With the proliferation of military capacities because of the advent of technology, there was a build up of agitation, tension and suspicion in the international arena. Stephan Van Evern builds his argument about the 'cult of the offensive' on this basis and states that the origin of the First World War can be explained through five basic causes: an adoption of more aggressive foreign policies, the advantage of the state which strikes first, 'windows of opportunity,' a competitive style of diplomacy and a large degree of secrecy. Evern claims that it is this concoction of factors that led to lethal results in the form of the loss of millions of lives and chaos on the global platform. What was interesting in his discourse is that the reasoning given for the First World War can also be extended to understanding the outbreak of the Second World War. Has Evern found a static explanation of war and conflict? Is it these ingredients that lead to the precipitation of violence and anarchy in the world?
According to Evern the first dimension entails an aggressive foreign policy. During the 1930's Hitler adopted a foreign policy that was considered to be aggressive according to the West. A.J.P Taylor in his book the Origins of the Second World War claims that instances such as the take over of Austria under the flag of Anchullus and the aim to reverse the Treaty of Versailles and regaining Germany's lost territories, were all seen as an attempt to tilt the balance of power in Germany's favour. Hitler envisioned a Great Germany with a pure Aryan race, and his Lebunstraum ideology was evident in his foreign policy. So, is Evern correct to claim that an aggressive foreign policy leads to war? The answer is yes because such policies leads to agitation and inculcation of fear in the other states of the world.
Evern's theory posits that the state which attacks first has a comparative advantage over the other and for this reason the world system is structured in such a way that there is always the need for nations to build their capabilities in order to ensure their survival. In such a self help system, the principle of social darwanism dominates, and if we look at World War 2, Hitler was aware of the fact that he had military capabilities greater than the other nations. When he lost the Battle for Britain in 1940, Hitler turned his attention to attack the USSR because he saw that he had the advantage because Stalin was still building his military arsenal. Hence, he broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement and attacked USSR- which ties in with Evern's theory of intentionality and how at the end there is a large degree of secrecy in international relations. Politicians and states use the 'window' of opportunity to tilt the balance of power in their favor and adopt a very competitive style of diplomacy because morality and friendships can actually hinder survival, and hence need not be considered when they come in the way of state ambitions.
Evern gives a very holistic understanding of the way that the First World played out and how the intricate design of the alliance system coupled with the buildup of military power led to a localized conflict (the assassination of the archduke) to be sensationalized and used as an excuse for attack. By the same token, it is interesting to see how the same rationale can be used to explain not only the Second World War, but also other conflicts that have taken place in the trajectory of History.
According to Evern the first dimension entails an aggressive foreign policy. During the 1930's Hitler adopted a foreign policy that was considered to be aggressive according to the West. A.J.P Taylor in his book the Origins of the Second World War claims that instances such as the take over of Austria under the flag of Anchullus and the aim to reverse the Treaty of Versailles and regaining Germany's lost territories, were all seen as an attempt to tilt the balance of power in Germany's favour. Hitler envisioned a Great Germany with a pure Aryan race, and his Lebunstraum ideology was evident in his foreign policy. So, is Evern correct to claim that an aggressive foreign policy leads to war? The answer is yes because such policies leads to agitation and inculcation of fear in the other states of the world.
Evern's theory posits that the state which attacks first has a comparative advantage over the other and for this reason the world system is structured in such a way that there is always the need for nations to build their capabilities in order to ensure their survival. In such a self help system, the principle of social darwanism dominates, and if we look at World War 2, Hitler was aware of the fact that he had military capabilities greater than the other nations. When he lost the Battle for Britain in 1940, Hitler turned his attention to attack the USSR because he saw that he had the advantage because Stalin was still building his military arsenal. Hence, he broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement and attacked USSR- which ties in with Evern's theory of intentionality and how at the end there is a large degree of secrecy in international relations. Politicians and states use the 'window' of opportunity to tilt the balance of power in their favor and adopt a very competitive style of diplomacy because morality and friendships can actually hinder survival, and hence need not be considered when they come in the way of state ambitions.
Evern gives a very holistic understanding of the way that the First World played out and how the intricate design of the alliance system coupled with the buildup of military power led to a localized conflict (the assassination of the archduke) to be sensationalized and used as an excuse for attack. By the same token, it is interesting to see how the same rationale can be used to explain not only the Second World War, but also other conflicts that have taken place in the trajectory of History.
A very interesting take on the reading. I agree with most of your arguments however, where you mentioned that Hitler attacked Russian because he was aware of his military strength I would like to add how he was wrong. And, this very decision is what led to his defeat. He was correct about the Russian military strength but, not about his own.
ReplyDeleteYou're correct in stating that in retrospective it was a bad decision on the part of Hitler to attack USSR. However, when he attacked Russia, he did so because he thought the time was right as USSR was not as strong as Germany, and if he waited any longer then USSR would build it's capabilities (which it was expected to in the next two years). Hitler thought that he would defeat Stalin in a short decisive victory. This would have been possible if Stalin had not asked Britain and USA to put up a 'Second Front' which would constitute of aerial warfare. Here, it is important to see how alliances come into play and how they actually help in buttressing the capabilities of a somewhat weaker state.
DeleteHitler would have been fine if: a) Germany hadn't declared war on the U.S. after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor; and b) he hadn't helped out Mussolini in North Africa during the summer of '40 when he should have been sending all of his armored divisions north to attack Russia before the notoriously cold winter. Hitler just made a lot of tactical mistakes. Otherwise Germany would have done much better than it actually ended up doing.
DeleteThe example that you have given about Hitler attacking Russia because he was aware of his military strength shows the irony, because this very decision led to him facing the defeat he suffered. Knowing about other state's capabilities is something which states keep a check on while practicing in the international system and clearly Hitler was not good at it.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that Evera was positing in favour of the aggressor. Being a defensive realist, he encourages moderate and defensive policies because offense leads to destructive wars as shown by his case study on the First World War. These destructive wars are a bigger threat to survival, so defensive tactics like maintaining the BOP is better for states. Thus the "cult of offense" is misleading because it is potentially very counter-productive and self destructive.
ReplyDeleteGreat piece and I think your provide additional support to the argument that aggressive foreign policy begets instability and war. I really loved how you tied this into WWII and I think that this would actually be a great journal article to write (if it hasn't been written yet). And to follow up on Rida's point, yes Van Evera is arguing strongly against the "cult of the offensive" and was applying it to debate at the time over whether or not nuclear weapons could be used as a counterforce strategy.
ReplyDeleteGreat piece and great debate in the commentary!