Monday, March 9, 2015

Session 13 "Defensive as paradoxical"

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

2 comments:

  1. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  2. yes you are right sir. i just added that since the enormous size of the armies supported the offensive, i framed my essay accordingly :)

    ReplyDelete