World War II also brought about the end of colonisation in the UN Charter (articles 2[4] and 55) and is cited as authority for the General Assembly's call for "the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples" in Resolution 1,514 (XX) of 14 December 1960. This along with the previous disbanding of empires from World War I, in which much of the boarders of Eastern Europe changed dramatically from the Austrian, Ottoman and Russian empires to a set of states in our current understanding of the word. Most notably, Poland and Czechoslovakia were created as nation states. These changed political thinking due to the fact that most international political thinking now is based around the operation and interaction of these nation states, and empires are simply not considered any more. Hedley Bull (1977) states that the present day international system as a whole is also a society, and has been since at least the end of the First World War, by which time ‘a universal international society of states clearly existed which covered the whole world’.
Another major impact of World War I is its hand in the Russian Revolution which drove the political theory of communism into reality when the Bolshevik (Communist) Government overthrow the Provisional Russian Government in March 1917 with the aid of of an army in mutiny and conscription building up unwillingness and revolution nationwide. This change from a sovereign state to a communist one had massive impacts on political theory much later in the 21st century - primarily during the cold war era.
Liberal Internationalists have however had much victory throughout the post war era’s due to the leaning toward perpetuating peace after a horrible war, nothing like anything ever seen before, and nothing like anyone had expected. Kjell Goldmann (1994: 13) writes that ““World War I had proved that the opposition between war and modern civilization was absolute. Everybody realized this, including those who defended war. They no longer argued that war promotes human
development.” This led to the formation of primarily The League of Nations, driven by US President Woodrow Wilson at the time, this founded on the premise of collective security, in an attempt to deter any conflict escalating toward that of another World War I. Morgenthau (1948) writes that for Wilson, World War I “was waged for the purpose of making one moral system, held by one group, prevail in the rest of the world.” It is sad then that this attempt at collective security failed, the obvious example being the following World War in 1939. This though did not deter Liberals, as following World War II, many more international organisations were set up, not plainly with collective security as their goal, but also with trade, world financial security and human rights at the helm. Human rights being an aspect The League of Nations disagreed upon when Japan applied to advance the principle of racial equality. The point here is that, although the following unions and formations have most definitely been far more successful than The League of Nations, it is because they had a starting point to go from, a set of mistakes to correct that distinguishes World War I as the more influential to international political thinking.
The Birth of the EU subsequent to the amalgamation of various forms of the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community and The Council of Europe, has been extremely successful in promoting collective security and trade bringing Europe to become the second largest economy in the world. An interesting point concerning the furthering of political thinking post World War II though, is pointed out by Eric S. Easley (2004: 141), in his “The War over Perpetual Peace” in which he considers Britain's omission from the EU until 1973 to be explained by a certain pride instilled in the British people due to their success of standing alone against Hitler, and the thought that if they could stand alone against Hitler, they could stand alone against anything, not just war, and so there was no essential need to surrender to any such body as the EU. “British power and influence needed to be preserved and, if at all possible, enhanced.” This complies with many theories about the power of the people, Clausewitz (1832), who argues that the people, the passion, play a major role in winning of a war, had evidently just been proved correct.
Next the formation of the UN and NATO, truly global political initiatives assembled in 1945 and 1949 respectively in lieu of the end of World War II and the impending communist threat are a huge Liberal Internationalist triumph, focusing a large amount on the thesis of collective security, in that Liberals can now support the use of force if it should be sanctioned by the UN but not otherwise. More global initiatives set up post World War II, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), all intended to avoid another depression like the one seen after World War I, these too sit well with Liberal Internationalist but would be nothing without the mistakes World War I ironically granted us with.
(Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Jr., 1971) Since the second world war, the number, variety, membership, and importance of transnational groups have all increased, in some cases dramatically. All of these international bodies and organisations were set up with great intentions and prospects, and all relatively quickly after the fall of Hilter and Nazism and the allies victory, they were all structured with the benefit of hindsight and do all now make a significant contribution to world affairs. Why then is Realism seen to be the dominating theory, especially immediately after World War II? My belief is that hindsight can work the other way too. The people of the world had seen this before, the forming of multinational bodies, the movement towards a ‘World Government’ and they had seen it, go horribly wrong. This coupled with the change in power status from a Multipolar world, controlled in majority by Western Europe, to a Bipolar one, controlled mainly through The USA and The Soviet Union led to much pessimism about the future of world peace, and how long it could hold out. Many would say that we were indeed right to be pessimistic, with the Cold War ensuing rapidly after the conclusion of the Second World War, providing the closest we have publically come to our own human annihilation.
The creation of a war crimes tribunal at Nuremburg and Tokyo has also been seen to be beneficial to the realist theory, due to the “well-known defects” put forward by David P. Forsythe (2006), where even though the Allies leaders had committed such atrocities as prolonged city bombing, atomic bombing and incendiary attacks, failing to distinguish between armed forced and civilians, only the losing leaders were tried. A case pointed out by Forsythe is that around 100,000 rapes are attributed to Soviet military personnel in Berlin following the defeat of the Nazi’s, however none were tried and they then proceeded to sit on the judgement of the Germans at Nuremburg. This surely negates any positive impact on Human Rights movements at the time.
Of course, in the subject field of international politics took a massive surge after World War I, the Liberal Influence was evident, (Kjell Goldmann 1994: 9) “A dominating thought was that international law needed to be strengthened; several of the proposed international organizations would have the function of codifying, clarifying, declaring, and amending international law.” This was the birth of something new. Something exciting and something which physically could bring about world peace. It certainly got people thinking about the notion. The occurrence of this is certain to have influenced more modern thought, from the end of World War II, through the Cold War and right up to present day.
Liberals may also take some precedence in the fact that the period following World War I, two new Geneva Conventions were signed on July 27, 1929, more than there had ever been before, and more concerning the treatments of humans during wartime. The entrance of the strongly liberal USA into the First World War, will also have had an impact on liberal thinking, in the First World War they brought Woodrow Wilson and in the Second, they aided the birth of new theories, by proving any theory surrounding a common enemy. States banding together, to defeat a common enemy, no matter what their alliance at the time, a form of ontological security. In World War II, this can be proved by the USA alliance with the Soviet Union, a country it had had shaky relations with to say the least. It had opposed the Russian revolution and communism for almost two decades, but put this aside in lieu of their common enemy. This example has given light to such theories as Collective Security, Power Transition Theory and The English School way of thinking.
Many more theories were born from the First World War, most notably Critical Theory, was founded in basis in 1923 as The Frankfurt School, in which it investigated the function of theory itself. The theory of Imperialism was founded by Lenin (1968) and Bukharin (1972) to explain the events of World War I. They argued that war was the event of a “desperate need for new outlets for the surplus capital accumulated by dominant capitalist states”, and there was of course, the death of Fascism as a working theory, come the downfall of Nazi Germany. The end of the Second World War too, held the birth of Deterrence Theory in its midst, following the use of two nuclear bombs, which appeared to force a surrender within 3 days of use. Even the famed structural realist Kenneth Waltz (1981) states that Nuclear Weapons may be the best peacekeepers we have.
Open diplomacy too, was a clear outcome of the First World War too, with Wilson, and fellow Liberals not advocating the use of secret diplomacy, moving towards a more open approach to conducting negotiations between nation states. The public image of diplomacy had been pretty much destroyed toward the end of the First World War, in which many secret agreements had apparently been made and many of the unaware people argued this only fueled the conflict more. The conclusion of World War II also brought about some more changes in open diplomacy, with the invention of ‘real time’ news, giving the public back home constant flow of information, with the invention of war correspondents and the electronic telegraph, secret diplomacy all but came a thing of the past. (Colin S. Gray 2007: 8)
There is though, one significant argument which solidifies the First World War as the most influential impact on thinking in international politics, and that is the creation of it as a study, as an academic study, separate from history and psychology and sociology, towards a more scientific study of both inter and intra-state politics. Jörg Friedrichs states that (2004: viii) “Although the Department of International Politics in the University of Wales at Aberystwyth claims to be the first institution to be given a specific brief to study IR... this fact can only be treated as a quaint anomaly.” I do not believe this to be a “quaint anomaly”, I believe that the simple setting up of a study such as this furthered others to do the same. The instigation of the Woodrow Wilson Chair at Aberystwyth University in 1919, directly after the First World War shows a huge advancement in thinking in international politics, from which all other theories following that, must pay homage, and this is another critical point in my belief that World War I had the greater impact on thinking about international politics.
I acknowledge there are many counter points and possible bending towards my own agenda here. N.J. Rengger (2000: 116) argues that the system of peace following World War II can be more attributed to ‘the third way’ or the English School way of thinking, than it can to realist democratic nation states. There is an argument to be said that Critical Theory only really came into existance toward the end of World War II, when Max Horkheimer coined the phrase itself, but it is the fact that it’s basis lies in the aftermath of World War I that makes it valid.
I also have a controversial argument concerning the formation of the various bodies promoting peace, collective security, free trade, financial security etc. In my opinion, before the end of World War II, I argue we did not have sufficient technological advances to keep such bodies in place, and working continuously, and so the argument that these hold as to World War II holding more impact on thinking in international politics surely should be null and void.
Therefore, World War I has brought about vastly broader thinking, the benefit of hindsight and structured nation states, and whilst I sadly do agree with the statement from Friedrichs (2004: viii) that after World War II, American scholars dominated the institution, I maintain it is the starting point that is the most important in anything.
It is no secret that the World Wars of the early 20th Century are still a major talking point. If you look at most of the references made, the majority hail from the late 1900’s to the 21st century. War then clearly still has a huge impact on thinking in international politics, Iraq, Afganistan, Gaze - it is still one of, if not the most talked about aspect of international relations theory and thinking. This vastness however is decreasing, due to the influx of other aspects and evolving thories concerning other huge issues such as global warming, poverty, humanitarian aid and intervention, globalisation etc... Things which simply didn’t take precedent back in World War I or II.
Bibliography
Bull H., 1977. . Columbia University Press
Chernoff F., 2007. Theory and Metathoery in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan
Clausewitz C. V., 1832. On War. Atlantic Books
Easley E. S. 2004. The War over Perpetual Peace. Macmillan
Friedrichs J., 2004. European Approaches to International Relations Theory. Routledge
Goldmann K., 1994 Logic Of Internationalism - Coercion and accommodation. Routledge
Gray C. S., 2007. WAR, PEACE AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. An Introduction to Strategic History. Routledge
Griffiths M. 1992. Realism, Idealism and International Politics - A reinterpretation. Routledge
Morgenthau H., 1948. Politics Among Nations. New York, Knopf
Nye S. J. Jr. and Keohane O. R., 1971. Transnational Relations and World Politics. Harvard University Press
Rengger N. J., 2000. International Relations, Political Theory and the Problem of Order. Routledge
Sheffield, G., 2001. Forgotten Victory: The First World War - Myths and Realities. Headline Review
Wendt A., 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Camebridge University Press
Waltz K., 198.1 The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better. Adelphi Papers, Number 171
