IR Notes Lecture 13

IR Notes Lecture 13 - IR Notes Lecture 13 World War II I...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
IR Notes Lecture 13 World War II I. Hitler’s plan a) Knock out the French first before non-aggression pact falls apart, so then can concentrate on Eastern front b) June 22 1941 Operation Barbarossa i) Invaded USSR, ends non-aggression pact that had allowed Germany to do what they wanted on the Eastern front ii) Thought if he could knock out the USSR, he wouldn’t have to worry about US-UK-USSR alliance, and both US and UK are off the continent iii) Also, Hitelr believed that the Soviets were getting stronger, mobilizing latent resources iv) Also, USSR sitting atop important oil supplies to Germany so afraid USSR can cut these off II. Pearl Harbor a) Draws US into war in the Pacific b) Then inexplicably Hitler declares war on the U.S. i) Maybe because Japan was an ally III. So Hitler strategy was to try to pick off his enemies one by one—French, British, Soviets, ultimately the U.S. IV. Causes of WWII by level of analysis a) Systemic Level i) Int’l system is multipolar with many powers (1) Inefficient balancing endemic to Multipolarity (2) Expect backpassing in multipolar systems according to Realists (a) Nobody picked up buck in pre-WWII Europe even though states realized Germany was becoming a big threat (b) Nobody wanted to pay the severe price of deterring, balancing against Germany by building military capability (c) Ultimately it was the US and USSR who had to face down Hitler ii) Combine ambitious new powers with decline of old powers, and the argument is that it’s these crossing trajectories that caused the problem? iii) Security dilemma (1) Insecurity about others intentions that leads to arming, leading to spiral only feeding more insecurity, potential for conflict (2) Paranoid Hitler saw insecurity all around him, (3) So some have argued that this is the most extreme form of security dilemma (4) For Hitler, solution was to seek absolute security by acquiring buffer zone around it (a) He feared USSR’s growing power (5) Others say the cause of war is the opposite of this: if we think of conflict emerging from defensive oriented states arming against each other and tragically winding up in conflict, Europe was the opposite
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
(a) It was a deterrence failure: nobody armed against inter-war Germany that had clear aggressive intentions (6) Liberal Arguments (a) Failure of collective security and League to respond to aggression (b) Pointed to as inherent weakness of int’l institutions and CS (i) CS means we have to respond to aggression, but what happens when nobody wants to pay that price (ii) Or what happens when most powerful states simply withdraw from int’l institutions when they don’t suit their purpose (7) Constructivist (a) The settlement at Versailles was unfair but the very meaning was manipulated as Germany was able to say we weren’t responsible, so why should we have to pay for it? (i) Then Hitler took the ideas of Versailles—supporting self-
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 6

IR Notes Lecture 13 - IR Notes Lecture 13 World War II I...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online