Why do classic 19th century liberals (Wilson) regarded balance-of-power politics?
They violated democratic principles and national self-determination. It gave no priorty to democracy or peace. It allows for War or self-determination if that is the only way to preserve indenpendence.
What was point 14 (the most important) of the US’s reasons for entering war statement?
It called for a “general association of nations to be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantee of political independence and territorial integrity to great and smalls states alike.” Wilson wanted to change the international system form one based on balance-of-power politics to another based on collective security.
What are the 5 strives of the nation league?
- Moral force was important, military force was necessary to back it up
- Security had to be a collective responsibility
- Make aggression illegal and outlaw offensive war
- Deter aggression by forming a coalition of all nonaggressive states
- If deterrence failed and aggression occurred, all states would agree to punish the state that committed aggression
League of Nations = Colletive secrity theory
What are the three differences between collective-security and the Balance-of-power approaches?
- In collective security, the focus was on the aggressive policies of a state rather than its capacity. That constrasted with balance-of-power politics, in which alliances were created against any state that was becoming too strong; that is, the focus was on the capacity of states.
- Unlike in a balance-of-power system in which coalitions were formed in advance, coalitions in collective-security system could not be predetermined because it was not known which states would be aggressors. Once aggression occurred, however, all states would band against the aggressor.
- Collective security was designed to be global and universal, with no neutrals or free riders. If too many countries were neutral, the coalition of the Good might appear weak and diminish the coalitions’ ability to deter or punish the aggressor.
Which two concepts does Collective-securty implicate
• Sovereignty: legal supremacy within a given territory.
- Sovereignty of the state is inviolable
- It can limit its authority only with its own consent
- By signing the League of Nations, it would give up some of its sovereignty to the international community in return for collective security and the protections of international law
• International law
- International law transcended national law and hence sovereignty in particular situations
- Many states refused to be constrained by international law and saw compliance as voluntary rather than mandatory.
What are the four keynote relations points from the US and League of Nations?
• US senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles which contained language endorsing the creation of the League of Nations, US didn’t join its own creation.
- There was fear that article 16 would dilute both U.S. sovereignty and the constitutional power of the senate to declare war. (Any Member of the League which has violated any covenant of the League may be declared to be no longer a Member of the League by a vote)
- The senate’s resistance reflected a long-standing American attitude toward the balance of power in Europe.
• Opponents of the league believed that European states pursued immoral policies in the name of the balance of power and that the US should not become an active player in such games.
Conclusion = The country that had tipped the balance of power in WWI refused to accept responsibility for postwar order.
France wanted miltary gurantees ensuring that Germany could not rise again, USA didn’t join. Why did GB resisted?
(1) such alliance would be against the spirit of collective security because it would identify the aggressor in advance and
(2) GB saw France as stronger than Germany and argued there was no need for an alliance. GB said it would be important to reintegrate Germany into the international system. France formed alliances with Poland and several eastern states. French policy fell between two stools: (1) these alliances were against the spirit of collective security and (2) they did not do much for France in terms of balance of power
Why didn’t Italy join the league of Nations?
Mussolini and the fascists took power and wanted to finally fulfill the destiny of a new Roman empire. These goals were inconsistent with the new vision of collective security.
What were the two aspects of the treaty of Locarno?
- In the west Germany guaranteed that its borders with France and Belgium would be inviolable.
- In the east Germany promised to arbitrate before pursuing changes in its eastern borders with Poland and Czechoslovakia. The second clause should have sett of alarm bells since is eastern border was now negotiable.
What is the Manchurian failure?
Manchuria was part China but had a quasi-independent status. The Chinese nationalist movement tried to unify the country. As the nationalists gained strength in the 1920’s friction with Japan increased. Japan tried to invade Manchuria and China appealed to the League. Japan was identified as the aggressor and the intervention was rejected. Article 16 was not put in place. Japan withdrew from the League. This case shows how ineffective the League was
What is the Ethiopian debacle?
This test for the League was in 1935. Sanctions were applied but the outcome was failure. Italy had long planned to annex Ethiopia, it happened in October 1935. The league avoided an Italian veto by calling for a special conference. Four sanctions were imposed but Italy still had a good position on the market. Why didn’t the league do more? There was optimism that the sanctions would force Italy to withdraw since there was an effect on the Italian economy. But it did not cause Mussolini to change his policies towards Ethiopia. GB and France wanted to prevent alienating Italy because it might be needed against Hitler. GB and France began to get cold feet about sanctions. Italy helped fighting Germany out of the Rhineland and sanctions were lifted.
Traditional diplomats did not fight the League of Nations’ collective-security system; they reinterpreted it according to the old balance-of-power approach
What were the four strategy opions that Hitler gad, after he came to power in 1933?
- Passivity: accepting German’s weakened international position
- Enrichment trough economic growth and led Germany to international influence through industrial expansion
- Limited his goals to revision of the Treaty of Versailles and regained some of Germany’s 1918 losses
- Expansionist strategy to break out from what he saw as Germany’s containment
Which strategy did Hitler chose?
The Expansionist strategy to break out from what he saw as Germany’s containment
What are the four fases Hitler followed for his strategy?
- First phase: Destroy the Versailles framework trough a very clever set of diplomatic maneuvers
- Second phase (1936 –1940): Hitler’s expansion into small countries neighboring Germany
- Phase three: Germany achieved military mastery on the European continent in 1940
- Phase four (1941–1945): “the phase of overreaching” unleashed a full-scale war
What was the role of the individual in Hitler four plan strategy?
1: invading SU before he finished of Britain and mistake
2nd and 3rd phase: Hitler wanted war and was willing to take the risks 4th phase: Hitler was conceived of his own genius à mistake
What are the structural causes for WWII?
- WWI did not solve Germany’s problem. Treaty of Versailles was harsh enough to stir up German nationalism but not harsh enough to leave the Germans incapable of doing something about it
- Absence of US and SU form balance of power until late in the game meant freedom for German expansionist policies.
- Processes of the international system were immoderate.
What are the three domestic causes for WWIII
- Western democracies were torn apart by class cleavages and ideological disputes. Coordinated foreign policy was nearly impossible.
- Economic collapse, the Great depression had influence on domestic politics and class conflict. There was a lot of unemployment -> contributed to Nazi takeover.
- US policy of isolationism. Only Pearl Harbor and Germany’s declaration of war made the US participate in WWII.
Was WWII avoidable?
Until 1930, yes. After late 1930 not.
After Locarno treaties in 1926 the likelihood diminished. But after the Great depression in 1929 and Hitler’s ascend to power in 1933 the funnel of choices narrowed until the war became global in 1941. Already in 1918 there was some probability of a second war when WWI didn’t solve the “German problem”. If the western democracies had chosen to appease Germany in the 1920’s and treat it less punitively, the democratic government of the Weimar Republic might have been preserved. Or if the US had ratified the Versailles treaty and had stayed to preserve the balance of power Hitler wouldn’t have risen. By late 1930’a once Hitler started to plan war, it became almost inevitable.
What are the events of the pacific war on chronologically order?
- 1930: military and extreme nationalist gained control of the government -> policy of imperialist expansion. It was dependent on import to sustain economy, after great depression trade was cut off.
- Japan tried to create the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere at the expense of China. This war brought them in diplomatic conflict with the US, which supported Chinese nationalists.
- France fell to Hitler -> Japan extends control over French Indochina
- Japan seize Dutch East Indies for oil and struck against US (Pearl Harbor) 25
- US tried to deter Japan from striking south by placing an embargo on oil shipments to Japan. 90% of Japan’s oil was imported so they went to war instead of being slowly strangled.
- US demanded that Japan withdraw from China. Japan was afraid doing so would cut them off from what they viewed as their economic hinterland.
What is the role of the individual in the pacific war
- Japanese expansionist generals and admirals wanted to increase Japan’s regional dominance and actively sought and expanded war. Japan had a greater diffuse of power at the top than Germany and decisions were made with consensus.
- Roosevelt was willing to impose punitive sanctions, but congress and the population were still very isolationist.
What are domestic causes for the pacific war?
- The increased militarism of Japan’s government made war more likely
- The economic collapse made Japan more expansionist and the US more isolationist.
- Chaos in nationalist China continued and made it vulnerable for Japanese militarist influence
What are systemic causes for the pacific war?
- Versailles Treaty left ambitions of Japan and China unsatisfied.
- Economic problems of 1930 made it difficult for Japan to obtain raw materials
- Breakdown of the League of Nations; collective-security system between 1931 and 1933 removed any constitutional constraints on Japan’s imperial ambitions
What are deep and intermediate causes for the pacific war?
- largely domestic: the shift toward expansionism in Japan and toward greater isolation in the US and the chaos of the 1930s China.
- The precipitating causes were Roosevelts decisions to implement a full embargo in July 1941 and the resulting decision of the Japanese military to attack the US on December 7.
What is appeasement?
A classic tool of diplomacy. A policy to allow for changes in the balance of power that benefit a rival state. rather than attempting to deter (afschrikken) or contain the aggresion of adversaries (tegenstanders), a stae might allow its adversaries modest gains.
