'War seldom resolves the causes of conflict' Analyze this claim with reference to a period in history.

‘War seldom resolves the causes of conflict’ Analyze this claim with reference to a period in history

The hypothesis that war causes more tension and quarrel thus leading to more conflict, rather than resolving them as a general statement does not help the historian in his energies. Just as some conflicts are ended by decisive victories such as the victory of Harold I over the Viking forces of Hardraada in 1066, others such as the Arab – Israeli conflict since 1948 have developed into generational conflict as evidenced by five major wars involving Israel since then. My purpose is to demonstrate that World War one did not resolve European conflict but that it contributed in part to World War Two. The causes of World War One were to a certain extent similar to the causes of World War Two, so The Great War failed to resolve the causes of conflict in many aspects World War Two was simply unfinished business. There is a contrary view that World War Two was a result of several unique causes, particularly the role of Hitler’s personality and political agenda. The search for a middle ground, if that is one we should tread, between these two views provides fertile land for historigraphical debate.

German Nationalism fuelled both World War One and World War Two, clearly indicating that war failed to resolve this cause of conflict. Indeed, before World War One Kaiser Wilhelm II adopted an aggressive foreign policy which was known as Weltpolitik. A prime example of Weltpolitik was the Moroccan crisis on the 31st March 1905 that involved Russia. The Kaiser summed up this aggressive form of Imperialism: “Nothing must henceforth be settled in the world without the intervention of Germany and the German Emperor” (1) However, despite World War One after which the Kaiser abdicated, there was a continuation of German consciousness - the feeling of Germans being a superior race. Hitler, when in power, used volkish nationalism to his advantage, as he began a massive re-armament programme in turn breaking the shackles which were placed upon Germany via the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler was also prepared to take risks to achieve territorial gains. Therefore one could argue that World War One did not resolve the causes of conflict as the Nationalist sentiments remained inevitably leading to World War Two. This coincides with the theory outlined by Ken Booth (2) of war being a result of mans innate violent nature at an individual level; the quotation mentioned before confirms the Kaiser’s aggressive and violent approach to world affairs and Hitler pursued a similar line. Booth also claims that war is caused on a national level, and therefore, using Booth’s ideas it would suggest that German Nationalism caused World War One and World War Two, implying that war seldom resolves the causes of conflict. The final level of analysis is on the international stage, nations being driven to war due to the lack of International Law and desire for security.

World War one additionally failed to resolve the causes of conflict because the League of Nations was unsuccessful in its attempts to divert any future conflicts. This is because they were unable to assert an adequate amount of military and political power on other nations. For example, all sanctions imposed by the League were ineffective. The US and USSR failed to join. The League of Nations had no standing military force of its own and the policy-making process was slow and ineffective. Hedley Bull (3) states that war is due in part to the lack of robust security measures in the ‘Anarchical Society’. This is evident in the fact that World War One was created by a lack of security which in turn triggered an increase in a series of alliances, which threatened, almost automatically, to descend Europe into two competing blocs of power. These alliances increased the probability of a conflict widening without providing a significant deterrent. Bull does not account for the wider perspective because he feels war does not resolve the causes of conflict due to the lack of international law creating a global system governed by Realpolitik, On the other hand, Booth claims there are three levels at which war commences. The ideas of Bull and Booth stand in stark contrast to those of Marxist historians. Indeed, Karl Marx would argue that war seldom resolves the causes of conflict because war is a continuing manifestation of the class struggle as long as capitalism flourishes. Such a view suggests that the great oppression of the masses and disenfranchisement led to the accession into power of Hitler that led to World War Two.

This is a preview of the whole essay

On the surface it would seem that the Treaty of Versailles was fair and just to the majority of the Allies, but on closer analysis this is not the case. The Treaty of Versailles demoralized the German people and left deep-rooted resentment against the Allies. Hitler’s Nationalism wanted to expand and unite all German speaking people as well as creating Lebensraum, living space in the East. Furthermore the Treaty of Versailles created weak states that were easy prey for dictators. This gave Hitler the perfect and ideal opportunity to take back what Germany had lost. Therefore one can draw immediate conclusions that the Versailles Treaty caused great national humiliation in Germany and so, served to ignite nationalist sentiments and the desire for Germans to re-discover their national pride and glory. The Treaty of Versailles caused such humiliation and then re-drew the global map to help perhaps by error, the Germans to meet their nationalistic desires by a policy of expansionism. This is because the Treaty intended to make Germany weak by decimating the German empire and creating independent states. But Hitler responded by invading these small weak states. This shows that the Treaty of Versailles failed to resolve the causes of conflict and in certain aspects it was counter productive, creating more hostility and instability which led to World War Two. A.J.P Taylor confirms this: “the first war explains the second and, in fact, caused it, in so far one event causes another” (4) On its own Taylor’s statement is simplistic as he is judging World War One in isolation; one has to account for the wider perspective. Military, economic, and personality factor also cause World Wars. These cannot be removed from the equation, as they are an integral part of the nature of warfare.

The Social Darwinist theory of the ‘survival of the fittest’ played a fundamental role in igniting both World Wars. The Kaiser and Hitler were influenced by Social Darwinism and believed that wars were always going to happen to separate the weak from the strong. Therefore they embraced the notion of ‘unending war’; war was an ongoing process that ensured the survival of the fittest. The purpose of war is not to resolve the causes of conflict but to continually ensure the fittest survive. Therefore one can say that the purpose of war is not to solve the causes of conflict, but to separate the weak from the strong. One can also look at this from a different perspective perhaps the key objective of war is personal self-interest. For example, it is often stated that USA sought a war with USSR to utilize and manufacture the security of their economy. This is what Von Clausewitz (5) suggests in his theory of war, the fact that individuals participate in wars regardless of the justice and their nation’s cause.

World War One did cause World War Two, but also there were unique causes that contributed to the outbreaks of both world wars. The difficulty facing the historian is to isolate the impact World War One may have had in ‘igniting’ these unique causes. It is often argued that the Great Depression was a unique cause of World War Two. On the other hand, it can be said that World War One simply plunged Germany into further difficulty as their power and prestige had already been decimated following the Versailles settlement.

A constant source of conflict, which to a certain extent led to World War One, was the rivalry between Germany and Britain. Germany had embarked on a new policy a world policy of finding its ‘place in the sun’. Its expansionist programme envisioned a large role in world affairs and, the possession of a large navy a battle fleet to sustain such a programme. Inevitably, this created problems, as Britain needed to maintain its Navy to ensure it would not be vulnerable to attack, and to continue building its Empire overseas by gaining more colonies and land. This created more tensions as Britain was feeling vulnerable by Germany’s Navy and the aggressive foreign policies of the Kaiser. Such apprehension was well justified, as judged by the remarks of the prime mover of Germany’s naval program, Admiral Tirpitz: “For Germany the most dangerous naval enemy at present is England. It is also the enemy against which we most urgently require a certain measure of naval force as a political power factor” (6) The Naval Arms race was one of many unique causes which contributed to World War One as it was not replicated when World War Two arose.

The Balkans was a continuous source of conflict prior to World War One between Austria and Russia. This is due to the fact that both powers were vying for greater influence in the area, and equally these powers held a right to do so as Russia, predominantly a Slav country, felt that they should have an influence with their fellow Slavs, the liquidation of the Turkish Empire strained Russia to back Serbia in order for Russia to have some influence in the Balkans. However, Austria felt that if she did not have an influence in the area, Russia’s policy would lead to a surge of Slav nationalist spirit with the inevitable result that Austria’s Slavic peoples would rise up and overthrow Habsburg rule. After World War One Austria was given a blank cheque by Germany who promised to back Austria no matter what, militarily and economically as Austria’s power was eroding. One could argue that Austria was pursuing an aggressive policy in the Balkans with the knowledge of having the strongest European power on their side, this lead to the Balkans being unhinged and hostile. Just as Nationalism brought about the unification of Germany it also on the other hand, weakened the eastern European empires of Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire. Those empires ruled many national groups that clamored for independence. The instability that followed in the Balkan Peninsula or the "Powder Keg of Europe" would lead to World War on a grand scale.

Just as World War One was caused by several unique factors, World War Two also had some distinctive causes. The personalities of both German leaders played an exceptional role on the road to war. In a sence, we are exploring factors which are common yet different. Personality traits of leaders can lead to war. But World War one and World War Two were, to an extent, caused clearly by different personalities. The Kaiser was born with a serious deformity to his left arm; he had a strict and authoritarian upbringing, which installed aggression and fuelled hatred inside him. On the other hand Hitler was a proud German who fought in World War One and was bitterly outraged when Germany surrendered. Therefore one can conclude that both leaders were out to get revenge and to a certain extent restore German pride, the Kaiser may have pursued an aggressive foreign policy due to his harsh upbringing. Whilst Hitler wanted to restore German pride. For example, it can be argued that the Kaiser caused World War One because of his harsh upbringing and Hitler caused World War Two due to his desire and perseverance to restore German pride, patriotism and his own personal experience. In this way there is no link in that World War One caused World War Two because the Kaiser and Hitler had different motives for pursuing aggressive policies and causing the wars. Hitler was a unique cause to the Second World War because it can be said without Hitler and his aggressive foreign policy World War could have been avoided, like many Germans he absolutely despised the Versailles Settlement and wanted to eradicate the restraints positioned on Germany via the Versailles settlement. It was always his intention to stop paying reparations, regain lost lands and recover Germany’s status within Europe. Hitler blamed the Treaty for economic depression, hyperinflation and civil chaos; he had a great determination to recover German pride and power lost at the Versailles Settlement. Therefore one could justly claim that war does not resolve the causes of conflict, as the Versailles Settlement was counter-productive; instead of weakening Germany it left vast amounts of hatred and resentment amongst the Germans, thus igniting nationalist sentiments and furthering the cause for revenge. Hitler’s long-term foreign policies were to expand and create living space this was known as Lebensraum. Hitler once said: “For us it is a matter of expanding our living space in the East and making food supplies secure.” (7) Hitler foresaw an Eastern Europe populated by Aryan Germans. His desire for Lebensraum for the excess German population is apparent. This is a form of expansionist Nationalism.

A crucial event to the outbreak of World War was the Great Depression; there was a drastic decline in the world’s economy in the 1930’s. Peace forced an unbalancing of Europe’s economy by making Germany very poor and France and England richer due to war reparations. This and the impact of the 1930’s recession led to mass unemployment in Germany and brought about discontent. Versailles helped to divide the world into two ‘Power Blocs’: United States, Great Britain, and France were broadly satisfied with things whilst Germany, Italy and Russia felt the opposite.

In the build up to World War Two the Allies most noticeably Britain and France were following a policy of appeasement towards Germany. Their appeasement was caused in part by their desire to concentrate government spending on reducing and coping with the consequences of mass unemployment. When Hitler announced rearmament Britain and France failed to uphold the Treaty of Versailles. This spurred Hitler on, he then reoccupied the Rhine Land, and the Anchluss with Austria and the demands over the Sudetenland were made. The Versailles Settlement was eroding as Hitler continued to defy it. The weakness of the League of Nations did not help, as there was no direct force to oppose Hitler and his political agenda. Furthermore enhancing the view that war does not resolve the causes of conflict as Hitler began defying the Versailles Settlement.

The Treaty of Versailles had dishonored the German people and caused superficial resentment among them. The tendencies that had remained dormant since the end of the First World War in 1918 were awoken by Hitler’s oratory skills, which appealed to Germans who wanted to restore German pride. Hitler had the ability to whip the crowds into hysteria, he would remain silent until he got everyone’s attention, by talking slowly he forced people to keep listening, and he then became charged with dynamism which caught the people on a wave of euphoria. It was not just Hitler’s expansion, but Hitler on a wave of public feeling that led to expansion. Hitler exploited the anger that the Germans felt as a result of their treatment in the Treaty of Versailles, Hitler described the Treaty of Versailles as a stab in the back by Jews and Marxists further enhancing the hatred and used the allies as scapegoats in order to gain support.

World War two had begun because of the Treaty of Versailles. A.J.P. Taylor confirms this by quoting - Hitler “simply leaned on the door hoping to gain entrance and the whole house fell in” (8) However on the other hand Ian Kershaw claims that Hitler had a so-called ‘Blueprint’. At the Nuremburg Trials much was contributed to the Hossbach Memorandum Hitler appears to give this document extraordinary importance, even instructing those present to regard it as his last will and testament in the event of his death. A.J.P. Taylor questions its importance saying that those present at this meeting: Goering were not Nazis but conservatives and not the people that Hitler would confide in. However, the memorandum does give a vague indication as to Hitler’s intentions. As A.P. Adamthwaite claims “The Hossbach memorandum confirms the continuity of Hitler’s thinking: the primacy of force in world politics, conquest for living space in the east, anti-Bolshevism, hostility to France. Hitler’s warlike intentions were now explicit.” (9) Kershaw takes a similar outlook and states, “Hitler knew that his aim for lebensraum could not be achieved without a war. In this policy alone then, we see that Hitler is prepared to fight in order to achieve his objectives.” (10) Another Historian Trevor Roper takes the same analysis to Kershaw: “The World War was Hitler’s personal war in many senses. He intended it, he prepared for it, and he chose the moment for launching it.” (11) Many of Hitler’s policies were achievable only through war; in short Hitler knew that for him to succeed, Germany must become embroiled in a European conflict.

The Second World War came about almost by accident. As A.J.P Taylor says: “Hitler never planned to get his end not by war – merely by threatening war, raising the tensions which he thought would throw his enemies into disarray” (12) A.J.P Taylor claims Hitler did not manufacture a war. He simply took advantage of the situations that arose, which led to war on a grand scale. On the other hand of the political spectrum lies Ian Kershaw and Trevor Roper who both claim that Hitler had a so-called ‘Blueprint’ for war, and allege his warring tendencies were made explicit in the Hossbach Memorandum’s. The latter seems somewhat unjustified because it is impossible to plan events much before they occur, it would seem that A.J.P Taylor’s analysis of Hitler is more accurate and justified because it is more realistic and sensible.

Generalizations about the causes of world wars are a very difficult thing to do. No two wars are exactly the same; they are between different countries, over different issues and are started in different ways using different technology, so to try to find common causes is always going to be difficult. Booth states there are three levels at which you can analyze the causes of war. Firstly at an individual level of war being caused by the result of man’s innate violent nature, by applying this theory to Hitler and the Kaiser it would seem that the aggressive foreign policies pursued led to World Wars. The expansionist tendencies that caused the Wars coincide with the theory of war being caused on a national level, the German population wanted Germany to be strong and a potential European leader. The final level of analysis is on the international stage, Booth’s theory claims that war is caused by a lack of international security measures. This is evident as the League of Nations failed to police the world as World War Two arose. On one hand it could be said that war seldom resolves the causes of conflict because we are yet to see a World War III. But then one could argue that war does not resolve the causes of conflict because after World War Two the US and USSR were involved in a Cold War. A culmination of many inveterate factors pointed directly toward armed conflict on a grand scale, both small and large events contributed to war and it was impossible to control the situation in anyway. Tension was a very large contributor to war. In some cases, you could say that no one was to blame and that war was inevitable. This is summed up by Bertolt Brecht who said: “War is like love: it always finds a way” (13)

Word count: 3302