Van Evera, in his article "The Cult of the Offensive and the Origins of the First World War" talks about the IR theory that gained attention prior to the great world wars of the 19th century and the this theory played a major role in bringing the conflict into action. The theory of offensive realism focuses and advises nations upon taking a front foot in issues related to military and to keep the enemies always at the toes. It emphasizes all states and nations to keep up momentum with the enemy states in relation to the military arsenal build up and any slight mistake in this regard might eventually lead to one's own destruction.
The author attributes the outbreak of the first world war to this theory which seeped into the minds of statesmen during and further lead to the development nuclear capabilities and powerful nations going berserk over the development of their military arsenal. Being a defensive realist himself, Van evera criticized this theory and lamented that, had the approach of the major powers at the time had been defensive, the events that gradually occurred might not have happened. This offensive also fails to take into account any form of reactionary majors from the opponent and hence might result into a global disaster. he adduced the case of pearl harbor where Japanese with all their might attacked the enemy with the intention of completely wiping out reactionary offensive but ended up facing much more gruesome consequences.
Offensive realism is a part of greater perception of 'might is right' and goes about solving any conflict through brute force. When two giants are both at the offensive with neither showing any sign of retrieval, the the consequences usually comes out similar ot that of the two world wars. And if any such global calamity is to be avoided in future, and mental shift or rather a mental transcendence is required to view the international relation from a much much more broader perspective.
With a focus on offensive strategies, there is always going to be a probability of states going to war taking into account how a perceived threat is looming over and the desire to be preeminent to avoid subjugation. But in the status quo, nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence is keeping states at bay.
ReplyDeleteYou clearly did not grasp the main point of the piece and there are multiple errors in your analysis. First, the world wars happened in the 20th century. Next, the theory did not play a role in leading to the war, but the belief in the "cult of the offensive" did. Finally, where are you getting this info about Japan? The focus was on WWI. Focus your thoughts more clearly next time.
ReplyDeleteAnam's point, however, is spot on.