Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Session 13: Offense Taken

In this article by Van Evera, the author attempts to explain the term ‘cult of the offensive’ and how this cult led to the events of WWI. The cult of the offensive, as Van Evera puts it, is the general atmosphere of hostility and aggression that arose near the start of WWI, fueled mainly by the belligerent policies of the Germans.

Van Evera is critical of the states that partook in World War I whom he believes jumped the gun and should not have been so gung ho in their interactions with each other. He thinks that war could have been avoided if, instead of mounting an arms race and massing troops on borders, the states had just stayed put and had faith in their defensive capabilities. But offensive realism prevailed and the Germans felt that they could easily achieve hegemony in Europe so they continued to be aggressive, even though the technology and warfare of the time was not suited to this approach.

Van Evera’s analysis is almost pained since you can tell that he does not approve of the offensive approach whatsoever; being the defensive realist that he is. He says that the pursuit of aggressive policies leads to both preventive and preemptive strikes and adds to the general turmoil. The Germans were so sure of the success of their aggression because they thought for sure that Britain would remain neutral when it did not make sense for them to do so. German expansionist policies and the reactions from the other great powers like Russia and Britain then led to WWI. Russians mobilized their forces and full scale war was at hand.


It is important to note, Van Evera says, that the only thing keeping a much more dangerous cult of the offensive from developing is the threat of the nuclear bomb and mutually assured destruction. Mutually assured destruction, if it fails, would then set up a war the likes of which the world cannot afford. Van Evera's analysis, although useful, comes off as a little bit harsh considering that it's easier to pass judgements looking back at history than it is when one is actually there.  

1 comment:

  1. Excellent post Mishal. But on your last point, remember Van Evera is trying to be prescriptive - he is encouraging states NOT to fall into the trap of the "cult of the offensive" precisely because a nuclear war would be too costly. Hence he was arguing against the counterforce strategy that was being advocated by some people in the 1980s.

    ReplyDelete