smith, p.102
[5] Kerim Sarıçelik, Some Measures
Taken By The Ottoman State Against The Entente Powers On The Mediterranean
Coasts of The Anatolia During The World War I, Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi
[6]
Robert Pearce, “The Austro-Prussian War”, History Review (March 2010):28
[7]
Professor David Stevenson, Europe Before 1914, British Library, 29 Jan 2014
[9] How has Bismarck escaped most of the blame
fort he first world war?, Michael White, the Guardian, wednesday 31 december
2014
[10] The First World War (1914-1918), Bilingual
Studies, IES Parque de Lisboa, www.hisroiasiglio20.org/4ESO/WW1.pdf, p.7-8-9
[11] Italy joined as a central power, but
later, fought with entente forces
[12] World
War I Resources, Dr. Jennifer McCormick, Indiana Department of Education,
p.3-4-5, https://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/standards/guide.pdf
[13] Source: BBC – History – Historical
Figures: Wilhelm (1859-1941) accessed 7th July 2017, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/wilhelm_kaiser_ii.shtml
[14] https://www.ukessays.com/essays/politics/the-realism-in-world-war-i-politics-essay.php
[15] Introduction to International Relations,
Ole J. Forsberg, Ph.D., University of Tennessee, Chapter 3 : World War I
Through the Perspectives
[16] Yrd. Doç. Dr. Ozan Örmeci, Two Basic
Approaches In the International Relations, http://politikaakademisi.org/2014/05/22/uluslararasi-iliskilerde-iki-temel-yaklasim-realizm-vs-idealizm/
[17] Benedikt Stuchtey, Colonialism and
Imperialism (1450-1950), European History Online, https://d-nb.info/1031400591/34
[18] John J. Marsheimer, “The False Promise of
International Institutions”, International Security, Vol.19, No.3 (Winter
1994/95), p. 5-50
[19]
Binnur Özkeçeci- Taner, The Myth of
Democratic Peace: Theoretical and Empirical Shortcomings of the “Democratic
Peace Theory”, ALTERNATIVES – Turkish Journal of International Relations,
Vol.1, Number:3, 2002
[20] Frederick Rauscher, Kant’s Social and
Political Philosophy, July 24th 2007, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-social-political/
[21] Schlieffen Plan: It was the war strategy
of Germany in the First World War. It was about preventing a long-term war, and
defeating France, just before the mobilization of Russia, than focusing on
Eastern Front against Russia.
[22] https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/league-of-nations
[23] Ernest
R. May, The World War and American Isolation, 1914-1917 (1959).
[24]
Justin D. Doenecke, American
Isolationism 1939-1941, Department of History, New College University of South
Florida, https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/6_3_1_0.pdf?file=1&type=document
[25] http://stchistory.com/ewExternalFiles/edxdetnotes.pdf
[26] Paul Kennedy, the Rise and Fall of Great
Powers,
[27]
Owen Booth ,The Illustrated History
of WWII, p. 10-39, Teas Press, 2017,
[28] Peter Trubowitz(from LSE), Peter
Harris(University of Texas at Austin), British appeasement in the 1930s, Review
of International Relations, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/61659/1/Trubowitz_Harris_When-state-appease-British-appeasement-in-the-1930s.pdf
[29] http://lib.oup.com.au/secondary/history/Big_Ideas_History/10/02_SAL_BAH10_SB_72346_SPREADS_RGB.pdf
[30]
Charadine Pich, Liberalism and its
Critiques, https://www.academia.edu/4024202/LIBERALISM_AND_ITS_CRITIQUES
[31] http://courses.kvasaheim.com/pol365/docs/notes04.pdf
[32] Charles Pickar, Blitzkrieg: Operational
art or tactical craft, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/37163854_Blitzkrieg_operational_art_or_tactical_craft
[33] C. G. Fenwick, The “Failure” of League of
Nations, American Journal of International Law, Cambridge University Press, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2191024?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
[34] Kant,
“Perpetual Peace”, Kant’s Political Writings, (Cambridge University Press,
1996)
[35] http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/Class%20Readings/Kant/Immanuel%20Kant,%20_Perpetual%20Peace_.pdf
[36]
Foralbe Krapa ,World War II –
Realism and Liberalism perspective
Yorumlar
Yorum Gönder