Session 13: The Hubris of Offense

Hubris gets you killed. This literary trope is used in almost all stories of good versus evil. Hubris always means the downfall of evil. But what about the real world in all its shades of grey? According to Stephen Van Evera, a defensive realist, in his essay titled "The Cult of the Offensive and the Origins of the First World War” this hubris manifested itself in the form of the belief in the cult of the offensive among the European states prior to World War 1. Cult of the offense is the belief that aggressors have the force of nature on its side thus it is better to be the first aggressor rather than be the defender. It is pride and confidence in one’s offensive capabilities. That hubris was apparent in many of the statements that Evera has cited of members of the German military elite before the start of WWI. They believed that the world was theirs for the taking and if they acted first, the tide would be on their side. History shows that it was this belief that caused all the destruction itself, causing a great war that could have been prevented if the European states had pushed aside their Darwinian mentality of “grow or die”.

What is interesting about Evera’s claims is that he refuses to assign blame to one particular leader or state. He tries to account for the situation the states found themselves in (typical of any neo-realist), ironically of their own creation and determines it as THE causal factor of the First World War. The cult of the offensive led almost all states on both opposing side to believe in such an ideal that they made blunders that were irreversible because they caused drastic reactions and counter reaction. Mobilization by a state was seen as war. Alliances were “all or nothing”. Secrecy was abound. The states got stuck in a trap of their own creation: of their own insecurity and offensive nature. This outlook of Evera’s to not indulge in the blame game is really commendable because it discounts a biased as well as a moral view of the war. His agenda is not to assuage the consciousness of one nation, neither the assertion of blame to another (like of many nationalistic historians). His theory can explain both sides while remaining neutral.

Furthermore he warns of the rise of the offensive cult again, that if we let the hubris of nations (of their offensive power) override the better sense of taking the defensive stance, it can lead to an even more dangerous situation as prior to WW1 because of the existence of nuclear weapons. He claims that while deterrence because of the notion of Mutually Assured Destruction arguably has plenty of holes in its foundations, the need to preach it today is direr than ever. He is even more right today than he was when he wrote this since now the Cold War has ended and the perception of the threat of nuclear war has gone down but in reality there are more nuclear weapons in number and in capacity in the world today than ever have been in history with more dangers of rogue states and transnational terrorist groups.