Why Nations Go To War

wherefore NATIONS GO TO WAR is a unique discussion and a return of reflection by author, Dr. John G. Stoessinger. starting published in 1978, its Eleventh discrepancy with profits came stunned in 2010. It is built around hug drug consequence studies, culminating in the for contendd-looking state of struggles that ushered in the twenty-first light speed Iraq, Afghanistan, and the wars betwixt Arabs and Israelis in Gaza and in Lebanon. In the deem he analyses the al approximately essential phalanx conflicts of the 20th century First introduction War, operation Barbarossa, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the war in Yugoslavia, the India-Pakistan conflict etc.The distinguishing feature of the reserve is the authors dialect on the glacial role of the personalities of trackhip who appropriate their nations, or their following, across the scepter into war. Thus this book transmits an understanding of state of war from innovation War I to the apply century. Dr . Stoessinger believes that the war is neither impersonal, nor inevitable, arguing that the certificate of indebtedness for a war doesnt lie altogether with certain events, because e precisething is, in fact, about the decisions that tribe make.He argues that umpteen an(prenominal) conflicts could put up been avoided without the use of push or without going to war. Dr. John G. Stoessinger attend college at Grinnell College in Iowa as an undergrad and completed his Ph. D. in computer programetary trans performance at Harvard. He has taught at some(a)(prenominal) universities including Harvard, MIT, Columbia, Princeton, and the University of San Diego, where he is currently a severalize Professor of Global Diplomacy. In addition to his t severallying c atomic number 18er, Dr. Stoessinger has as well led the International Seminar on International Relations at Harvard in 1969.He was too the key none speaker at the military man Congress of lowly Chamber International during their fiftieth anniversary event in Kobe, Japan. Dr. Stoessinger has written ten books on international relations and was awarded the Bancroft regard for The Might of Nations World Politics in Our Time. He has served as the book retrospect editor of Foreign Affairs, acting handler of the Political Affairs Division of the get together Nations, and is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. He has been included in Whos Who in America and Whos Who in the World. Dr.Stoessinger is remarkable for his individual analyses of war, contrasted with the systemic views more ordinarily studied by policy-making scientists later the Second World War. Stoessinger was only a child when Adolf Hitler invaded his home of Austria in order to obtain Anschluss. As a Judaic family, they needed to escape from the Nazis. They received a visa to Shanghai, china from Chiune Sugihara, a Japanese diplomat who armed serviceed thousands of Jews escape from the Nazis. These were the begin nings that shaped Dr. Stoessingers homophile race view and interest in WHY NATIONS GO TO WAR.In the books introduction, Dr. Stoessinger tells how, when he was a student, he was al federal agencys dissatisfied with the explanations found in floor books regarding wars nationalism, militarism, entirelyiance systems, economic factors and separate aboriginal causes that, according to him, couldnt be forthwith linked to the precise mowork forcet of a wars beginning. He argues that these wakeless causes of wars end-to-end history are those forces that pot unmixedly dont control, although it is pack who lie at the base of a conflict.In analyzing the 10 conflicts presented in the book, Dr. Stoessinger searches for the moment of loyalty, the ane in which the leaders take the fatal step towards the war, and he wonders in which precise moment the decision to go to war becomes irreversible, who takes righteousness for it and if the disasters could have been avoided. Dr. Stoessin ger has congeal up his book to look at the events that led to specific wars of the twentieth century and then drawing parallels between the contrastive wars that might non have been sheer or obvious at the generation of the various conflicts.The book closely examines each war or group of wars in individual chapters arranged in a near chronological order with a conclusion chapter that pulls from all of the conflicts previously presented. This admission is very easily organized and helps the endorser to follow the exploitation of war styles. The books first chapter is dedicated to World War I and is expressively authorize The Iron Dice, referring to the famous words talk on August 1st by German chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg If the iron cut must roll, may God help usIn general, because of the history taught in schools or because of popular history books, some hatful consider that the so-called constitutional causes of World War I are the deteriorating sleep of part in europium and the new competitive alliances, the arms race, Ger some(prenominal)s militarism and her claims regarding a larger colonial conglomerate etc. Loyal to his theory, Stoessinger ignores these causes and chooses to analyze the leaders actions in the wars eve. According to the author, all of the political leaders concern were aware of the wars inevitability and, in spite of this, they couldnt fetch up it.More than once, these leaders have denied their responsibility, placing it in the hands of God or destiny. solely it wasnt God who could control the evolution of events and stop the war, was he? Dr. Stoessingers principal(prenominal) theory is that the events werent, in fact, incontrollable and that it was the pack who make the crucial decisions. And these people werent some evil leaders with a zest for blood and destruction (how the Kaiser is so hardenings portrayed), entirely worried people stuck deep d hold their own put-ons.Stoessinger believes that t he crucial events that pushed the European countries to war were the following 1) The pledge that Germany make to Austria-Hungary regarding her insurance policy towards Serbia 2) The ultimatum Vienna gave to Serbia and its rejection by the Serbs 3) The German efforts to talk terms the conflict and tame Austria 4) At last, the announcement of war made by Germany against Russia and the impingement of Luxembourg and Belgium. In the first role of his novel, The Iron Dice The causes of WW1, Stoessinger offer an option explanation of the causes of World War I, one that includes human reactions and feelings.He says The notion that WW1 is beyond mens control is equipment casualty Mortals made these decisions. They made them in fear and in frisson but they made them nonetheless. In approximately cases, the decision makers were not evil people bent on destruction but were frightened and entrapped by self-delusion. They based their policies on fears, not facts, and were singularly de void of empathy. Mispercept, preferably than conscious evil design, appears to have been the leading villain in the drama. Although Dr. Stoessingers essay is well feeling out and well written, It is gruelling to agree to the thesis completely.It seems that all the European countries had good reasons for lacking a war as well. Serbia was right in wanting to expand, Austria in wanting to survive. Germany was right in fearing isolation, Great Britain in fearing German power. all these countries needed to plight war since the balance of power was no longer balanced. all(a) of these countries had good motives for a war, in that locationfore, it is illogical to browse the blame just upon the leaders of those countries, quite a than analyzing the deal that made the countries want to wage war.As much as we would all care things to be simple, they are not. Finding a couple of unfortunate leaders in power guilty seems to be the easiest solution. unless, the true statement is ju st not that simple. The truth is that everyone was to blame, the circumstances that created the need for war, the short war illusion that everyone entertained, and the governments who felt the need for a war. The responsibility of preventing World War One rests not solely upon the shoulders of a few selected individuals. However that is the theory maintained by Dr. Stoessinger byout the book.The distinguishing feature of the text throughout the book remains the authors emphasis on the pivotal role of the personalities of leaders who take their nations or their following across the threshold into war. approximately statesmen who made the crucial decisions behaved like fatalists. The untellable denouement was foreseen, but couldnt been prevented. Historians have been abnormal by this fatalistic attitude (events cursory beyond mens control). Stoessingers view is that this is upon mortals made decisions basing their policies on fear, not facts. Stoessinger views the World War I as preventable.The perception of statesmen and generals were absolutely crucial. Following dimensions of this phenomenon 1. A leaders intuition OF HIMSELF 2. HIS PERCEPTION OF HIS ADVERSARYS CHARACTER 3. HIS PERCEPTION OF HIS ADVERSARYS INTENTIONS 4. HIS PERCEPTIONS OF HIS ADVERSARYS POWER AND CAPABILITIES 5. HIS CAPACITY FOR EMPATHY WITH HIS ADVERSARY or so leaders saw themselves as stronger than they unfeignedly were and their adversaries as weaker than they really were. These misperceptions led straightway to distorted perceptions of adversarial intentions which then precipitated quickly into all out war.If the leaders of the various nations involved would have viewed reality rather than their own distorted misperceptions, it may have been realizable to avoid conflict on such(prenominal) a massive scale or even avoid war altogether. This seems to be a recurring theme throughout the book. One of the important theories attributed to Stoessinger is the theory of perceptions. Stoe ssinger believes that, in the eve of major conflicts, many of the political leaders involved have misjudged the built in bed and have thus led their countries to war.These fabricated perceptions manifest on 4 levels firstly, a false perception regarding the leaders own person, of their role in the arena and of their loyalty towards the possible outcome of the conflict. The minute of arc level regards the opponent and often includes demonizing his design and the inability to objectively understand a situation. On the one-third level, we are relations with the misperception of the opponents intentions and, on the twenty-five percent level, with misjudging the opponents abilities.Stoessinger has emphasized the greatness of the political leaders personalities and the fundamental sort they play in the evolution of international relations. The second chapter discusses Hitler and his invasion of Russia in 1941. Again, misperceptions compete a key role in the events that unfolded . This time, more emphasis was put on the character of the aggressor and his adversary. Hitler essentially had a one track mind. He unflinching to endeavor and eliminate the Russian people and paid no attention to the lessons lettered by forty winks when he had move to conquer Russia.Hitler was convinced that it would be a quick and lightsome victory. Stalin, on the other hand, believed that since they had previously been allies, Hitler would not invade Russia. Stalin unendingly disregard intelligence that came from British and American sources, including eighty-four warnings in the year antecede the attack, because he was suspicious of Anglo-American motives. He favored to place his trust in Hitler, a fellow dictator. In the end, Hitler invaded Russia and had misjudged the Russian people.They were fleck for their very existence which is probably the most powerful motivation ever. He had failed to plan for the Russian winter because he thought it would be a quick and easy victory, and ended up losing many men to cold and starvation, much as Napoleon had previously. Stalin had placed his trust in the wrong entity and was greatly disillusioned and was unprepared for the attack when it came. Again, the misperceptions of the leaders involved ended in a great loss of life. The third chapter deals with the Korean War and misperceptions of a different sort.In the later stages of the war, afterwards the North Koreans were determined back to the 38th parallel, General Douglas MacArthur went beyond the original scope of the police action by driving toward Chinese peal along the Yalu River. This move provoked China and brought them into the conflict. MacArthur did not believe that the Chinese host would be strong and thought he could achieve an easy victory. He ignored intelligence that told him the size of the Chinese soldiery and chose to believe that it was smaller than it really was.His hubris added cardinal years to the war and cost 34,000 extra A merican lives. Had he chosen to list to reality instead of his own misperceptions, many lives could have been saved. The Vietnam War was full of misperceptions as well. One of the biggest misperceptions would be the type of war being fought. The United States was fighting against communism, go the Vietnamese were fighting against imperialism and colonialism and to protect their way of life. Had the United States never entered Vietnam, communism would have taken over earlier, and with fewer human lives wasted.In 1978, the Vietnamese communists invaded Cambodia to put a stop to the communist regime of Pol agglomerate and the killing fields. Had the United States been open-minded abundant to see that there were distinctions between types of communists, mayhap we would never have participated in the conflict. Dr. Stoessinger continues through several other wars including Milosevics ethnical cleansing in Yugoslavia, the battles between India and Pakistan, the Arab-Israeli conflicts, ibn Talal Hussein Husseins wars in Iran and capital of Kuwait and the current American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan after the tragedy of 9/11.Dr. Stoessinger summarizes the book in the final chapter. Here he reiterates his thoughts that the case material reveals that perchance the most important single precipitating factor in the outbreak of war is misperception. He in addition restates the dimensions of misperception and gives each one special attention. In regards to the idea that there is a misperception in a leaders self-view, Stoessinger notes that there is remarkable consistency in the self-images of most national leaders on the beach of war.Each confidently expects victory after a brief and triumphant campaign. He likewise states that leaders on all sides typically harbor self-delusions on the eve of war. Stoessinger also discusses the idea that a leaders misperception of his adversarys power is perhaps the quintessential cause of war. It is vital to remember, besides that it is not the actual distribution of power that precipitates a war it is the way in which a leader thinks that power is distributed.Dr. Stoessinger uses many primary sources for his randomness including newspapers, documents, reports, and first-hand accounts. He also uses many secondary sources including books by other authors well-versed in the conflicts being discussed. It is very apparent that a lot of thought and look for has gone into the creation of this book. The index is very complete and the bibliographies at the end of each chapter make it easy to find more information on the conflict at hand.I believe that this book has a lot of historical worth since it pulls from so many valid sources. It presents straightforward and factual information with knowledgeable interpretations of the information. I believe that Dr. Stoessinger has successfully accomplished what he has set out to do. I would recommend the book to others if they are looking for interpretations of war an d how they begin. The book was interesting, though it could be a little wry at times to someone who is not well-versed in modern and contemporary history.