Balance-of-Power theory in World War I & II Research Paper

Balance-of-Power theory in World War I & II - Research Paper Example While WWI was more re suit of growing tension and competition, WWI was caused by direct aggression (Russel 130). The swelling of nationalist pride that began in the 19th century and endured into the 20th induced both wars at least partly. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the conflict between on Serbia and Austria, for example, was a result of Serbian nationalism and was fueled by a longing for self-determination. World War II was also begun by nationalism, especially that of the Germans. It was this German nationalism and desire for sell‘-determination that fueled Hitler's campaigns to take over Europe. Both wars were sparked by the upset of the delicate balance of power in Europe. In WWI, tension between the big powers of the time- Germany Britain Russia and France- upset this balance, likewise the balance was tipped ones again when Hitler’s campaign began and the German ‘Reich’ began to expand. While WWI began with a conflict between small countrie s, which then branched out through the tangled alliances of Europe to other larger countries. WWII began with the big powers. WWI can be traced back to the rivalry between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. Over time, large powers such as Russia and Germany stepped in to defend their allies and this enraged oven more countries. The inception of WWI was therefore like a 'ripple' effect beginning quite small, and then expanding. WWII was quite the opposite, beginning with the brutal campaigns and expansion of revisionist powers Germany and Japan. If WWI began with a ripple, WWII began with explosion. Large European powers got involved in WW1 because they wanted to protect their allies, not because of direct acts of aggression against them. WWII was marked by such acts daggrassim as the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the invasion of Poland, and the Rape of Hackling. While WWI began largely because of tension between countries that had been caused by competition over reign markets and colonies (Paul et al 112). Largely Fascism and a thirst for revenge began WWII. Hitler’s attacks on Europe and the transformation of Germany into a dictatorship was made possible because the German people were vulnerable and scarred by the previous war. These wars could be considered one continual conflict that was not properly resolved in the interim. The nationalism, alliances, and aggression that led to both wars points out that their roots were quite similar. The lesson learned is that the resolutions or lack of it has therefore shaped the way we make peace today. Both World War I and II were preceded by large armament buildups. In WWI, in Europe they were of a long-standing nature and in response to balance-of-power exigencies which usually placed a two to four times greater per capita burden on the populace than in the United States Germany‘s per capita burden was 7.65 times more than that of the US. There was no doubt that it was a nation poised for war. There was little suppo rt for a contrary opinion in both world wars; eminent expenses grew beyond the security needs of the nations. Rates immediately prior to both wars were of such a magnitude as to strongly suggest the imminence of war. In both these cases, inhibitory controls on armaments could have prevented wars of the sizes that occurred. For example, Treaty of versatile prohibitions on Germany and the League of Nations treaties vetoed by Great Britain in the 1923-25 period. What distinguished the occurrence of WWI and WWII entailed the dependence on the military, and the inhibitory controls. The choices made were military ones: balance of power and Maginot Lincoln neither ease did these methods perform, as intended, to prevent war. In terms of the present model in the WWI-WWII interim period, German DT was not