Canadian Academy Discover, Publish, Thrive
This essay presents a novel perspective on the 20th-century world wars and international systems, arguing that the bipolar system, epitomized by the Cold War, constituted a world war itself, distinct from its predecessors. It surveys past international systems, redefines “world war,” and contends that the Cold War aligns with this classification.
A decade before the turn of the millennium, the international community witnessed the end of the bipolar era, initiated after World War II and characterized by the dominance of the United States and the Soviet Union as superpowers. This shift marginalized Europe’s role in global politics, relegating Britain and France to secondary powers while Germany lost its global influence. The emergence of the bipolar system saw Europe becoming the primary stage for superpower confrontation. Unlike previous world orders, the bipolar era did not culminate in a world war, as seen in the earlier ‘Concert of Europe’ and ‘Collective Security’ periods. This era saw the formation of political alliances like NATO and the Warsaw Pact, solidifying a new international order based on national interests and nuclear capabilities, shaping the Cold War dynamics for over four decades.
The ‘balance of power’ system, prevalent in Europe from the 19th to the early 20th century, forms the basis for understanding modern international systems. This system involved five major powers – Germany, England, France, Austria-Hungary, and Russia – with comparable strengths, maintaining a complex dynamic of rivalries and alliances. England often served as the ‘balancer’ due to its geographic position. Maintaining at least five actors ensured system complexity while preventing domination by any single power. Alliances were pragmatic and fluid, shifting according to interests rather than ideology. Six principles guided the system’s preservation, emphasizing negotiation over warfare and resisting supremacy. This period saw optimism in international law’s ability to resolve conflicts peacefully, epitomized by efforts like the Hague Conferences. However, the outbreak of World War I shattered these ideals, leading to a reassessment of international relations theories. The war’s catalyst was the Austro-Hungarian conflict with Serbia, escalating due to complex alliances and territorial ambitions. Despite diplomatic efforts, full-scale war erupted in August 1914, marking the end of the balance of power system.
On January 18, 1919, the Paris Peace Conference began with representatives from 27 victorious nations, excluding Russia due to ongoing civil war. The conference primarily involved major powers like the US, Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, led by figures such as Woodrow Wilson, Georges Clemenceau, and David Lloyd George. It aimed to address post-war challenges and prevent future conflicts by drafting treaties such as the Treaty of Versailles, Saint-Germain, Neuilly, Trianon, and Sèvres. However, these treaties imposed harsh terms on defeated nations, leading to bitterness and resentment. The establishment of new states in Eastern Europe based on nationalism further complicated matters, as it failed to resolve underlying ethnic tensions and left these states vulnerable to manipulation by major powers.
The League of Nations, established in 1920, aimed to prevent future conflicts through collective security but faced significant challenges. Its inability to enforce decisions, lack of universal membership, and the absence of major players like the US limited its effectiveness. Despite some successes in resolving territorial disputes, the League failed to prevent wars such as the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and Italy’s annexation of Ethiopia. The League’s weaknesses were further exposed by Hitler’s aggressive expansionism, leading to the outbreak of World War II.
The failure of collective security and the League of Nations led to the realization that peaceful means alone could not prevent aggression. The Munich Agreement in 1938, followed by Hitler’s annexation of Czechoslovakia, highlighted the inadequacy of appeasement policies. The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact further destabilized Europe, leading to the invasion of Poland and the outbreak of World War II. This marked the end of the collective security era and the beginning of a new, more tumultuous phase in international relations.
World War II concluded in Europe on May 7, 1945, with Nazi Germany’s defeat and the fall of Berlin, and in Asia on September 2 of the same year, with Japan’s surrender. This marked the rise of unprecedented superpowers and the advent of nuclear weapons, reshaping global dynamics. The pre-war European-centric international system gave way to increased involvement from non-European powers, notably the Soviet Union’s control over Eastern Europe and the United States’ leadership of the free world. Post-war, national liberation movements surged globally, challenging colonial powers. The era saw a bipolar system dominated by the US and USSR, with alliances like NATO and the Warsaw Pact. International organizations and non-aligned states played pivotal roles in moderating interbloc tensions. Realpolitik replaced idealistic approaches, focusing on national interests and power dynamics, especially nuclear capability. The era’s existential threat led to a policy of mutual deterrence, preventing overt nuclear use but fostering intense arms races. The system reached a breaking point by the 1980s, leading to the Soviet Union’s collapse and the end of bipolarity. This unique system’s conflictual nature prompts reevaluation and distinguishes it from previous international orders.
The definition of war, like any other definition, aims to outline its constituent elements and distinguishing characteristics. Various scholars have attempted to define war, emphasizing aspects such as armed conflict between political groups or states, organized violence, and continuous engagement. Quantitative measures, such as the number of participants or casualties, have been proposed, but they fail to capture the complexity of warfare. Additionally, modern definitions recognize conflicts beyond traditional interstate wars, including wars of national liberation.
Defining war is challenging due to its diverse nature and the absence of clear boundaries. Wars vary in duration, participants, and objectives, making it difficult to establish universal criteria. Clausewitz’s assertion that war is an act of violence to compel opponents reflects its political nature, serving as a means to achieve specific goals.
Legal perspectives distinguish between the act of war and the state of war, highlighting the complexity of defining conflict. Human nature, political structures, and international dynamics contribute to the causes of war. Wars often arise from competition between states within the international system, driven by geopolitical interests and power struggles.
Despite individual pacifism or functional regimes, states are constrained by the imperatives of the international system, often necessitating actions contrary to pure morality. Ultimately, the fundamental immorality of war is rooted in the structural dynamics of the international order, making it a persistent feature of human society.
The propensity for escalation and extremism in war doesn’t arise solely from political aims, moral deficiencies of adversaries, or a pathological tendency toward extremes, but rather from the inherent dynamics of war itself, leading to a logical progression towards extremism. This phenomenon, termed the “dialectic of violence” by Raymond Aron, underscores the pivotal role of this tendency in defining a world war. A descriptive definition of a world war encompasses the participation of numerous states across rival camps, spanning continents and seas. However, a comprehensive definition must also consider its legal aspect, emphasizing the state of war or willingness to fight, as well as its intended outcome, potentially leading to significant changes in the international system and the attainment of independence by many nations.
After Germany and Japan surrendered in 1945, the divide between the Soviet Union and the Western powers, particularly Britain and the United States, became more pronounced. Concerns arose over the Soviet Union’s expanding influence and the emergence of pro-Soviet regimes in Eastern and Central Europe liberated by the Red Army. The Western European nations liberated by American and British forces were in ruins, with France and Italy having strong Communist parties. Anglo-American policy focused on containing Soviet influence in Western Europe, with the United States taking the lead due to its increased global power post-war. The Soviet Union, disappointed by the lack of assistance from the West for reconstruction, bolstered communist parties in “people’s democracy” countries and built up its military. Churchill’s 1946 speech in Missouri marked the beginning of the Cold War, with the term “iron curtain” symbolizing the division in Europe. The Cold War, characterized by tension rather than outright conflict, saw crises like the Berlin crises and the Cuban missile crisis. It led to the formation of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, with Germany’s division becoming a focal point. Like the world wars, the Cold War reshaped the global order, ending the bipolar system and fostering nationalism and independence movements. The Cold War’s aftermath saw the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the emergence of new nation-states. This global conflict, spanning continents and lasting for decades, fits the definition of a world war. Moreover, the ideological struggle between militaristic and non-militaristic regimes mirrored earlier world wars, with the Soviet regime exhibiting militaristic traits until Gorbachev’s era. Lessons from previous wars failed to prevent the Cold War, which itself constituted a third world war in terms of its global impact and long-lasting consequences.
Source:
Arie (Leo) Geronik (2024) The Cold War in retrospect: a continuous international conflict or a world war?, Cogent Social Sciences, 10:1, DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2023.2300527