Analyze the origins of World War One.

Going way back:

1648 Peace of Westphalia after Europe 30 years war, all European leaders met to
balance power to create equilibrium (multipolar) ----Concert of Europe
Rise of nationalism/liberalism and Loose Concert of Europe and ultimatley collapse of
Concert of Europe
5 wars and German rise of power but Bismarck held it together
Bismarkian concert of europe
Bismarks successors could not mantain balance of power which led to beginning of
conflict
Lost all flexibility because of alliances. 1) Triple Entente (France, Britain, and Russia)
Triple Alliance (Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Germany)

Individual:
Mediocrity of leaders
Kaiser Wilhem II old and relied on Leopold Von Berchtold and Defense Minister
to make all decisions for him.
Lord Grey who is really irresolute
They all had bad ideas
The war would be short due to the german wars of unficaition
Offesnive advantage because the german wars had been won using cult of the
offensive doctrine
Overconfidence (This is debatable- Rubicon effect has thin evidence BUT
johnson/tierney say once leaders pass a certain point and conflict becomes
closer, they become overconfident with their strategies and less likley to be
objective.
Domestic:
Internal issues in Germany
Government was run by domestic coalition of landed aristocrats and industrial
capitalits, called the Coalition of Rhye and Iron
Labor party pressuring government to reform after rapid German industrialization
Government wants to ignore domestic issues and focus on foreign adventures to
distract people
Multinational empires being threatned by rise of nationalism (Austria-Hungary and
Ottoman Empires) which led to Serbia assasination of Franz Ferdinand (Austrian Crown
Prince) and Austria-Hungary went to war with Serbia because they didnt want Austria-
Hungary to be a magnet for Balkan Slavs
Cult of offensive- summer 1914
System:
Balance of power changing (German rise in economic power (GDP, Industry), military
power, etc)
Loss of flexibility (Alliance system)
Vague British and German policy
British- German Naval Accord which pissed off France
Rise of nationalism/ social darwinism (rise in complacency about peace)

Causes:
Deep: Balance of power changes, rise in nationalism, and some domestic political issues
Intermediate: Mediocrity of leaders, social darwinism, german/british policy
Precipertating: Assasination of Franz Ferdinand and crisis instability (cult of the offensive)

Analyze the origins of WWII
Individual:
Hitler failed to see benefits of american pluralistic society, anti-semetic expelled key
scientists, insatiable desire to conquer- pursued expansionist policy
Domestic:
Internal crisis in Germany leads to Hitler ascending to chancellorship through
constitutional means and then overthrowing Weimer Republic
Great depression and lack of security led to rise of Nazism
US isolationist policy, Germany had no threat of deterence
SU dealing with Russian revolution
British appeasment
Western democracies torn up by class cleavages and ideologies
Systemic:
Weak attempts to counterbalance German power
Versailles treaty too harsh

Analyze the origins of the Cold War

Phase One:
Lend lease program ends and Soviets continue to ask for money, US denies them, leads
to economic tensions
Soviets dont follow through on commitment to free Polish elections
Soviets refuse to leave Iran
Germany- unsure as to how to restructure, and who should pay
East Asia-Outer Manchuria
Atomic bomb- Stalin ignored Baruch plan

Phase two:
British couldnt afford to allocate funds to Western European countries so the United
States stepped in to give economic aid (Marshall plan/Truman doctrine)
Allies introduce currency in Western Europe which prompted Stalin to increase pressure
on Eastern Europe

Phase three:
Stalin explodes the atomic bomb
Chinese communist party takes over mainland China and nationalists are forced to flee
to Taiwan
Stalin permits invasion of south korea by north korea (KOREAN WAR)
Vietnam war
Domino theory- Eisenhower (1954)
Good doctor thesis
Non transformative vs. transformative change (Johnson vs. Kennedy)
Domestic explanation, Truman lost a domino no one else wants to
Cuban missle crisis: (1962)
Kennedy administration
US responds to soviets placement of missile in Cuba with a naval blockade and threat to
go to war if necesarry
Soviets withdrew because we had tactical advantage, geographical advantage
They withdrew and US promised to remove weapons from turkey and not invade cuba

Detente:
Nixon administration (height in 1973 and 1974)
nuclear non profileration treaty
1) arms treaty with SU
2) increase trade with SU
3) diplomatic relations with China
4) link it all together
didnt last long because of soviet military buildup and invasion into countries like angolia
and bc US conservative (surge towards right wing)

End of cold war:
Gorbachev take power, end Breshnev doctrine (doenst invade when Eastern European
countries have revolutions)
Berlin wall falls, Germany unified by treaty of final settlement 1991
Open door policy and top leaders of soviet union were more inclined to democratic
ideals because America was prospering economically
TWO THEORIES: bennet, ideational change, soviet leaders stopped thinking us was out
to get them AND wolforth who says due to poor institutional arrangments soveits failed
imperial overstretch (soviet union exhausted)
US military build up

What was the goal of League of Nations and why did it fail?

Goal/Development:
Woodrow Wilson 14th point to establish association of nations to mantain collective
security which was a change from balance of power politics
Collective security says that there can be no predetermined coalitions because yu dont
know who the agressor will be, but when there is an agressor all work together to fight
back
US failed to join due to isolationistic policies and return to normalcy
All states had veto powers so it was ineffective because if something happened with an
agressor state they would veto against action against them
TWO major failings were:
1) Manchuria
Rise of Chinese nationalism led to increase tensions with Japan. Japan
feared for the port of Manchuria because it was a vital economic asset so
they instituted a puppet government in Manchuria and the CHinese
appealed to the league of nations and league of nations released report
saying league shouldnt recognize the japannese occupation so japan left
league of nations and nothing happened.
2) Ethiopia
Italy wanted Ethiopia during colonizaiton but never got it. Due to new
fasict ideology they invaded. The league of nations imposed sanctions
which Italy ignored and after Italy finished colonizing Ethiopia sanctions
were repeled and Italy allowed to keep it.
League of nations fell apart during WWII (Hitler left)

What is a security dilemma and how to different actors influence them?
A security dilemma occurs when one state takes an indpendent action to increase its
security and it is percieved by another state as a threatning action even though it may
very well not be. This leads to that state increasing its security. Heightens fear and
hostility and can escalate to conflict.
Leaders (individuals who shape foreign policy)
States(soverign and territorial political units that have large miltiaries, ability to tax, ability
to create/enforce law, create foreign policy, etc)
Non-state actors (operate across borders)
NGO, terrorist orgnization, intergovernmental organziation, mafia groups,
multinational coporations

What are the differences between international and domestic politics? Explain the
consequences of anarchy.
International system there is no mechanism to enforce law/justice, weak global
community, no monopoly on force, varying ideologies
Domestic system clear, enforced law, similar values, government has monopoly on
legitimate use of force
International system is one of anarchy since there is no higher instittuion to regulate use
of force, acceptance of commitments, etc (WALTZ ideas)
So it is a self-help system
Heightened uncertainty
Prisoners dilemma/security dilemma
Lack of cooperation
Constant risk of war
Hobbs state of nature

What is a theory? What are the main IR theories? How can we classify the main IR theories?
Waltz- has three main characteristics
Mental picture of relationships in some important domain of activity
1) A law like regularity
2) Explanation for why
3) Ability to falsify
Systemic, domestic-structural, individual (three images-waltz, three levels of analysis-
singer)
Realism
Hobbs-state of nature, constant threat of war, pervasive security dilemma, no
cooperation. main actors are states. level of analysis is systemic
Liberalism
Doyle-democratic peace thesis, main actors are domestic instituions and
individuals. level of analysis is domestic.
Constructivism
Culture shapes political thought. Government systems arise from habits/norms.
There is always an ability to clarify a percieved threat as not one. main actors are
individuals. level of analysis-individual
Marxism
beleif that politics is a function of economics
capitalism/greed will lead to collapse of government
doesnt account for nationalistic impulses

Explain the democratic peace thesis and the failings/support for it.

Doyle: The chance that two democratic states will go to war is low compared to the change that
a democratic and a non-democratic state will go to war.

Support:
There have been very few wars between democratic states
Wealthy states tend to be demcoratic and have more to loose so they are less likley to
go to war
Normative logic- democratic norms (diplomacy, compromise)
Instituional logic
Slow to mobilize due to need for public support/ institutional constraints
Dem leaders have to remain in power through re-election so less likley to pursue
policy against peoples will and less likley to enter wars they wont win
Critique:
Rosato
Normative logic fails bc democratic states often dont externalize domestic norms
and use force
Instituional logic fails bc we are capable of surprise attack, mobilizing quickly
(especially in emergency situaiton)
there must be another reason for democratic peace- american imperialism
Downes
leaders arent always likley to JUST enter wars they think they can win
examples of how underconfident kaiser and british pm were before ww1

Was world war one inevitable or could the train have been stopped?
When several causes of a war exist we called the situation over-determined and since
ww1 was overdetermined it was highly probable but not inevitable and this is due to the
deep, perciptating, and immediate causes
LIST ALL CAUSES OF WW1 which we have above

What do realist, liberal, and constructivist approaches add to our understanding of WW1?
Realism is every state for its own, emphasizes the role of international anarchic system
and the use of force with state as primary actor
When states feel a threat to their power (Britian vs. Germany) they are going to
act to protect what they feel is rightfully theres. Serbia attacked Austria-Hungary
bc they felt as though it could be a magnet of nationalism
Since it emphasizes the system look at how it shifted from multipolar to alliance
system (hegemonic transition theory-AFK Organski, war is especially likely) and
balance of power policy
Leaders that use balance of power policy have realist ideology
Liberalism
Democratic peace thesis, domestic/institutional level
liberals argue that realists do not pay enough attention to domestic politics
germany is run by coalition of rye and iron and they divert attention away from
doemstic social issues by focusing on foreign adventure
britain just wants peace so it can focus on internal issues such as ireland
problem
GORDONs thesis
Constructivism
Focuses on individual level of analysis and how culture/public opinion influences
leaders/institutions
social darwinism, rise in complacency about peace, cult of offensive ( belief in
short wars with low casualties and that defensive strategy was death)

What are some lessons from 1914 that might help policy makers avoid war today?
To distinguish between appeasment and deterrence and the effects of both
Instead of appeasing Germany in ww1 we deterred them but we should have
appeased them
To know that offensive doctrine is not always advantageous
Snyder (defensive doctrine would have been better)
Sagan (cult of the offensive doctrines)
stability is not assured by the distribution of power alone (constructivist argument)
beware of complacency about peace or that the pattern of the last crisis is going to fit the
crisis of the next
it is important to have military forces that are stable in crisis
railways timetables made it difficult for leaders to buy time for diplomacy

How did the concept of collective security differ from balance of power politics? Is the notion of
collective security utopian? If not, how might collective secuity worked better during the interwar
period?
Focus is on the agressive poliices of a state rather than its aggresive capabilities
Stability is not necesarrily a result of the distribution of power so there needs to be
collective secuirty to ensure stability regardless of balance of power politics
balance of powers rest on predetrmined coalitions (alliances) where as collective
security makes none and waits for an agressor to arise
yes because there is no means by which the league of nation or todays UN to enforce
their resolution (in the end, states are more powerful)
if collective security was not too idealistic it may have worked better because it wouldnt
have aimed to incorporate the desires of every state (ex. japan and italy having vetoes)
instead of league of nations taking into account ALL it should overrode and took into
account just the rational actors

Was WW11 inevitable? If so, why and when? If not, when and how could it have been avoided?
When several causes of a war exist we called the situation over-determined and since
ww1 was overdetermined it was highly probable but not inevitable and this is due to the
deep, perciptating, and immediate causes
it would have best been avoided right after ww1 if the treaty of versailles was not as
harsh as it was
if the us didnt pursue policy of isolationism the great depression would have been less
likley and thus hitlers rise would have been less likley
if we appeased germany early on and treated it less harshly than the democratic
government could have been preserved
if US had ratified treaty and stayed in europe to preserve the balance of power, hitler
may not have risen to power


To what extent can the outbreak of WWII be attributed to the personalities of the leaders
involved?

Was Japan irrational to attack the United States?
What are the pathways to peace?

1. Democratic peace thesis
a. Normative logic
b. Structural logic
Slow to mobilize due to need for public support/ institutional constraints
Dem leaders have to remain in power through re-election so less likley to pursue
policy against peoples will and less likley to enter wars they wont win
c. Rosato critique, Downes critique (democratic leaders arent always likley to enter
wars they think they are going to win)
2. Economic interdependence theory
a. If two countries have close financial ties they are less likley to go to war one
another because they are mutually dependent on each other for their economic
viability.
b. Grieco found non-democracies have no relation (slope =0) and democracies
have negative associaiton
c. Critics point to 1914- all countries had economic ties but still went to war
d. EU countries have same economic structure/currency so they wont fight with
one another
e. Mexico-US
3. Diplomacy
a. Liberal theory that countries with democratic norms are more likley to use
compromise, etc
4. Nuclear deterrence
a. Second strike capability
b. Mutually assured destruciton
c. Just war doctrine (cant kill innocent civilans, effects of atomic bomb on Japan
devastated everyone involved)
d. Critics (Mueller thesis- nuclear peace is illusion, WWII effects were what caused
cold war peace)
e. Leads to crisis stability
f. Tannenwald- nuclear taboo too terrible to even consider using again and
reinforced deterrence
g. Problem with relying on nuclear peace is that it is so expensive (India and
Pakistan)

When did the cold war begin? When did it end? What do realist, liberal, and constructivist
approaches contribute to your answers?
The traditionalists say that it began when the soviet union decided to establish a sphere
of influence despite the united states establishing the idea of collective security and the
united nations
The revisionists say it began when Roosevelt died and Truman took over because he
was harsher on SU, cut off lend lease, democratic party shifted to the right. America was
stronger than SU and it really had the power to decide which way the world would go.
Stalin found out about american development of atomic bomb. American capitalism
relied on economic hegemony. Feared that soviets would create an autonomous
economic sphere.
The postrevisionists say that it started as a result of the bipolar structure where the SU
and the US had different interests (TANGIBLE possesion goals of SU vs. milieu
(idealistic, liberal goals of US)
Six changes eventually led to change in American policy
1) development of atomic bomb
2) SU had promised free eletions in Poland but didnt follow through
3) Roosevelts death and shift of democratic party to the right
4) Soviets refuse to leave Iran (started getting involved in Medditeranena
countries)
5) German reconsturcition/reperations debate
6) end of lend-lease program
7) Soviet expansion into Outer-Manchuria
End of cold war
Gorbachev comes to power and instituted open door policies that allowed for
revolutions, he ended Breshnev doctrine and didnt support expansion of
communism
Imperial overstretch
Berlin wall comes down, Germany reunified in 1991-treaty of final settlement
Failed coup (Gorbachev is weakened and SU collapses)
Liberal ideology begins to have more appeal when SU is eocnomically strained
and US is doing well due to market based economy
Fukyama said end of cold war marked end of ideological war and liberalism had
won
Wolforth- due to poor instituinoal arrangments SU lost (couldnt support war
anymore because poor economy and lack of innovation)
Bennet- ideational change (soviets leaders stopped thinking america was out to
get them, accepted liberal)

Was Cold War inevitable?
Post revisionists say yes because of the power vacuum/bipolar balance of power but
they fail to account for structural/individual level analysis
Inevitable because of ideological war and territorial disputes
Domestic-Roosevelt policies (demanded Germanys unconditional surrender, wanted a
more liberal trade system which pissed off Soviets because expanded US influence)
Harder bargaining may have limited some events but appeasment would not have
worked because the root of the problem was ideological not concession based
Needed more willingness to negotiate

Why were leaders unable to restore a ninteenth century Concert system after WWII? What sort
of system evolved?
US and SU were two superpowers in a bipolar system
There was not a multipolar system and a balance of power system like during concert of
europe

How important were first and seocnd images in the development of the Cold War? What were
the views of American and Western leaders on the Su and its ambitions? And what were SU
views on the rest of the West?
Individual
Roosevelt policy was more liberal trade system, expand US influence through
more trade/UN/spread of democracy (milieu goals)
Soviet policy was to expand communism to restrict US influence and to gain
territory/mantain it
Domestic
Politcical culture in SU favors absolutism (Russia was geographically vulnerable,
desired a strong leader due to fear of anarchy, isolationist to cut off influence
from west, used US as an objective enemy to increase control over Soviet
people, secrative
Su was weakened by war
American political culture favored fragmentation of power, plurlaism, liberal
democracy so public, moralistic policy
America was strengthened by war

What is containment? How did this American policy emerge and how was it implemented? What
were Soviet responses?
Containment is the effort to contain the spread of the ideology of an adversary
Specifically it was the basis of US foreign policy during the cold war
It emerged after the Truman doctrine. The Truman doctrine is the first time that we made
a diffentiaiton between restricting Soviet power and communism.
This led to wars of Vietnam and Korea (Domino theory)
It was implemented through Marshall plan (12 million to Western Europe to spur
economic growth) and Truman doctrine (assistance to Greece and Turkey)
Soviet responses were invasion of SK by NK, invasion of Outer Manchuria and
occupation (which Truman rejected at Potsdam conference)

Is Mueller correct that nuclear weapons are not the cause of the obsolescence of major wars
among developed states? What other factors does he consider?
Mueller is partially correct. We believe nuclear deterrence does have some effect in
creating peace. Yet we agree that the historical implications of WWII also affected
reasons for peace Countries fear HUGE land wars that will have devastating affects on
their human capital and industrial capital.
He also said major powers were content with the status quo and that the SU was more
supportive of internal revolutions rather than wars between states in order to spread
ideology
Says NATO and Warsaw pact were a result of WWII not nuclear weapons (trade
interdependence is a reaon for peace)
Strength of economy/military plays role