The West and the World Exam 1
How does Emer de Vattel define the "balance of power"? How is this balance to be maintained, and when is it appropriate for a state to go to war? Why does Richard Cobden refer to this theory as a "chimera"?
"No power should be much superior to the others,- that all, or at least the greater part, should be nearly equal in force" It would be maintained by commerce, industry, and military pre-eminence. It would be appropriate for a state to go to war if other countries become a threat "it is not a fallacy, a mistake, an imposture, it is an undescribed, indescribable, incomprehensible nothing." The Balance of power theory is a fantasy
Why does German Chancellor Bernhard von Bulow believe that Germany must become either "a hammer or an anvil"? Why does Bernhardi believe that Germany is in a precarious position in Europe, compelled to aggressively expand its territory and power?
Bulow believes that Germany must become either a hammer or an anvil because if they do not, then they will be the ones being pinned down and smashed. They need to find a partner. Berhardi believes that Germany is in a precarious position because they think that they will be doing the smashing or they will be the one being smashed. A response is Germany sends a gunboat to a port in Morocco
What, according to Heinrich von Treitschke, restricts the actions of states? According to von Treitschke, what is international law and what should our theories be based on? According to this view, when should a state go to war?
Every state will observe certain restraints in its dealings with neighboring states International law is always uncertain. It must always remain a lex imperfecta A state should go to war when its balance of power is threatened. Others will get repercussions.
In what ways do Norman Angell, Friedrich von Bernhardi, Bertha von Suttner, and F.T. Marinetti disagree on the nature of war and the role it should play in the interaction between states? How does the actual experience of war differ from these visions of war? How did the experience of war differ between men and women, combatants and non-combatants?
Norman Angell argues that war between European countries is entirely pointless. Friedrich von Bernhardi describes war as a "devine business" Bertha von Suttner views war as centered on grief saying war is misery death, and unending grief. F.T. Marinetti thinks we need to act and glorify war as it is the worlds only hygiene The combatants wanted to go home and get out of the "meat grinder". War saturated people's entire lives and trickled down to everyone.
How did the Berlin Conference, Boer War, Moroccan Crisis, and annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina threaten the balance of power in Europe prior to World War I? Why did these events not lead to a broader conflict, while the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand did?
The Berlin Conference established what the rules are for enslaving Africa for its resources The Boer War was a brutal war in Africa between the British and Boer states triggered by the discovery of gold and diamonds (first began the idea of concentration camps) The Annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina erupted when Austria-Hungarian announced the invasion of territories formally within the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire These events did not lead to a broader conflict because
What two revolutions does Robert Nisbet point to as critical in destroying the old order and putting Europe on the path to World War One? Why does he point to these revolutions, or, how did these revolutions change the world such that new problems emerged?
The Industrial Revolution & the French Revolution The Industrial Revolution brought the idea of time is money, working in factories instead of your home, brought slums, disease, and overcrowding. The French Revolution brought power to the people themselves and saw people as an individual with rights
What is the primary identity that Giuseppe Mazzini believes will allow a human being to work toward the good of all humanity? Why does he believe that this identity is the proper foundation for life? What binds this group of people together?
The primary idea of Mazzini was we need to unite with something larger than ourselves (respect for others) Mazzini believes if you benefit your country you benefit yourself The idea of language, traditions, and beliefs binds a group. of people together
According to Nikolai Danilevskii, why must Turkey and Austria-Hungary be dismantled and replaced by an all-Slavic union? What groups would be included in this confederation of Slavic people? On what basis does Danilevski justify this union taking over Constantinople, and why does he believe that such a union will be critical in maintaining peace?
They must be dismantled because if you do not have an all Slavic union with a reason to exist, "they have died and like any carcass, they are dangerously unhygienic, producing their own kind of illness and contagion" The ethnographic principle or the idea of All-Slavism would include "all lands and peoples from the Adriatic Sea to the Pacific Ocean, from the Arctic Sea to the Archipelago Danilevski believes it is critical in maintaining peace because shared biological is the supreme significance of nationality.