Stephen van Evera argues in his write-up "cult of the
offensive" about "offensive" as the relevant cause of the events
in 1914. It brings us to think what these geographically bonded European
nations developed rationale to justify the measure they took for security which
ultimately lead to the great world war1. The reason why it all happened was not
just due to few states believing on the "offensive “as the rationale of
war but in fact all of the states in the game acted in similar way.
All states from Russia to Britain believed
that the best way to secure the borders is to start offensive. They believed
that their best defense could only be the offensive as their armies grew in
number and so did the armies of the other nations in Europe. All nations in pursuit
of security and not just for power, ended up fighting the never ending war
which devastated the Europe. The leaders of some nations believed that
offensive is a source of morale building. Despite weaponry superiority,
Generals believed that "mind would prevail over matter" to justify
their offensive strategies despite the enemies military superiority. The author
states that offensive is the best defense because the smaller states under
pressure would ultimately make alliances with the strong. Hence, making the
strong much stronger.
The author then goes about explaining the
consequences of offensive that translated the events of world war. Among these
consequences is when states know that they can capitalize on offensive, they do
that because cost of aggression is cheap and new resources of other nations
would open new opportunities and avert threats. When offensive is strong, smaller
shifts in military capability will increase the chances of other state
conquering the latter? Therefore it promotes pre-emptive strikes leading to
quick wars.
Concluding all, Stephen van Evera gives
enough evidence to support his argument to justify defensive realism leading
world wars.
~
UZAIR MUJEEB
You do a good job of summarizing the cult of the offensive that Van Evera discusses, but you fail to connect it to his final argument that even though the cult of offensive dominated the military plans of states in Europe at the time, states had stronger defensive - rather than offensive - capabilities. It would have been nice had you expounded on this final link to really cap off your piece.
ReplyDeleteyes you are right sir. i just added that since the enormous size of the armies supported the offensive, i framed my essay accordingly :)
ReplyDelete