Politics and Welfare (Coursework Sample)

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course Name
Date of Submission
Theory of the Origins of War
The issue of the origins of war has become a significant point of controversy in the modern century. The continuous debate has comprised numerous scholars, public academicians, and journalists of the past century. There are diverse hypothesis but there is the absence of general consent as to what the theories of the causes of war entail. Additionally, contemporary scholars from different fields, such as political science, are experiencing challenges in assessing the suitable ways to study them. This was clearly brought out from the approaches of various disciplines including philosophy, psychology, sociology, and others. As a result of this, political science has emerged out as comprising convincing hypothesis on the origins of war due to its ontological and epistemological approach (Fromkin 115). It is still more apparent that this field constitutes an exceptional place in the analysis of war. Prominent academicians from diverse disciplines elaborate war as a substantial organized rampage between bureaucratic institutions. Some renowned political analyst stresses that war is an essentially political phenomenon that is a perpetuation of politics by other approaches (Fromkin 129). In similar terms, if war is a means of politics to promote the interests of the governmental institution, then the meaning of battle needs new comprehensions. It requires a justification of the reasons why the legitimate decision makers of legal organizations selected military force instead of relying on other approaches. These would have been effective ways to resort interests to settle conflicts with their political opponents. In other words, wars constitute both reaching resolution and a strategic interplay between opposing political units. For this reason, this essay will specify a complete assessment of the hypothesis of the origins of war.
The decisive theory of the roots of war is the fall of balance of power to the integral anarchy. This hypothesis indicates that the political processes within a particular multi-state system will typically limit hegemony (Magagna 1). These political processes within the countries may constitute of internal balancing, imitation, and external stabilization. Furthermore, the philosophers of the balance of power emphasize that the dilemmas of uncertainty, mutual action, and regional level impediments to stabilization can be settled endogenously (Magagna 5). Due to this, the measures adopted by these states can bring the system into balance. The year of 1814 witnessed the great powers of Europe coming together at the Congress of Vienna to develop the map of Europe after the fall of Napoleon. Its main purpose was to avoid another instance of a French invasion. To achieve this goal, the Foreign Minister of Austria Von Matternich and British Foreign Secretary seemingly formulated the theory of balance of power. The indication of this doctrine was to strengthen France’s entire neighbourhood in an effort to build up former borders. This significant congress integrated various European nations such as Netherlands, Great Britain, and France with common interests. Subsequently, the Italian region of Piedmont was merged with Sardinia into the Empire of Sardinia under a new sovereignty to counterbalance France on the South East. It ensured that if the nations around France are powerful enough their power will balance out the possible military ability of Paris. However, this theory had a strong influence for almost a century but eventually broke down after the World War I. As time elapsed, and French invasion appeared less and less probable, a more intricate Europe arose. The unification of Italy and Germany as powerful states disturbed the balance of power. There were new growing nations in the game of geopolitics, such as the USA. The doctrine did not succeed, and Europe failed to respond to the new political processes (Fromkin 211).
The instability of the balance of power facilitated the European alliances of collective defense that was another significant origin of the war (Magagna 5). Nations throughout Europe formed mutual defense treaties that would entangle them into a world war. These agreements implied that if a specific nation was militarily attacked, the allied nations were obligated to provide it with militant support. Before the outbreak of the war there were dominant alliances, such as Serbia and Russia, Austria-Hungary and Germany, Japan and Britain. World War I arose when Austria- Hungary declared war on Serbia, and Russia got to it to protect Serbia to meet its defense alliance terms (McPherson 127). Interestingly, superior Germany observing Russia marshalling, announced war on the country. France was urged to levy war with Austria-Hungary and Germany. The conflict intensified when Germany invaded France through Belgium, and this activity dragged Britain into the war. Japan had no other alternative than participating in the war by supporting Britain. Gradually, Italy and the USA would join the bloc of the Allies. These demonstrate how the formation of alliances played a crucial role towards the basis of the war (Kindsvatter 277).
Defense spending was another vital cause that was facilitated by the instability of the balance of power. As the globe moved to the twentieth century, military defense spending had started. The year of 1914 saw Germany adopting the greatest advancement in the military defense (Magagna 6). Britain and Germany immensely developed their navies, such as submarines during this time. Additionally, nations such as Germany and Russia focused their combatant defense attention precisely on public policy. Because of this, vast spending on military issues promoted the involving of the European nations to war (McPherson 129).
The objective and unforeseen conflict that shaped the motivation of the decision makers was another imperative theory. It is widely credited to the hegemonic balance theory that focuses on how the global order materializes from hegemonic wars (Magagna 6). The notion is formed and adopted by the powerful states and can experience excessive pressure from the increasing powers. The basis of the World War I casts superior Germany as a hegemonic state in gradual decline. In contrast, Russia was much more promising because of its massive population and extensive territory. It was quickly industrializing and had barely begun an armed defense that would have helped it to overcome Germany as the hegemonic military power in Europe by 1917. Gradually, Germany eclipsed Great Britain in industrial dominance and established its navy to threaten the Royal Navy in control of the seas (McPherson 143). This allowed Kaiser to develop a strategy of forcible diplomacy to allow the imperial powers to surrender. This approach of combining uncertainty and brinkmanship termed as “welpolitik” frightened Great Britain that later became a real hegemonic threat (Kindsvatter 256). It obliged the United Kingdom to start fixing its conflicts with other domineering powers and forming alliances. Because of hegemonic risks from Russia, Britain formed an alliance with Empire of Japan.
The Middle East conflict is another vital cause of war (Magagna 2). There have been unending conflicts among the nations of the Middle East that date back to the end of 1800s. At the end of the XIX century one more controversy emerged concerning the survival of Jewish immigrants in conditions of the increasing afflictions and anti-Semitism threats in Europe. Furthermore, in the period between 1920 and 1946, the British dynasty was ruling Palestine. At that time, the region of Palestine comprised the overall Israel, and the contemporary occupied domains of West Bank, Gaza and others. The growing number of Jewish people immigrating to the Middle East heightened the strain in the region. Extensive European geopolitics in the first half of the twentieth century led the Middle East territory to deep instability in the whole region. The British authority played a main role in the Middle East area. For instance, in 1916 the British Empire persuaded the Arab rulers to defy the Ottoman Dynasty. It was cause by the fact that the Ottoman Dynasty was affiliated with the Germans. In return, the British administration would back up the development of a self-governing Arab nation in the region, such as Palestine. It was the main cause of war in the area of Middle East (Kindsvatter 311).
Dissolution of Palestine into two subsequent territories, and making the awareness of Jerusalem situation worldwide was another important cause of the war. The UN authorized the division of Palestine into two territories. It also passed the internationalization of Jerusalem and provided most of the land to the Jewish people who were in the minority (Doyle 386). However, the Arab states opposed the division of Palestine and the emergence of Israel as an independent nation. In 1948, the battalions of Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Yemen invaded Israel but were mercilessly crushed by the Israeli infantry. Although the Jewish society was fortunate in establishing its homeland, it was neither the separation of Palestine nor independency of Jerusalem. In particular, the year of 1948 saw Palestinians being forced out of the current Israel into evacuees’ camps in Egypt, Lebanon, and other Arab countries. Great numbers of Jews were evacuated from the neighboring Arab states. Zionist movements and some Arab countries inspired countless Jews to migrate to Israel (Doyle 390).
Global institutions minimize the probability of war, but cannot supersede national self-interest is another noteworthy theory. July catastrophe of 1914 widely exposed the nations’ self-interests becoming the key factor in the origin of the war. It was a culmination of events that facilitated the declaration of...