According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, war is described as “a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism; a state of usual open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations; a struggle between opposing forces or for a particular end.” This is a logical explanation, but it brings up a question. Is war all bad? Can’t war have good points as well as bad ones? There are good things, too. You don’t believe me?
Of all the ideas and theories Clausewitz presented in On War, my belief is that the most important and enduring elements are his idea that war is an extension of policy, his analysis of strategy, the trinity theory and his explanation of the components of war including friction in war, the fog of war and his centre of gravity theory. These ideas and theories from Clausewitz’s On War will be discussed in this essay and presented as his most important and enduring contributions to the theory of warfare. Clausewitz defined war as “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will” (Clausewitz, P101) but argued that war should only be entered into when diplomatic methods fail as war is a continuation of politics and controlled by a political objective which is aimed at improving the situation. However war can therefore can vary depending on the nature of the policy and society of the time in which the war is waged. Clausewitz stated that success in war requires clear political aims and an adequate strategy (Clausewitz, P101).
Meanwhile, other Historians, such as Steven Ozment in, sources one, believe the First World War started from various other reasons such as alliances, arms race and all countries just slithered into war. In this essay I will analyse the sources and make a judgement on whether World War I was a result of planned German aggression or due to many other reasons. Firstly, source one completely agrees with the source, that the war did not arise primarily as a result of planned German aggression. “A deliberate German programme to occupy Central Europe came after, not before”. This disagrees with the argument that Fischer states.
These three insights find thoroughness because of their durability. The first of Clausewitz’s insights which we discuss is the right understanding of military history. Clausewitz asserts that history confines war to be just that, and only that. This assertion relies on another Clausewitz’s assertion that war is the continuation of policy by other means. Political ends necessitate the need for military force (war) as a mean.
To what extent was the cold war inevitable? The end of World War II can be seen to mark the expiration of what can be argued as, an unlikely alliance. The Cold War can be claimed to be greatly inevitable post-war due to the absence of a unifying interest of defeating Nazi Germany and Hitler. Here, the clash of ideology presents the most obvious cause of conflict between the two nations; capitalism and communism. The debate surrounding the inevitability of the Cold War and diplomatic relations between Russia and America will be explored from a traditionalist, revisionist and post-revisionist standpoint.
Taylor wrote a book called “The Struggle for Mastery in Europe”, in this book A.J.P. Taylor claimed that German ambitions were the cause of the war. All of these views have merit; however, while imperialism was one of the causes of World War 1, the Alliance system and militarism in the pre-war period were definitely the major causes of the war. The Marxist historian, Eric Hobsbawn, came up with a theory, the "zero-sum game" theory. This theory was applicable to World War One because it was an "age of total war", therefore the war was "zero-sum game".
During this unstable period of time, the developing notion of nationalism and specifically the ideology of self-determination, when implemented, created implications. How the principle of national self-determination was understood during World War I developed according to contributing pressures that threatened existing state boundaries at that time. The prevalence of war created the desire to maintain state borders and deny access to foreign powers, thus emphasising the principle of self-determination. To allow nations to be ruled by a foreign power would have been considered as “an obvious injustice” (Pavkovic 2007: 19). Consciously, the notion that the people should be able “to determine their own fate” (Pomerantz 1976: 17) became a prominent belief during World War I.
Although all these views have reasons to state their claim one may decide that the blame can be laid on America. This is mainly because to a greater extent many tensions that existed before the cold war and during in the cold war can be due to America’s doctrines and polices. Firstly America can be blamed for starting the cold war through its president Harry Truman. When Truman became president in 1946 he introduced a hard-line policy against Soviet Union. President’s Truman s used a tough anti –communism but impressive style to convince the American s how dangerous and powerful communism could be.
These tensions started to disrupt their dual alliance with Austria-Hungary, even with a ‘Blank Cheque’ being given to them. With the Kaiser believing that foreign policy and civil war was increasingly the same, it can be assumed that aggressive foreign policy may have been set to distract the German public away from things at home and more onto how to become a strong world power. A factor that both strengthens and weakens the argument of aggressive foreign policy being the reason for the outbreak of war in 1914 is that of encirclement. Source V mentions ‘They felt encircled not merely by the Triple Entente, but also by the forces of change.’ First of all, Germany became sceptical about the alliance between Britain, France and Russia, the Triple Entente, they thought it was not going to work and did not fear it until they tried to cause problems between France and Britain with the ownership of the Balkan islands, which was unsuccessful. When Germany realised that the entente was a
The name of the poem implies that the poet was a proponent of war, but contradictorily we discover that he was not. Undoubtedly, Owen had the practical, realistic knowledge to informatively and effectively portray the war scene. He experienced first-hand the physical, psychological and emotional effects of war on a human being. Although both speakers had contradictory concepts about war based on their own values, knowledge and experiences, they presented their theories with equivalent zeal, tenacity and passion. The speakers are fixated in their beliefs, and adamant about their concepts of war.