The Thirty Years’ War was a dark page in European history that was associated with a remapping of the continent. The chaotic warfare led to a large number of casualties and devastated entire regions. The aim of this paper is to outline the main themes of Wiesner-Hanks’ discussion of the war. The paper will also detail the treaty of Westphalia and the obliteration of a large European city Magdeburg. It will be argued that despite the enormous cost of the military conflict, it helped to achieve a balance of political power on the continent.
Main Themes
The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Europe can be viewed as a long sequence of violent military clashes the sheer volume of which prevented historians from giving specific names to some of them (Wiesner-Hanks 321). The continent-wide conflicts that occurred in the period from 1618 to 1648 became known as the Thirty Years’ War (Wiesner-Hanks 321). The war was characterized by intermittent violence which involved the participation of Sweden, Spain, France, and Austria (Wisner-Hanks 321-356). Similar to conflicts that followed in later centuries, the Thirty Years’ War had a strong political dimension; however, unlike military hostilities of the twentieth century, the war had substantial religious undertones.
The balkanization of religious denominations in Europe made it extremely difficult to settle ecclesiastical conflicts without resorting to the use of violence. Wisner-Hanks maintains that the war can be regarded as a continuation of “religious wars that resulted from the Reformation” (321). The unwillingness of Calvinists to adhere to terms of the Peace of Augsburg and the formation of military alliances by Lutheran and Catholic rulers contributed to the outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War. In his book on early modern European history, Wisner-Hanks argues that territorial and dynastic consideration took precedence over religious ones in the war (322).
The destruction of a German city Magdeburg that occurred during the second half of the war was a major humanitarian catastrophe in the seventeenth century. According to Robinson, the sack of the city led to more than 20, 000 casualties (211). When describing the massacre, the mayor of the city Otto von Guericke stated that it was nothing but “beating and burning, plundering, torture, and murder” (qtd. in Robinson 211). During the event that was described as “frenzied rage” by the city’s mayor, numerous books and manuscripts were stolen and burned (qtd. in Robinson 212).
The Treaty of Westphalia was a sequence of peace agreements that ended the war. The treaty was signed in 1648 by major European states—Austria, Germany, France, and Sweden (“Treaty of Westphalia”). Even though Wisner-Hanks recognizes the importance of the document, the author emphasizes that it failed to achieve lasting peace (323). According to the article 67 of the treaty, the Empire’s sovereigns were provided a full jurisdiction over their religions, laws, and taxation policies (“Treaty of Westphalia”). It follows that the treaty helped to ameliorate the influence of major religious disputes that had taken place in central Europe.
Discussion
The intermittent violence that occurred in the seventeenth century was an example of the previously unseen ability of the belligerent political atmosphere to precipitate violence on a massive scale. It is hard to disagree with Wisner-Hanks in his assessment of the religious undertones of the conflict. Despite the fact that many confrontations between the parties to the conflict were due to political implications of the power vacuum created by the end of Rudolf II’s reign, there is no denying that hostilities between three major religious factions in Europe also contributed to the war.
Wisner-Hanks points to the fact that neither the Calvinists, nor Lutherans, nor Catholics were content with the results of the Peace of Augsburg established in 1555 (321). It follows that the mercurial relationships between the denominations served as a perfect conduit for political discontent.
It can be argued that the connection between religious and political tensions is a mutually-reinforcing one. Thus, the creation of military alliances by Lutheran and Catholic rulers can be regarded as the emergence a positive feedback loop. The formation of the Protestant Union and the Catholic League increased magnitudes of the two elements of the loop—religion and politics. From this vantage point, it is clear that the Peace of Augsburg was doomed from the beginning.
Despite the devastation that the war brought to the European continent, it helped to bring sovereignty to major states that comprised the Empire. The Netherlands, Switzerland, and Sweden won a substantial extent of religious freedom, which was a major achievement of the military conflict. In addition, the Thirty Years’ War helped to diminish the role and power of religion in many European states, thereby preparing grounds for secularism.
Conclusion
The paper has discussed the most devastating humanitarian catastrophe of the seventeenth century—the Thirty Years’ War. It has been argued that the war was precipitated by the confluence of political and religious incentives that guided European rulers towards violent confrontations. The military conflict brought sovereignty to many states and helped to undermine political sway of religion.
Works Cited
Robinson, James, editor. Readings in European History. Vol. 2, Ginn, 1906.
The first Gulf war involved a coalition of forces against Iraq, and the war occurred between August 2, 1990, and February 28 1991. The United States of America (US) led a coalition of thirty-four nations in attacking Iraq and pushing this nation out of the borders of Kuwait, a country that Iraq had attacked and declared part of it. The war against Iraq was authorised by the United Nations, seemingly after a series of diplomatic efforts and threats of war failed to realise Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait.
Many economic and socio-political dynamics led to the war, which need careful analysis in order to arrive at the real efforts in the quest to free Kuwait. The Persian Gulf is the world’s single largest source of oil, and the nations of the Middle East, by virtue of their massive oil reserves, play an important economic and political role in world affairs.
Oil drives the world economy, therefore interruptions to its production and supply usually has serious ramifications on the functions and progress of the different economies of nations of the world.
Therefore, when Iraq attacked Kuwait, an aggressive neighbour on a less powerful nation must not view the invasion as a plain attack. Iraq itself gave various economic, historical and political reasons regarding why it invaded Kuwait. The international response and condemnation of the attack was swift, with the United Nations, under the direction of the US, demanding that Iraq quickly and unconditionally withdraw from Kuwait.
This paper will discuss the historical events leading up to the Gulf War. The paper will also analyse importance of the Gulf region as a major world supplier of oil and the role played by the US in guiding the UN in making the resolutions for Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait. Therefore, the analyses involve the extent to which the US led the war (by taking advantage of its high position in the UN).
Historical, Economic and Political Reasons
There are historical, economic and political factors that influenced Iraq’s attack of Kuwait. Historically, Iraq had always perceived Kuwait as a territory of Iraq. Since Kuwait borders the Persian Gulf ahead of Iraq, this fact had always been a source of concern for Iraqis because it limited its access to the Persian Gulf and all the necessary trade and military-related strategic advantages.
Therefore, when Kuwait obtained independence from Britain, Iraq immediately sought to annex Kuwait, with an eye on gaining easy access to the gulf. Furthermore, the Gulf War was arguably a direct result of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.
The decade long war had left Iraq deep in war debt, although it had gained some sophisticated and modern weapons from sponsorship and support from the United States. Iraq owed Saudi Arabia and Kuwait loans for the war amounting to tens of billions of dollars.
Iraq thus initially sought to have these war debts written off, a request that both creditors s promptly refused. Due to the war, mounting national debts thus faced Iraq amidst a struggling economy, and an invasion of Kuwait to right some historical wrongs seemed appropriate.
On the economic front, Iraq was, as mentioned earlier, suffering from the after-effects of a decade long war, however Iraq felt that the economic subterfuge by Kuwait exacerbated the situation. Kuwait is one of the world’s largest producers of oil, and Iraq accused it of exceeding the production limits as allowed by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) (Cleveland 464).
This overproduction led to a worldwide reduction in oil prices, to the continual detriment of the Iraqi economy, which depended much on its oil exports. Iraq additionally accused Kuwait of disrespecting its sovereignty by drilling oil across Kuwait’s border in what was essentially Iraqi oil. Iraq thus felt that Kuwait was deliberately sabotaging its economy, and this heightened tensions between the two countries prior to the invasion.
Politically, much of the ill-advised decision to invade Kuwait is attributable to the belligerence of Iraq’s then president, Saddam Hussein. Coming from a war that had just placed a debt in the nation’s economy, Saddam Hussein intended to attack Kuwait on any reason to secure its oil fields.
Historical Relations between Iran, Iraq and the US
The Iraq-Iran war of 1980-88, and the US role on it had implications on the Gulf war. Iraq’s attack on Iran, leading to the near decade long war, was as much a question of Iraq’s need for dominance of Persian Gulf territories, as it was a proxy war between the US and Iran, due to United State’s support for Iran in this war (Ahmed 11). The United States was primarily concerned with the political outlook that Iran would have following the revolution of 1979.
The US feared the radical Muslims would seek to dominate affairs in the Persian Gulf and even attempt to gain control of the Persian Gulf oil routes, which would be catastrophic for the US economy. The United States chose to support Iraq during this conflict by supplying weapons and encouraging its allies like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to offer loans to Iraq for the war.
The relations and between the Middle-East countries around the Persian gulf was thus laden with burdens of past wars, treaties and pledges, which would again have an impact on the Gulf war after Iraq’s attack on Kuwait.
The Invasion
On 2nd August of 1990, Iraq launched a rapid invasion on Kuwait and attacked its capital City, Kuwait City. The attack caught Kuwait much unprepared, and within a week, the Kuwaiti forces surrendered (Verleger 15). The Iraqis initially installed a Kuwaiti government, which was friendly to them; however, they changed their minds and later on installed an Iraqi as the leader of the Kuwaiti government.
The Reaction: The UN Security Council Resolutions
Kuwait is a very small country that measures around 17,000 square kilometres, and by then had a population of about two-million persons. The world quickly condemned the invasion with the view that the war was just an attack of a strong nation against the weak, a pattern that has always been abominable in the eyes of the world.
Immediately after the invasion, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 660, which condemned the attack and required Iraq to withdraw its troops immediately from Kuwait. Since Iraq had invaded Kuwait on August 2nd, and the passing of the resolution took place that very day, the concern and subsequent urgency with which the UN, via spirited efforts from the US, handled the attack was decipherable.
The convening of the first meeting to pass this resolution occurred immediately the news of the invasion reached the UN. The resolution could not bother the Iraqis, led by Saddam Hussein, and advanced their attacks towards the capital city of Kuwait – Kuwait City.
Realising that the UN Security Council needed to show much teeth in this matter besides issuing resolutions condemning the invasion, the Security Council again issued Resolution 661 on 6th August 1990, just two days before the total surrender of the Kuwait government.
The UN Security Council urged all member states and even non-member states to prevent import of goods and services origination from both Iraq and Kuwait; transfer of cash or credit to the two countries that would facilitate export of products from either country; the transfer of weapons, and military aid to either of the countries. Finally, the resolution urged member and non-member states to prevent or stop availing funds to either country for any other purpose except for humanitarian aid.
Soon after passing Resolution 661, the UN Security Council further passed resolution 662, flexing its muscle as an organization in the face of blatant defiance from the Iraqi government. The UN Resolution 662 came in the wake of Iraq’s declaration that it had annexed Kuwait as part of Iraq. Resolution 662 declared that any form of annexation of Kuwait by Iraq was not acceptable.
As Iraq continued to ignore the resolutions of the UN Security Council, the Council passed more and more restrictive Resolutions, continuously limiting Iraq’s economic and political abilities to carry out the invasion and profit from its illegal occupation/annexation of Kuwait. The UN Security Council Resolution 665 now authorised a naval blockade of Iraq. Thus, this resolution would effectively limit Iraq’s supply of food items and even war materials.
Of all the resolutions passed, the most significant one was UN Security Council Resolution 678, which gave Iraq a specific deadline of 15th January 1991, to withdraw all its troops from Kuwait and thus cease the illegal occupation of the country, or else the UN member states would use force to free Kuwait from its occupation.
A day after the lapse of this date, with Iraq still stubbornly occupying Kuwait, a thirty-four member state coalition joined forces and launched attacks on Iraq. The US played a prominent role in the co-ordination and planning of the attacks, effectively leading the entire coalition.
The Role of the US in the Gulf War
Undoubtedly, the United States as the sole superpower then played a leading role in initiating the passing of the above-mentioned resolutions and subsequently the war against Iraq.
Several scholars view this prominent role as not the sole objective of the US, but at securing the vast oil fields of Saudi Arabia that were within striking distance for Iraq after the invasion. There have been arguments to suggest that the US was primarily testing and using its latest weapons of war, all for the benefit of its military industrial complex.
According to Frank, all the pretexts that the western allies used in the war during the gulf crisis were mere pretences (267). While Frank agrees that the invasion of Kuwait was a blatant violation of international rules and regulations concerning territorial integrity, he draws a distinction between the Kuwait case and the contemporary cases that existed then which would have warranted a similar attention.
Before the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, Indonesia had invaded East Timor and the world had hardly taken notice. There was not a single Resolution by the UN Security Council to condemn this attack, which verged on genocide, if the atrocities committed by Indonesia were anything to go by. Similarly, the Apartheid regime in South Africa was continuously committing worse crimes against its black citizens prior to 1990, and the UN had not voted to invade the country.
By this time, the regime was blatantly violating international territorial laws by violating the sovereignty of its neighbours in pursuit of members who opposed the regime. In addition, the UN Security Council did not condemn the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, probably because the Soviet Union was a member.
Focusing on the United States itself, President Bush himself violated all international sovereignty rules when he led the US invasion to Panama, which resulted into gross violation of human rights. Ditto the invasion of Grenada, a territory that the US still holds the highest authority to the present day.
Frank argues that the demands that Iraq had made concerning economic sabotage by Kuwait were genuine, and thus made the invasion slightly justifiable. Kuwait’s overproduction of oil, and its cross drilling into Iraq’s oil wells had left Iraq between the proverbial rock and a hard place – damned if they attacked Kuwait, damned if they did not.
According to Ahmed, Kuwait had taken advantage of Iraq’s long war with Iran, and there was credible evidence that Kuwait had siphoned oil off Iraqi oil fields for a considerable while (11).
Kuwait’s role in economic subterfuge extended to circulation, through the black market, of Iraqi currency in the Kuwaiti capital city, which many Kuwaitis used for holidays at expensive luxury hotels in Iraq. All efforts by Saddam Hussein to have the Arab league intervene on behalf of Iraq failed.
The US played its role in leading the war effort against Iraq, and closer examination reveals where the true interest of US in the entire war effort lied. Before and during the war, The US urged its Middle East ally, Israel, not to retaliate when attacked by Iraq (Mendelsohn 84).
The US was keen to keep the support of the Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia (which financed a large part of the war). Had Israel retaliated, the US was of the view that many Arab Countries would have withdrawn their support for the coalition war effort against Iraq (Faksh and Ramzi 290). During the crisis preceding the attack/invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, the world was experiencing an economic downturn.
The US economy was not fairing any better, and the price of oil, as mentioned earlier, was dropping. The US had a direct reason to defend the oil fields of Saudi Arabia from imminent attack or destruction from Iraq. Indeed, one of the very first moves of the coalition led by the US was to defend the Saudi oil fields; a manoeuvre termed “Operation Desert Shield”.
The US may have prepared for the war against Iraq long before the actual hostilities began, and it may have deliberately led Saddam Hussein to this war (Woods and Stout 12). The extensive propaganda before and during the war, led by the US media houses, indicates the level of corporation between the army and the media – erstwhile strange bedfellows.
For instance, the US military exaggerated the strength of the of the Iraqi army, and wrongly accused it of stationing troops near the Saudi border, and moving military equipment in an apparent design of attacking Saudi Arabia, which scholars have proved to be false allegations against the Iraqi government (Woods and stout 12). This fact is important because it was the very reason that President Bush gave for launching the US led invasion.
It is also worthwhile to note that President Bush by-passed congress and committed US troops into the war long before the congress had made any war approval. The United States committed the highest number of troops for the attack amongst the entire coalition forces.
The United States constitution mandates the President to obtain approval for war from congress, thereby meaning that only congress has the ability to sanction war on behalf of the United States as a nation. When President Bush committed US troops first to Saudi Arabia and subsequently in the attack of Iraq, he had not sought approval from congress.
America committed nearly 700,000 troops for the war effort: about 70% of the entire coalition forces. Therein lays the notion that the US may have had other motives for waging the war against Iraq. It would be a fallacy to call the war effort a coalition effort when one partner contributed about three quarters of the total troop numbers.
In the lead up to the war, the US was involved in extensive campaigns to garner support for the attack and repulse of Iraq out of Kuwait. As discussed earlier in this paper, there were or had been other cases of militarily powerful countries invading their weak neighbours, which the US showed little or no interest whatsoever in resolving.
Because the US showed a keen interest in the invasion of Kuwait as opposed to the other mentioned invasions, it is worth to analyze the US oil interests in the Persian Gulf in light of the Carter Doctrine.
The Carter Doctrine
In a State of the Union speech in January 1980, President Jimmy Carter categorised the Persian Gulf as being of strategic national interest to the US, and added that the US would then be bound to use any means necessary – including waging war – to defend its national interests.
The Persian Gulf was an important route for the shipping and transportation of oil that made its way to the US, and oil was one of its most important domestic resources (Klaire 17).
The strength of economic conditions determined the results of the US elections; oil is a supreme factor in determining the domestic economic trends. High and unpredictable oil prices have a negative effect on the economy, and such a trend always affects the chances of an incumbent being re-elected.
Against this backdrop, it is noteworthy that the US president, Bush, was highly interested in securing the Persian Gulf oil fields by any means necessary, and went to great lengths to gain support from the UN to justify its attack against Iraq.
The US desired the world to view the attack as an international effort against a war-mongering nation, yet for her, the US, the entire war operation had an acute domestic angle. Going by the provisions and instructions of the Carter Doctrine, President Bush was plainly trying to secure the interests of the US.
The US and its influence over the affairs of the UN Security Council
The UN Security Council is composed of five permanent members – The US, UK, Russia, France and China, all victors at the end of the Second World War. Because the UN Security Council composes of members drawn from countries that emerged victorious during the Second World War, many of the resolutions passed are subject to the influence of the major world powers, for instance the US and even Russia.
The formation of the UN occurred in the aftermath of one of the worst human disasters during the Second World War. The aim of the UN, the very reason for its creation, was to prevent a war of such magnitude from ever occurring again. The world had learnt its lesson; there is no benefit in war, peace always wins.
According to Frank, the UN Security Council’s mandate involves the preservation of peace in any situation (279). The UN Security Council should first ensure that the members exhaust all the necessary measures to preserve peace before arriving at the resolution to wage any war.
When the UN issued Resolution 678, it had not exhausted all measures of averting the war. Saddam Hussein, as the paper discussed earlier, had some genuine grievances against Kuwait. He had presented his case to the Arab league for resolution without much success. Even prior to the war, Saddam had listed his conditions for withdrawing from Iraq, conditions which the invading coalition, lead by the US, scarcely paid attention to.
According to Royce, Iraq had sent workable proposals to the US for consideration (4). In one of the provisions in the proposal to pullout from Kuwait, Iraqi requested the Arab league to allow her to explore the oil fields that Kuwait had secretly siphoned from her for years prior to the war.
This pullout proposal also had Iraqi officials seeking a long-term solution to the political and economic instability that continuously plagued the Persian Gulf region. The Americans considered none of these proposals.
The revelations by the then US Army General Norman Schwarzkopf that they had been preparing for the Iraqi invasion eight months before the war itself is quite a revelation. The then Chief of General Staff, Collin Powell, also admitted on preparing simulations of the war against Iraq months before the actual invasion.
The admission by these two army generals that there were preparations for the Iraq invasion long before the actual invasion is simply an element of preparedness on the part of the American Army. However, in light of the fact that the Americans ignored the Iraqis proposals for pulling out, this is hardly believable.
The fact the UN Security Council was subject to manipulation by the US is stated by the then UN Secretary General Javier Perez that the US controls the Security Council, Britain and Russia is worthy of mention. The Secretary General experienced frustrations due to the reluctance by the US to first pursue peaceful means in this conflict (Frank 280).
The Gulf War as a Test for New Weapons of War
The escalation of the Cold war during the 1980s brought with it a need for weapons of war that would inflict maximum damage on the enemy with little harm on the user of the weapons.
As tensions between the US and the USSR continued to mount, so did the quantity and level of sophistication of weapons manufactured by the countries. The US viewed the impending attack on Iraq as the perfect arena for testing its newly manufactured weapons of war, which it had not previously tested because the collapse of the USSR signalled the end of the cold war.
According to Klare, some of the weapons, which the coalition used, had catastrophic effect in the Gulf War and in addition, the UN Security Council had not even the approved the use of such weapons, and thus the decision to use these weapons in actual combat, at great risk to civilian lives and infrastructure, was ill-conceived (“High-Death Weapons” 722).
The US was then the largest manufacturer of military weapons and machinery in the world, and any scent of war was an opportunity to rake in the profits for the corporations concerned.
The then President Dwight D. Eisenhower who felt slightly uncomfortable with the increased militarism that was being driven by the large conglomerates within the US, coined the term “Military-Industrial Complex” (MIC), who (Brunton 45). According to Brunton, American capitalism was in large part “military capitalism” and the dictates of these large companies drove America into wars it should not have necessarily engaged itself.
Several US conglomerates were involved in the manufacture of military weapons and other military apparatus used during the Gulf War. These were LTV Aerospace, General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas Corporations. LTV Aerospace was involved in the manufacture of the Army Tactical Missile System, which it developed in the 1980s, each missile costing about $615,000 (Klare “High-Death Weapons” 740).
As a new military weapon, the US had not tested the effects of these missiles and the unfortunate civilians of Iraq were the guinea pigs.
Another weapon used extensively during the Gulf war by the Americans was the Tomahawk Sea-Launched Cruise Missile, which General Dynamics manufactured. Each of these missiles cost an average of $1.4 “The Carter Doctrine” 20). McDonnell Douglas was also involved in the manufacture of these missiles.
The Stand-off Land Attack Missile (SLAM) was another weapon that the coalition mostly used during the war. This missile was favoured because they could easily launch it from a plane, and it contained a video that enabled the pilot to guide it to its target.
SLAM was still at the testing stage when the war began and its use during the war caused damages to the Iraqi infrastructure that few in the US military could have forecasted. The use of weapons that were still at the testing stage points to the convergence of military missions and the commercial interests of US defence weapons manufacturing companies.
The Laser-Guided Bomb was another weapon that they widely used during the Gulf War. This weapon received extensive television coverage during the war, and though touted as a bomb, which rarely missed its targets; it did, at extreme human and property costs for Iraqis.
The US military went to great lengths to portray the Gulf War as a ’clean war‘. The military desired the American’s public support for the war.
Accordingly, the military depicted the weapons used as highly sophisticated – reaching the intended military targets at little or no cost of human lives on the part of the coalition forces, and even innocent civilians. After the war, a UN fact-finding mission team to Iraq was shocked at the massive destruction of property and infrastructure that the war had brought.
Therefore the zeal with which the military tried to conceal the truth about the war atrocities and damages, at the same time inflating the strength of the enemies, points to a deliberate effort at deceiving, or at least misleading, the American public.
Conclusion
In conclusion, as discussed in this paper, the ’coalition‘ effort to attack Iraq and push its military out of Kuwait, was largely a US led military campaign that used the UN to achieve its war aims and secure oil supplies for its domestic market. The reasons for Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait were indeed viable, if genuine.
Iraq had suffered from the effects of its 9-year war with Iran, and its economy had taken a bad hit as a result. The fact that Kuwait was taking advantage of Iraq’s war-weariness to drill oil within the Iraqi territory, and to overproduce its oil thereby reducing the world oil prices were serious violations of previously agreed terms.
The paper has also analysed interests of the US in the Persian Gulf insofar as oil is concerned. The US, as per the Carter Doctrine, placed the Persian Gulf as an area of national interest. The US was willing to use any means necessary, including war, to secure the oilfields of Saudi Arabia, and to secure safe passage for the oils through the Persian Gulf.
As discussed in this paper, the US urged its erstwhile ally, Israel, not to retaliate when attacked (though missiles) by Iraq. This was so that the US could continue to gain the material support of the Arab nations for the war effort.
Ultimately, the tendency of the US to use its position to coax other UN member countries both within and without the UN Security Council has become clear. None other than the UN Secretary General Javier Perez termed the Gulf war as a ’US war’ and not a UN war (Frank 281). The statement from the then UN secretary General sums up the entire ’coalition‘ effort in waging war to push Iraq out of Kuwait; it was all simply to serve the domestic interests of the US.
Works Cited
Ahmed, Hisham H. “Iraq’s conduct of the Gulf crisis: A critical assessment.” Arab Studies Quarterly 13.1/2 (1991): 11. Print.
Brunton, Bruce. “An historical perspective on the future of the military-industrial complex.” Social Science Journal 28.1 (1991): 45. Print.
Cleveland, William. A History of the Modern Middle East. New York: Barnes and Noble, 2000. Print.
Faksh, Mahmud, and Ramzi, Faris. “The Saudi conundrum: Squaring the security-stability circle.” Third World Quarterly 14.2 (1993): 277-293. Print.
Frank, Andre. “The US role in the Gulf War.” Third World Quarterly, (1992): 267-282.
Klare, Michael. “High-Death Weapons of the Gulf War. (Cover story).” Nation 252.21 (1991): 721-742. Print.
Klare, Michael. “The Carter Doctrine Goes Global.” Progressive 68.12 (2004): 17-21. Print.
Mendelsohn, Barak. “Israeli Self-Defeating Deterrence in the 1991 Gulf War.” Journal of Strategic Studies 26.4 (2003): 83-107. Print.
Royce, Knut. “Middle-east crisis Secret Offer Iraq Sent Pullout Deal to U.S.” Newsday Washington, August 29 1990: Print.
Verleger, Philip. “Understanding the 1990 oil crisis.” Energy Journal 11.4 (1990): 15.
Woods, Kevin, and Mark E. Stout. “Saddam’s Perceptions and Misperceptions: The Case of ‘Desert Storm’.” Journal of Strategic Studies 33.1 (2010): 5-41. Print.
Several intertwined factors are believed to have forced Europe into war. In particular, the war was mainly triggered by conflict and hostility that had plagued the region over the years. The major super powers in Europe had been involved in diplomatic clashes due to power shifts that had been witnessed in the region since 1867.
This resulted in tensions in such areas as the Balkan region. The nations were scrambling for power and territory and this resulted in conflicts among the powerful nations. This was particularly reinforced by the signing of treaties and the formation of alliances[1]
Reasons for the War
Militarism
The causes of the war dates as far back as before 1914 and tension was so high among the various European nations that the continent only needed a little triggering to plunge into war. There are several reasons why this war was inevitable.
By then most of the countries exercised a lot of militarism as it was perceived as a way of enhancing a nation’s foreign policy. All the European countries were militaristic with Germany and Austria-Hungary being the best examples. By 1914, the European countries had well built armies and the navy forces with large number of soldiers and warships.
Countries competed to upgrade their military forces in order to ensure balance of power. Britain and German for instance were in conflict over the sizes of their armies in 1900 with the German leader at that time proclaiming that he needed to secure a place in the sun for Germany so that the sun’s rays may shine on his country. Kaiser Wilhelm therefore decided to build very powerful warships for his mission to conquer the world.
Effects
Britain had always had the notion that it was the ruler of the sea waves and as such, efforts by Germany to challenge her position were perceived as a threat and challenge to its superiority. This was also seen as a threat to the overseas colonies of Britain. Britain therefore decided to build more dreadnought battle ships given that the Germans had refused to limit their military build-up. The public was also at the forefront in demanding for more of the building of more ships.
Most of these European countries also managed to train extra men apart from those in the military for them to support their armies if the need arose. By 1914, Germany had a large and powerful army. There was however a cause for worry given that the Russian army was also growing at an alarming rate. It came to the realization of the German generals that within a short time, defeating Russia would not be an easy task.[2]
Alliances
The formation of alliances was also another way by which the European nations sought to enhance their protection. Bismarck had for instance formed an alliance with Russia although this was overturned by Kaiser Wilhelm who mainly focused on the alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary. Italy later joined the due to form the Triple Alliance. This alarmed other countries and France added Russia as its ally in 1894.
France also decided to develop friendship with Britain and the two countries agreed to work together in 1904, in an alliance known as the Entente Cordiale. This was more of a friendship agreement than an alliance. Later on, Britain reached such an agreement with Russia hence forming a collaborative friendship between Britain, Russia and France. A naval treaty was also made between Japan and Britain in 1902.
Germany was alarmed by the entente as it felt surrounded by adversaries. Such alliances just meant that in the event that one country went to war, the others would be obliged to follow automatically. This was therefore a recipe for the war that later broke out in 1914.[3]
Nationalism
At that time, people were staunch nationalists and this was another recipe for war. Rage was eminent and in the event that one’s country was insulted there were higher chances for fighting back for the sake of one’s country. People strongly stood by the slogans of their respective countries in patriotism.
This made most European countries to be warlike. Most of the colonies wished to free themselves from the yoke of their master’s rule. The Romanians and Bulgarians for instance wanted to free themselves from the Turkish rule while the Serbs wanted to be free from the Austria-Hungary rule. All this led to acts of rebellion and terrorism in the European continent.
Imperialism
Countries that perceived themselves as superior felt that it was alright for them to conquer those countries that they perceived as weaker or inferior like most African countries. In 1900 for instance, Britain had conquered about a fifth of the world. This caused the imperial nations to have conflict as they scrambled to conquer the world hence leading to war. In most cases, the rivaling powers always clashed whenever they met. The German leader at that time, Kaiser Wilhelm, decided to have colonies as well and this led to increased tension.
Awful governments
Most of the European countries were ruled in an autocratic manner and the governments were mainly characterized by corruption and bad governance. Most of the European countries at that time were not democratic and the decisions to go to war did not encounter much opposition either from the leaders or the people.
No agreement was reached upon before plunging into war. At that time, a country did not require to have a lot of justification before going to war. At times, war would break out for the simple reason of defeating the adversary and gaining more power or extending the territory for whoever was ruling by then.[4]
Background
During the Balkan war which ensured the expansion of Serbia, the Austrian officials thought of the best way to curtail its continued expansion and strengthening. Austria wanted to protect its dual monarchy and it was thought that this would only be made possible by waging a preventive war against Serbia.
The Austrians wanted to wage war against the Serbians so as to weaken them as they would not tolerate the expansion and increase in power of an enemy state. Russia had been challenged on its inability to protect Serbia in the Bosnian crisis as well as the Balkan war and this made it to reconstruct its military.
This was followed by the destabilization of power balances and war threats. War was almost inevitable given that Russia was to support Serbs in their war against Austria while other nations like Britain sided with Austria.
These developments occurred at the time when Russia was in the process of upgrading its military power. Britain was however not ready for war at that particular time and the war had to be postponed until the completion of the Kiel Canal’s expansion and the completion of the U-boat base construction. The Germans on the other hand wanted the war to commence before the completion of the Russian armament.
The Germans felt that they could not compete with other powers like Russia and Britain in armament although they had started their armament process earlier, in 1911. This was due to the fact that the German government could not increase the tax levied on its civilians and pursuing more of its military armament programs could only lead to the country becoming bankrupt.
The Germans therefore felt that it would be good to carry out a preventive war aimed at Russia and it was perceived that the earlier the action was taken the better. They could not condone a powerful Russia as in no time the nation would be far ahead in its military sophistication and this had to be stopped by provoking a war with it.
The result for all these was political turmoil in the European countries. The cultural factors, political factors as well as shifts in the powers of the European countries are just some of the factors that led to the European countries plunging into war. The region was characterized by territorial disputes that had not been resolved and this contributed to the tensions between nations.
There were also several misperceptions. It was for instance thought by the Germans that the United Kingdom was meant to remain neutral. Some of the European countries were also characterized by systems of governance that were convoluted and fragmented and conflicts were eminent in such regions. Diplomatic communications in most of the countries were characterized by delays as well as misunderstandings.
Arms races that had been witnessed earlier and the military training seemed to have also played a big role in fueling the possibility for the war. Most of the powers were witnessing military, economic, colonial as well as imperial rivalry hence causing tensions that could at one point erupt into fully fledged war.
Diplomatic Political Factors
The Domestic Politics of Germany
At that time, Germany was witnessing a rise in the left wing parties which had started gaining enormous support from the civilians. They always sought to distract the population by insisting on an external war that could result in the government gaining support from the civilians. This was happening at a time when Russia was on its military armament program.
French Domestic Politics
France was also embroiled in internal political turmoil especially after the revolution. The monarchists and those loyal to Bonaparte formed the rightwing opposition while others formed the leftwing. There were therefore constant internal wrangles and this necessitated a nationalistic point of view.
The left-wing government was steering towards making the relevant social reforms while the right-wing opponents hoped to regain power the second time given that they had links with the military. All these factors played a big role in creating the right environment for war.
Changes in Austria
The Austrian government structure changed significantly in 1867. The Austrian government had become a dual monarchy: Austria-Hungary. The German aristocracy had particularly been at the top of the Austrian government and the change in the structure meant that a compromise had to be reached so as to preserve the aristocracy given that people had started to press for nationalism.
The elite in Hungary had to be given equal chance in the government as well. This became a challenge to the Germans within the Austrian government as they had to agree with the Magyar elite as well. A foreign policy that was coherent could therefore not be easily reached.[5]
It became difficult for Germany to rule Austria-Hungary and the use of non-diplomatic means was considered. At the same time, some of those in the Austria-Hungary government ascribed to the social Darwinism concept and felt that it was a good idea for countries to arm themselves in the struggle for survival.
Some therefore advocated for war with Serbia. It was therefore thought that bringing more slaves to Austria-Hungary would result in the elite compromising their power hence giving an upper hand to the Germans. It was feared that the southern slaves led by Serbia were planning to wedge war against the Austria-Hungarians and there was need to stop them before they became too powerful to defeat by using military means.
War with Serbia was therefore contemplated although some thought that military intervention would not necessarily result in solving the problems that were plaguing Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary is therefore thought to have played a significant role in the commencement of the war.
The empire was therefore disintegrating due to the Russian ambitions as well as the Serbian nationalism. Austria-Hungary therefore opted to go to war with Serbia while believing that the strong support that they got from Germany would keep Russia at bay and at the same time weakening the Balkan prestige.
Conclusion
A collection of several factors made war in Europe in 1914 inevitable. Different European countries plunged into the war with each country having its individual reason(s) for its involvement. Some got into war to assist their allies while some joined the war due to territorial disputes. Others simply wanted to outdo their adversaries.
Bibliography
Albertini, Luigi. 1952 .The Origins of the War of 1914, trans. London: Oxford University Press.
Barnes, Harry Elmer. 1929. The Genesis Of The World War; An Introduction To The Problem of War Guilt, New York: Knopf.
Barnes, Harry Elmer . 1972. In Quest Of Truth and Justice: De-bunking The War Guilt Myth, New York: Arno Press
Carter, Miranda. 2009. Three Emperors: Three Cousins, Three Empires and the Road to the First World War. London: Penguin.
Fay, Sidney. 1929. The Origins of the World War, New York: Macmillan.
Footnotes
Albertini, Luigi. 1952 .The Origins of the War of 1914, trans. London: Oxford University Press.
Barnes, Harry Elmer. 1929. The Genesis Of The World War; An Introduction To The Problem Of War Guilt, New York: Knopf.
Barnes, Harry Elmer . 1972. In Quest Of Truth And Justice: De-bunking The War Guilt Myth, New York: Arno Press
Carter, Miranda. 2009. Three Emperors: Three Cousins, Three Empires and the Road to the First World War. London: Penguin.
Fay, Sidney. 1929. The Origins Of The World War, New York: Macmillan.
The documents that are going to be analyzed present different views on the role that the United States should play during World War I. The text called War is A Blessing; Not a Curse emphasizes the need to intervene into this military conflict that engulfed entire Europe. In turn, in his speech, Robert LaFollette points out that it was wiser for America to refrain from taking any part in these events. It is necessary to examine these arguments more closely.
Overall, the supporters of the U.S intervention argue that this war represented the conflict between democracy and tyranny. In particular, the authors of this article believe that it was the duty of the United States to protect liberty and fight autocracy (“War Is a Blessing, Not a Curse” unpaged). Apart from that, the writers note that the king of Prussia Wilhelm II was a brutal enemy of the country.
His international policies could pose a threat to the national security of the United States. However, the authors do not specify how exactly Germany could threaten American interests. This is one of the main points that the make. Furthermore, the advocates of this strategy believe that in this way, the United States can eventually bring improvements to the lives of many nations.
In this case, one can speak primarily about the elimination of autocracy. Moreover, the intervention could eventually stop the war and save many lives. Finally, this strategy might help the country become a global leader. These are the main elements of the argument in favor of military intervention.
In turn, Robert LaFollette tries to explain why it was not rational to intervene in this war. In his opinion, the participation in this war could divert the attention of the government from many domestic problems which required close attention. Moreover, American politicians could not accurately estimate the maximum duration of this war.
Furthermore, LaFollette attempts to refute the arguments according to which this war was a struggle between barbarism and democracy. In particular, this author notes that some countries representing Entente could not be called democracies.
For example, England is described as “a hereditary monarchy” (LaFollette unpaged). The same thing can be said about Russia. Finally, this politician believes that the decision to intervene contradicts the will of the people.
In my opinion, the views of Robert LaFollette are more convincing. First of all, he demonstrates that the war in Europe was caused by the conflict of interests, and it was reasonable to say that this conflict was driven by some ideals such as freedom or democracy. It should be mentioned that Entente or the triple alliance of Great Britain, Russia, and France could also call the coalition of good will.
The problem is that this alliance was very unstable. Therefore, the U.S. intervention could threaten the international interests of the country in the long term. It seems that this approach is much more realistic. This is the main issue that can be identified.
This discussion indicates that the decision to enter a military conflict inevitably entails a great number of risks. Furthermore, it is not always possible to determine which side of the conflict has moral superiority. The documents that have been analyzed illustrate the complexity of the U.S. position during World War II as well as conflicting interests that had to be considered.
The region known as Chechnya is approximately 1,100 kilometers long and 32 to 180 kilometers in width (Gammer 2006). The ethnic and linguistic composition of the population of this region probably makes the range of the Caucasus the most varied area in the world. The area is home to more than seventy native ethnic groups the largest of which are the Chechens (Gammer 2006). According to statistics for a national Soviet census of 1989 the population numbered almost 1 million people (Gammer 2006).
This land of the Chechens is a quadrilateral located in the North Eastern region of the Caucasus and is demarcated by the Terek and Sunja rivers in the West and the North (Gammer 2006). Most of Chechnya is located within the forest zone and prior to Russian conquest it formed a dense primeval forest even as recently as the beginning of the 21st century (Gammer 2006).
Due to this factor the region imposes a combination of two of the most difficult and complicated modes of war on any regular army pitching a battle in the mountain and forest terrain. In all battles between Chechens and the Imperial Russian and Soviet Armies, the locals showed great mastery in using these strategic features to their advantage (Gammer 2006). In the wars that took place in the 1990’s the Chechens proved their ability to adjust to modern conditions by exhibiting skill in urban warfare with Russian Federal forces.
Background
Before their first encounter with Russia, Chechens shared similar culture with all other ethnic groups in the Northern Caucasus region. Despite of their minor ethnic and linguistic differences all these groups defined themselves as mountaineers and also considered themselves as kin to each other (Gammer 2006). Because of this with minor variations they led a similar lifestyle, wore similar clothing and had similar traditions and customs. They were classified by some anthropologists as the nomadic-patriarchal type.
The people of this region though not nomads mainly relied on livestock rearing as their main source of livelihood. Their societies existed along patrilineal lines into extended families, clans, tribes and tribal confederations (Gammer 2006). These served with varied emphasis at each level due to the fact that the focal point of identification and mutual responsibility were at the basis of the political, social and economic structures (Gammer 2006). Due to this nature of organization there was extreme vigilance over individual freedom and the strong rejection of any authority external to the kin group (Gammer 2006). Due to this strong bond in the community a case of murder was often solved by vendetta.
The community was mainly a martial race and they were primarily raised to be warriors. This was evident by the frequent mutual raids that were part and parcel of their existence. In such feuds it was uncommon for people to be hurt as the primary objective was the capture of cattle and livestock (Gammer 2006). Such raids also had cultural significance as they served as initiation for young warriors. This is evident in the selection of the wolf as their national emblem. Despite the strength of the Lion and Eagle such animals normally attack the weak; the wolf is the only creature that dares to attack a stronger animal (Gammer 2006). The wolf’s lack of strength is compensated by audacity, courage and adroitness. That being said the report will now delve into the issues behind the first war.
Reasons Behind the Attack in the First War
The first war between Chechnya and Russia took place between 1994 and 1996 and came about due to the Russian military-political and financial elite’s transformation of the Chechnya into a corruption riddled enclave (Sakwa 2005). It is reported that this group of Russians used the country for money laundering, sale of oil products, weapons and narcotics (Sakwa 2005). Due to this tactic the concept of independence had been used to mask the criminal speculations being carried out by the powerful elite. As a result this elite group was robbing Chechen citizens and enriching Chechen and Russian post Soviet elites (Sakwa 2005).
In response to this position the leaders of Ichkeria were prompted to gamble with the very existence of the Chechen nation. In an effort to conceal the traces of corruption and several crimes committed, civil war was provoked in Chechnya (Sakwa 2005). The Russian troops intervened under the pretext of disarming the warring parties. Following these actions the restoration of constitutional order in Chechnya became a tragedy for its citizens and ended with a massacre unprecedented in contemporary history (Sakwa 2005). This is evident on observing the actions of the Federal troops and the Ichkerian army in Grozny, Bamut, Argun, Samashki, Shatoi, Komsomolsk and in several other locations. This trend saw practically all battles in Chechnya end with massive destruction of villages, towns and inhabitants (Sakwa 2005).
It has been widely reported that the Russian invasion of Chechnya in 1994 was largely due to the role of the Russian president, Boris Yeltsin (Evangelista 2002). According to the reports it is believed that the above statement is true because the President could have opted to win, lose or avoid the war altogether. This is supported in the memoirs of the president in which he accepts responsibility for not shirking away from the Chechen campaign even when orders appeared to go against his decisions (Evangelista 2002).
In a similar fashion the vast majority of the Chechen population did not support the Dudadev regime but was drawn into the war as a result of the actions carried out in their nation by the Federal army (Sakwa 2005). For this reason the Chechen war can only be considered a just war when we look at the people who became the victims of this violence. Between September and November 1994 two socio political clans were fighting for power, one of which enjoyed the support of the Kremlin (Sakwa 2005). After the full scale intervention by Russia in December 1994, the war was transformed into Russian-Chechen war from a civil war (Sakwa 2005).
Despite all the efforts made by both the Russians and the Chechens the war was one that was mainly fought over issues surrounding ethnicity (Sakwa 2005). At center of these battles was Mafia styled political clans competing for power. The conflict ceased to be an internal affair within Chechnya due to the fact that all political forces in Russia were drawn into the battle. This was due to the fact that the Russians were also trying to mould the situation to serve their individual purposes (Sakwa 2005). As the war became even more internationalized the separatists began to garner significant support especially from groups in the Middle East.
In the end the protracted military intervention into Chechnya brought about significant human and material losses. Due to this publicity the world’s attention was once more turned to Russia and aggravated already existing power crisis and the Russian society (Sakwa 2005).
Reasons Behind the Attack in the Second War
According to reports by Evangelista the second round of the war between Moscow and Chechnya was prompted by an attack across the Chechen border into Dagestan (2002). This attack was reported to have occurred during the first few days of August in 1999 and involved between 300 and 2000 troops (Evangelista 2002). These troops were led by field commanders such as Shamil Basaev and Khattab, an Arab fighter who was known to be married to a Dagestani woman (Evangelista 2002).
In response to a request for assistance from the leadership of the Dagestani region, Moscow sent a group of interior ministry troops to the districts of Tsumadin and Botlikh on the 4th of August the same year (Evangelista 2002). Though local Dagestani armed forces resisted the invasion well, to Moscow’s surprise they were soon supported by Russian army troops (Evangelista 2002). It should be noted that this was not the first military action involving the Wahhabis in Dagestan (Evangelista 2002). In May 1997, a force of Dagestanis in association with a sect took control of several villages where Khattab’s wife was born. Again in December 1997 a group of Chechen guerillas joined the Wahhabi force to attack an armored Russian brigade near Buinaksk (Evangelista 2002).
Due to the above mentioned fact the August incursion looked like another little step towards the creation of a united Chechen-Dagestani Muslim state, this being the explicit goal of Basaev and his allies (Evangelista 2002). However, the Dagestanis spurned the Chechen incursion and spurned the Wahhabi fundamentalism that threatened to undermine their own Islamic based traditions and governance. Despite of this the Russians continued to make massive aerial attacks in early September followed by a ground invasion (Evangelista 2002).
Following the ground invasion it appeared that the Russian troops would stop at the Terek River and make attempts to create a positive example in pro-Russian Nadterechyni district. However, the Russian troops continued progressing slowly all the way to Grozny (Evangelista 2002).
The main difference between the two wars is that unlike the first was that was led entirely by Boris Yeltsin and almost ended in his impeachment, this war was a popular one. The popular support for this war came from the fact that apart from its defensive origins and second from the fact that the defeat of the Chechen invaders coincided with a series of terrorist bombings on Russian territory (Evangelista 2002). These attacks in September saw four apartment buildings blown up in Dagestan, Moscow and in Volgodonsk. Following these attacks suspicions naturally fell upon the Chechens.
Vladimir Putin who had just been appointed Prime Minister by Boris Yeltsin just a number of days after the attack on Dagestan used the opportunity to prosecute the war while it still enjoyed public support (Evangelista 2002). Just prior to the elections Yeltsin had resigned putting Putin in power and providing the much needed fuel to invigorate the docile Russian press and the pending election. Despite the fact that Putin did not expect the popularity of the war to last, the war dragged on for years and much of Chechnya was bombed into rubble (Evangelista 2002).
The citizens of the country escaped enmasse while many ended up in intermittent camps and mass graves. For a long time the country remained a dangerously insecure place with increased frequency of guerilla attacks, assassinations and abductions (Evangelista 2002). This was evident due to the fact that even after the assassination of Khattab in 2002, the intermittent terrorist incidents continued to prevail. In the war Putin managed to ‘Bang the hell out of the bandits’ but he also ultimately failed in his mission to resolve the situation in the Northern Caucasus (Evangelista 2002).
Leadership Style
Comparison of Leaders Reaction in First and Second War
Following the declaration to make Chechnya an independent state, Dudaev became a prime example of the chaotic mode of domination (Tishkov 2004). This situation in Chechnya provided the Russian president Yeltsin an opportune moment to boost his political popularity in 1994.
Yeltsin was the most apt character for the late post soviet political spectacle. He was reported to be a cynical populist who styled himself as the spontaneous and emotional Russian ‘Real Man’ (Kapferer & Bertelsen 2009). His network included a group of officials who were considered equally cynical and used the entire Russian territory as a private fiefdom (Kapferer & Bertelsen 2009). Through his neo liberal regime Russia was ruined and there was a major increase in social unrest.
Following a referendum in 1993, Yeltsin’s popularity grew and it was in this situation that he almost single handedly decided to proceed with the attack on Chechnya (Russell 2007). It is based on his decisions during the war that it has been said that Yeltsin may have chosen to win, lose or refrain from further action altogether (Evangelista 2002). This information is also mentioned in his memoirs where he accepts responsibility for remaining involved in the Chechen campaign (Evangelista 2002).
The main difference in the leadership styles between the two wars is seen in the fact that the Putin led campaign was popular among the Russian citizens (Ellision 2006). Putin’s rise to power came at a low point in Russia due to very poor economic performance. In addition to this it has been observed that the unprecedented attacks on four apartment buildings in Dagestan, Moscow and in Volgodonsk naturally placed suspicion upon the Chechens (Evangelista 2002). What is surprising in the war during Putin’s regime is the fact that instead of stopping in the pro-Russian region to pose as a good example, he proceeded all the way to Grozny. This action suggests a stubborn attitude in relation to the Chechen issue in Putin just as was evident with Yeltsin.
What were the resolutions during the war
Following prolonged conflict between the Russians and the Chechens, a resolution was passed on the Chechen crisis that called for a treaty outlining powers between Moscow and Grozny which would be enacted after new elections in the rebel territory (Seely 2001). The main purpose of this resolution was to put a footing on the Russian government negotiations involving Dudaev’s opponents (Seely 2001).
Shakhrai suggested that an interparty agreement between the two sides was not an option. He believed that Russia should have aimed at strengthening inter territorial integrity and state unity within the Russian federation (Seely 2001). Following this suggestion, the Russian Security Council soon adopted a similar resolution. This resolution was abolished by Yeltsin and instead proposed a power sharing agreement with Chechnya (Seely 2001). In the end Shakhrai’s policies were blamed for failing to resolve the Chechen crisis.
Comparison of the Chechnya and Tatarstan solution
The main difference between the solution in Chechnya and Tartastan arises from the fact that initial fears of the impending domination by the Russians were fuelled by economic issues (Toft 2003). It had been perceived that greater independence would provide the residents of the autonomous republic increased control over their trade and industry that they deserved.
In contrast to this position a sub ordinate republic within post independent USSR may have the effect of decreasing that economic control. This brings us to the point that unlike the issue of ethnicity in the case of the Chechen’s this issue was dominated by economics (Toft 2003). This indicated that the push for independence was not due to ethnicity. Reports Tartarstan was already producing 25 billion rubles worth of output annually and lacked a ministry of industry. This led Tartarstan to push for the status as a Union republic independent from Russia but bound by Russian law (Toft 2003).
It has been suggested that Tartarstan’s quest for equal status was greatly enhanced due to the political maneuvers that were undertaken by Mikhail Gorbachev in early 1990 (Toft 2003). It has been said that at the time Gorbachev was in the process of engineering major political and economic reforms to preserve relationships that held the USSR together. When Gorbachev’s move backfired and Russia declared itself an independent state, Tartarstan took the opportunity to declare itself sovereign in August 1990 (Toft 2003).
The Human Rights Status in the First and Second War
After the onset of the first Chechen war the United States opted to support President Yeltsin (Forsythe 2009). The main reason for this initial support can be attributed to the fact that the US hoped the support would curb human rights abuses by the Russian army in the process (Forsythe 2009). Unfortunately this was not to be and the crisis escalated. This report was supported by a statement from the Russian human right commissioner who stated that the Russian troops were violating human rights on a massive scale during the attacks and urged the international community to intervene (Forsythe 2009).
Following this statement the US president issued a statement asking for patience with Russia in light of their unwavering support in relation to the Chechen invasion (Forsythe 2009). In response to this the Russian State defense committee expressed his astonishment to the western complicity in light of the serious human rights violations taking place (Forsythe 2009). It was argued that though the Russian regime and Dudaev were responsible for this affair, the Russian government had broken several international legal requirements during in its use of armed force against civilians and the use of prohibited weapons including cluster bombs (Forsythe 2009).
Despite these and similar statements there was continual and unabated use of force against civilians in Chechnya. As the number of casualties and the death toll rose, Russian public opposition to the war increased fuelled mainly by the reports from the then independent media (Forsythe 2009). The Kremlin however continued to insist that human rights abuses were not taking place in Chechnya and largely made attempts to block international coverage of the war (Forsythe 2009).
The international response toward the first and second war
It has been stated that the international response to the cries for assistance to reconstruct Chechnya were seriously inadequate (Jaimoukha 2005). Due to this poor response, there were factitious times in Chechnya with several organizations sprouting to the left and right (Jaimoukha 2005). This led to a seriously uncontrollable situation with a series of kidnappings and murders of western nationals which had started to reflect badly upon the Chechen leadership (Jaimoukha 2005).
Following this the administration began to make attempts to stamp out lawlessness and insubordination and went a step further to create the Chechen professional army (Jaimoukha 2005). The poor handing of the resolution of the initial crisis an attack in 1997 in Dagestan was blamed on the mavericks within the Chechen republic. This action drew condemnation from Grozny which took the action as a deliberate action aimed to undermine the peace treaty currently being negotiated (Jaimoukha 2005).
Conclusion
This report has focused on the presentation of information relating to the Chechen crisis. In the report it has been observed that the crisis emerged due to ethnic issues and later degenerated into a war between Russia and Chechnya. Following this initial war a second uprising began which led to the realization that the initial war was not appropriately addressed by both Russian republic and the International community.
References
Ellison, HJ 2006, Boris Yeltsin and Russia’s Democratic Transformation, University of Washington Press, Printed in the USA.
Evangelista, M 2002, The Chechen Wars: Will Russia Go the Way of the Soviet Union? The Brookings Institution, Washington D.C.
Forsythe, DP 2009, Encyclopedia of Human Rights, Volume 1, Oxford University Press, New York.
Gammer, M 2006, The Lone Wolf and the Bear: Three Centuries of Chechen Defiance f Russian Rule, C. Hurst & Co. (Publishers) Ltd., London.
Jaimoukha, AM 2005, The Chechens: A Handbook, RoutledgeCurzon, Oxon.
Kapferer, B., & Bertelsen, BE 2009, Crisis of the state: War and Social Upheaval, Berghan Books, Printed in the USA.
Russell, J 2007, Chechnya – Russia’s War on Terror, Routledge, New York.
Sakwa, R 2005, Chechnya: From Past to Future, Wimbledon Publishing Company, London.
Seely, R 2001, Russo-Chechen Conflict, 1800-2000: A Deadly Embrace, Frank Cass Publishers, Oxon.
Tishkov, VA 2004, Chechnya: Life in a War-Torn Society, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Toft, MD 2003, The geography of Ethnic Violence: Identity, Interests, and the Indivisibility of Territory, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
During the 15th century, England witnessed a series of protracted battles as two powerful families engaged each other in a struggle for the English throne. These battles have come to be famously known as the “wars of the roses” due to the differently colored rose symbols adopted by the two belligerent families.. England was plunged into a period of great violence as this warring houses engaged in a bitter conflict for three decades.
The wars ended with the ascendancy of Henry, of the House of Tudor, to the throne. The wars of the roses had significant and far-reaching impacts on the various parties that were involved in the battle. This paper will set out to provide a detailed account of the outcomes of the domestic this bloody English conflict.
Major Events and Players
The wars of the roses, which took place between 1455 and 1485, had a number of significant events and actors who contributed to the start of the war and influenced its eventual outcome. A major actor in the wars was King Henry VI, who became King of England in 1422 at the age of four months following the death of his father King Henry V.1 Unlike his father who was a strong and effective ruler, Henry VI was a weak ruler.
To make matters worse, the king suffered from sporadic insanity making him a feeble leader. His wife, the ambitious Queen Margaret of Anjou, was able to dominate the King and influence royal policy. King Henry VI’s weakness caused the House of York to start making plots to overthrow him.
A mental affliction on the king led to Richard Duke of York being given control of the Realm in 1453.2 Richard’s first act was to imprison the 3rd Duke of Somerset, who was one of the King’s favored advisors. Richard’s rule as the protector of the realm ended in 1455 when the King recovered and gave considerable power to the Queen who subsequently reduced Richard’s power.
This marked the start of the war of the roses as Richard Duke of York and his supporters sought to remove the King’s advisors and therefore gain influence in the court. The House of York made alliances with Salisbury and Warwick and this faction became the Yorkists.
On the other hand, the supporters of King Henry VI (who came from the House Lancaster) included Somerset, Clifford, and Northumberland and they took the name Lancastrians.
The first battle in this English Civil War took place in 1455 and the Yorkists gained victory and took King Henry VI captive.3 However, this victory was not absolute and a series of battles with Lancastrian loyalists led to the death of Richard duke of York in 1459.
Following Richard’s death, his son, Edward Earl of March took over as the leader of the Yorkists. Edward was able to assemble the Yorkist supporters and carry out pervasive attacks against the Lancastrians leading to the defeat of King Henry VI in 1461. Following this victory, Edward was named King Edward IV and he ruled England in relative peace until the Lancastrians deposed him in 1470.4
However, Edward IV was able to ally himself with Clarence and defeat the Lancastrians in the 1471 battle of Tewkesbury. The battle resulted in the death of King Henry’s son and heir, Edward of Wales. Following these outcomes, Edward IV was re-crowned king of England and his position on the throne became secure following the death of Henry VI in 1471.5
Edward’s reign ended in 1483 when he died unexpectedly. His brother, Richard III took over the throne, dismissing the legitimate claims of Edward IV’s son, Edward V.6 This led to resistance from the Yorkists who even turned to the Lancastrians for help. Under the leadership of Henry Tudor, the Lancastrians together with the Yorkist defectors were set to tackle Richard III.
One of the most significant events in the wars of the roses was the death of Richard III in 1485. In this fateful year, Henry Tudor issued a challenge to Richard III for the throne. Richard III responded to this challenge by marshalling his supporters to meet Henry and his forces at Bosworth Field.
Henry had a larger army since he was joined by Yorkist defectors and this caused him to gain victory over Richard who died at the battle.7 This effectively ended the war, which had ravaged the land for 30 years, as Tudor was able to consolidate his power and take over as King Henry VII.
Outcomes of the War
Effect on the Lancaster and York Houses
The most significant outcome of the wars is that they led to the crushing defeat of the Yorkists. This defeat was epitomized by the death of King Richard III in 1485.8 The House of York had enjoyed a relatively successful hold on the throne since the death of King Henry VI. There is strong evidence that this Yorkist reign would have continued for many years if Edward IV’s son had taken over following the death of his father in 1483.
However, this was not the case and Richard III took over the throne. From the moment he ascended to power, many nobles who opposed him collaborated with the Lancastrians to oust him. After a relatively long and successful rule under Edward IV, the Yorkists were forced to relinquish the throne to the Lancastrian Tudor.
When King Henry VI took the throne, he took steps to deal with the threat posed by York loyalists. After the end of the wars, the houses that had allied themselves to Richard III suffered the greatest losses. To begin with, vast portions of their Estates were taken over by Henry.
Property that belonged to Richard Neville, the Earl of Warwick was acquired by Henry. The same happened with property from Clarence and Gloucester, both of whom had supported the Yorkist claim to the throne. The nobles who continued to support the House of York’s claim to the throne were killed or had their estates confiscated by the king.
The war led to the unification of the Houses of York and Lancaster under King Henry VII. In spite of his victory over Richard III, Henry Tudor still faced opposition from some Yorkist factions, who still hoped to take over power.9
This led to some skirmishes after the Bosworth Field as Yorkist forces attacked the Lancastrians and their allies. To deal with this division between the Yorkists and the Lancaster, Henry decided to unite the claims of these two houses.
He achieved this by seeking marriage with Elizabeth of York. The marriage was essentially a pragmatic unification of two warring dynasties.10 The marriage between King Henry VII and Elizabeth literally joined the House of Lancaster and York making it posible for the 30-year long power struggle to come to an end.
Impacts on the English Noble Houses
The wars dealt heavy loses to the English nobilities who died in many numbers. Between 1455 and 1485, a number of notable English nobles allied to both sides died in battle. There are a number of Notable figures who fought for the Lancastrian cause over the 30-year period and died for their trouble.
They include John Tuchet who was the 5th Baron Audley, Edmund Beaufort who was duke of Somerset, Henry Percy who was the 2nd earl of Northumberland, Henry Percy who was the 3rd earl of Northumberland, and Thomas Roos who was the Baron of Helmsley.
Nobles who fought and died for the House of York included William Herbert who was the Earl of Pembroke, John Howard who was Duke of Norfolk, and John Mowbray who was Duke of Norfolk. Historians propose that the deaths of so many nobles in the wars contributed to the weakening of this class in medieval England.
This had the effect of strengthening the merchant class and the subsequent movement towards Renaissance by English society. Even so, the War of the Roses did not eliminate the nobility and they remained a powerful force in the country. The new King had to find ways to keep the nobles in check and prevent another Civil War from breaking out.
An outcome of the wars of the roses was therefore the profound change in the peerage system in England. This English system created peers, who comprised of Dukes, Earls and Barons. These individuals had great social and political power and their titles were hereditary or created by the King as rewards for loyalty.11
At the onset of the war, there were relatively many noble families in England had direct links to the throne though royal bloodlines. Historians note that princes of royal blood headed these noble families and they had legitimate claims to the throne due to their titles and heritage.12
After the end of the wars, Henry VII took steps to reduce the number of peers. He created and granted fewer titles than King Edward IV had done during his rule. By effecting these changes in the peerages, King Henry VII minimized the chances of strife occurring in England.
The war let to a significant loss in power and wealth by the English Noble Houses. Historians record that the wars of the roses were facilitated by the private power and wealth held by the immensely wealthy and powerful dukes of York and Somerset.13 Over the course of these wars, the various noble houses dedicated vast resources to military efforts.
This led to depletion in the finances of some of the houses. In addition to this, some houses were dispossessed when they allied themselves with a losing side in the wars. After the war, the noble houses were noticeably less wealthy than they had been in the early fifteenth century.
Families that were Revered
There are a number of noble families that became revered when the wars of the roses ended. One of these families was the House of Jasper Tudor. Jasper came from the Tudor family in North Wales and he was the uncle to King Henry VII.14
Over the course of the 30-year war, Jasper suffered numerous loses due to his allegiance to the Lancastrians. Henry VI made Japer the Earl of Pembroke in 1452 and from this moment, Jasper demonstrated his dedication to the Lancaster cause.
During the wars, Jasper was forced to seek asylum in France to escape the Yorkish forces. He lost his Earldom and the Pembroke castle to the York loyalist William Herbert in 1468.15 However, he continued to champion the Lancaster cause and tried to shore up support from the nobles and barons. When King Edward IV died, he started campaigning for his nephew to take the throne.
The loyalty shown to Henry Tudor by his uncle Jasper contributed to his eventual accession to the throne.16 Japer Tudor’s power base as Earl of Pembroke in west Wales was invaluable in setting Henry on the road to victory over Richard II. When Henry VII took the throne, Jasper’s fortunes were restored. His previous Earldom was returned and he was made the Duke of Bedford.
The King also bestowed upon him the highest order of chivalry, the Order of the Garter. In addition to this, Jasper was given the Cardiff Castle that had previously been in the hands of Richard, Duke of Gloucester.
Another noble house that benefited from supporting the Lancaster side was John de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. The Earl of Oxford was a faithful lieutenant to Henry VII throughout the wars of the roses.
The Earl of Oxford started his military career as a rebellious Yorkist in 1469. John de Vere went on to ally himself with the Lancastrians and was part of the 1470 invasion of England that temporarily restored Henry VI to power.17 This invasion failed to secure lasting victory for the Lancastrians and John de Vere was forced to flee England. Due to his actions, the Yorkists confiscated his estates and he lost his titles. King Henry VII recognized John de Vere’s contribution to the Lancaster cause throughout the wars.
He therefore restored to him all the titles he had lost to the Yorkists and the estates that had been confiscated. In addition to this, the king appointed him Lord Admiral and awarded him the Order of the Garter.
A noble house that gained significantly by changing allegiances from the Yorkists to the Lancastrians at the last moments was the Stanley House. The house was headed by Thomas (Lord Stanley) who was an original supporter of the Yorkist side fighting numerous battles for their cause. Between 1459 and 1483, Lord Stanley was able to acquire large tracts of land and property from dispossessed Lancastrians.
The Yorkist rulers bestowed these estates upon Lord Stanley as a reward for his loyal services during the wars of the roses. When Richard III took over, Lord Stanley was given even more property in North Wales by the King. However, Stanley changed his allegiances to the Lancastrian side at the last moment.18
He fought on the side of Henry Tudor at the pivotal Battle of Bosworth Field.19 His contributions helped secure victory over Richard III and for this reason, Henry VII was thankful to him. In gratitude for his role in securing victory over Richard III, King Henry VII bestowed more property to Stanley and even made him Lord Chamberlain.
Families that were Reviled
Many Noble families suffered both during and after the war because of their different allegiances. During the ways, the following major English Houses suffered material loses following defeat by their enemies in various battles. John Tuchet, 5th Baron Audley, was a wealthy landowner who was killed in 1459 by Yorkist forces.20 Following his death, Richard Duke of York gave some of Audley’s Estates to the knight who had killed him.
The 9th Baron of Helmsley, Thomas Roos was also dispossessed following his defeat by the Yorkish army. Thomas Roos, Baron of Helmsley was defeated by the Neville led Yorkish army and executed at Newcastle. He was a loyal Lancaster Supporter and he fought against the Yorkish on behalf of King Henry VI.
However, he was captured in the Battle of Hexham in 1464 and subsequently executed as a traitor.21 Following his execution, his family lands were confiscated and awarded to the York Loyalist, Lord Hastings.
An English noble family that suffered heavily due to the wars is the House of Beaufort. Following the outbreak of the wars, the House of Beaufort, led by Edmund Beaufort who held the title of 3rd Duke of Somerset supported the House of Lancaster. Edmund was killed in the first year of the war.
His son Henry Beaufort succeeded him and he continued to fight on the Lancastrian side.22 He was captured in battle in 1464 and shortly afterwards executed. This effectively marked the end of the powerful and wealthy House of Beaufort, as Henry did not leave a legitimate successor.
The Neville family was greatly impacted by the wars of the roses. This family was part of the wealthy landed society in the North-East that supported the Yorkists and the Lancastrians at different times during the 30year duration of the war. At the onset, Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick allied himself with the Yorkists in their attempt to gain the throne.23
However, he switched allegiances to the Lancastrians after Edward IV married Elizabeth Woodville and allied himself to the duke of Burgundy.24 The Earl of Warwick died in the Battle of Barnet and with no sons to survive him, his title became extinct.
Conclusion
This paper set out to discuss the destructive Civil War that took place in 15th century England between the Houses of York and Lancaster with special focus on the outcomes of the war. The paper began by providing a historical context of the wars and noting the major players in the battlers. It then proceeded to highlight the major outcomes of the war, which included the unification of the warring houses under King Henry VII.
The paper has also discussed the major changes that Henry VII enacted to prevent the outbreak of another Civil War. Close attention has been given to the effects that the wars had on a number of noble houses in England. This paper has shown that nobles had something to gain or lose by allying themselves with either house in the wars of the roses.
It has shown how allegiances shifted constantly as the nobles sort to secure their future wealth and influence in the country. The paper has shown how the war caused some families to lose their fortunes since they supported the wrong side while others were able to acquire great fortunes due to their allegiances to the victors.
Bibliography
Bush, Michael. “The Tudors and the Royal Race.” History 55, no.183 (1970): 37-48.
Carpenter, Christine. The Wars of the Roses: Politics and the Constitution in England, C.1437-1509. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Cheetham, Anthony. The Wars of the Roses. California: University of California Press, 2000.
Grummitt, David. A Short History of the Wars of the Roses. NY: Cengage Publishers, 2013.
DeLloyd, Guth. Late-medieval England, 1377-1485. Boston: CUP Archive, 1976.
Edgar, John. The Wars of the Roses: Or, Stories of the Struggle of York and Lancaster. Kent: W. Kent & Company, 1859.
Fleming, Peter. “Murder, Alchemy and the Wars of the Roses.” Regional Historian 12, no.1 (2004): 1-4.
Fraser, Anthony. The Wars of the Roses A royal history of England. California: University of California Press, 2000.
Hicks, Michael. The Wars of the Roses: 1455-1485. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2003.
Marsden, Gordon. “Henry VII Miracle King.” History Today 59, no.3 (2009): 54-60.
Footnotes
1 Christine Carpenter, The Wars of the Roses: Politics and the Constitution in England, C.1437-1509 (Cambridge University Press, 1997), 135.
The US-Mexican War started on 25 April 1846 and lasted for 2 years until 1848 (Bauer, 1992). The war broke out mainly because both the US and Mexico were interested in Texas, which had gained independence from Mexico in 1836. People have divided opinion on whether the US should have been involved in this war. On one side, some people argue that the US should not have been involved in the war because it had refused to incorporate Texas into the Union in 1836 after gaining independence. On the other side, some individuals hold that the US should have been involved in the war as retaliation after Mexico attacked American soldiers on the disputed land. However, this paper holds that the US should not have engaged in the 1846 Mexican-American War.
The Mexican president at the time, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, had warned the US that any efforts to annex Texas would break the already fragile relationship between Mexico and the US (Frazier, 1998). However, the US president at the time ignored such warnings. Mexico and the US were equal partners in the region, and President James Polk should have respected the calls to leave Texas alone. The Mexican president was only concerned about the peace of the region. President de Santa Anna even went to the extent of begging the US to stay out of Texas, but President Polk was determined to annex Texas to the Union. Therefore, for the interest of peace in the region, the US should not have engaged Mexico in this bloody war.
To show its commitment to resolve the Texan conflict amicably, the Mexican government decided to negotiate with a low-level US government official. Having a low-level government official would keep politics out of the already volatile issue. However, the US government would not divorce the politics of supremacy from the confrontation, and thus it sent a minister to negotiate with Mexico. At this point, it is clear that the US was set for a military confrontation by defying all the demands from the Mexican government. If the US sent a low-profile government official as required, perhaps the war would have been averted.
However, the proponents of the war argue that Mexico had to be held responsible for attacking American troops and killing two officers (Henderson, 2008). Apparently, Mexico had no right to dictate whether Texas wanted to join the Union or remain an independent country. Texas needed help from its allies after being ravaged by the struggle for independence from Mexico. Therefore, the US was simply helping its ally at the time of need through annexation. Additionally, Mexico refused to honor its promise of receiving the US emissary with honor befitting an American government official in foreign land. Therefore, Mexico pushed the US into the war.
In conclusion, there are compelling reasons explaining why the US should or should not have engaged in the Mexican-American War. However, the US should not have engaged in the war. Mexico had categorically stated that the annexation of Texas to the United States would cause conflicts in the region, and President Polk should have respected this stand. Besides, Mexico indicated its willingness to negotiate with a low-profile US government official. However, the US sent a high-ranking minister in the government.
The proponents of the war hold that Mexico had no right to determine if Texas would join the US. However, this argument is weak because Mexico wanted peace in the region and the US should have respected that view. Therefore, the arguments on why the US should not have engaged in the war are highly compelling because peace should surpass supremacy battles.
References
Bauer, J. (1992). The Mexican War: 1846–1848. Winnipeg, MB: Bison Books.
Frazier, D. (1998). The U.S. and Mexico at war. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
Henderson, T. (2008). A glorious defeat: Mexico and its war with the United States. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.
The First World War remains one of the most devastating historical events ever experienced. Numerous conflicts witnessed in Europe towards the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th formed the basis for resentment, hate, and the arms race that led to the Great War. Still, the war had no single cause but emerged due to a combination of numerous long- and short-term factors. Notably, the formation of alliances and imperialism were the long-term causes, while the death of Archduke Ferdinand and Serbia’s failure to honor the ten-point ultimatum were the immediate causes of WW1.
Undoubtedly, the build-up towards the First World War started early in the mid-19th century due to imperialism. The industrialized European powers were competing for colonies across the world, especially in Asia and Africa (World War I, n.d.). Apart from viewing imperialism as an economic venture, most Europeans perceived that their military, culture, and race were superior and should influence the entire world. As more European powers realized the financial advantage and prestige that came with colonies, the idea became more competitive to the extent of nations clashing and almost starting war.
Britain and France acquired the most significant share, which angered other European countries (World War I, n.d.). As a result, rivalries emerged, but Britain and France perceived their vast colonies as confirmation of being influential states in Europe.
Imperialism created hostility and paved the way for the formation of alliances. After the Franco-Prussian war of 1871, the German states united while defeated France remained disgruntled after losing part of its territory, Loraine and Alsace (World War I, n.d.).
To cushion herself from future war with Germany and Austria-Hungary, France allied with Russia. Britain also sought an alliance with France after realizing it was friendless following the Second Boer War in South Africa between 1899 and 1902. Russia also allied itself with Serbia in the Balkan region. Due to Russia’s large population, Germany and Austria-Hungary saw it as a potential threat and decided to form an alliance (World War I, n.d.). Thus, two antagonistic groups were formed; Triple Entente comprising France, Russia, and Britain, while Triple Alliance consisted of Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Italy.
At the same time, the Ottoman Empire was disintegrating with different ethnic groups seeking independence. Rising nationalism led to various wars in the Balkan region, with the Second Balkan War of 1912-1913 promoting Serbia to increase its size (World War I, n.d.). Austria-Hungary had equally gained territory from the Ottoman Empire, including Bosnia Herzegovina, inhabited mainly by South Slavic people. Serbia wanted to unite all the Serbs in the Balkan region, but Austria-Hungary was not ready to surrender Bosnia Herzegovina. The Serbs in Austria-Hungary were also pushing to break away and join Serbia.
At the height of nationalism, one young Serbian nationalist, Gavrilo Princip, shot dead Austria-Hungarian heir Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophia while visiting Bosnia. The tension between Serbia and her allies and Austria-Hungary and her friends heightened (World War I, n.d.). Austria-Hungary gave Serbia a ten-point ultimatum, which Serbia honored only nine points. Russia promised Serbia support in case Austria-Hungary, which Germany had pledged reinforcement, attacked. On July 14, 1914, World War One officially started and continued for the next four years before ending in 1918.
Overall, the First World War started due to various factors. However, historians agree that among the long-term causes were imperialism and the formation of alliances. Triple Entente became the Allied Powers while the Triple alliance was Central Powers during the war. However, the most immediate causes of the war were the killing of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife. Moreover, Serbia’s failure to honor Austria-Hungary’s ten-point ultimatum escalated the conflict.
The Second World War marked the starting of the Korea predicament. According to SparkNotes, the 1950-1953 war started when the South Koreans, who were non communists, were attacked by the communist army of North Korea. This is when the Allies were assigned to take over the Korean cape that was previously engaged by Japan.
It is during the 38th parallel that the Korean responsibility was divided between the Soviet Union and the United States. According to the Australian War Memorial, the years that followed saw the Soviet Union promote a tough collective administration in the north, while in the south, the government received support from the US. Anxiety rose by the mid 1950 amid the two regions, with each one of them being governed by a different government, up to the position where each one of the aggressive armies was reinforcing along the boundary.
On 25 of June 1950, the army of the North Korea lastly made its way into the southern region, and proceeded towards Seoul, the capital (Turner Publishing Company 15). In a period that was less than seven days, the city fell. This saw the North Korean military precede their way to the south, towards the significant Pusan port, deliberately.
In two days time, South Korea received support from the US which included both sea and air. According to SparkNotes, the Security Council of the United Nations requested for all its members to help in repelling molest by the North Koreans. This received a good response as troops, medical squads, aircraft, and ships, were offered by twenty one countries.
According to Australian War Memorial, Australia offered the Australian Royal Regiment, 77 RAAF Squadron, and the 3rd Battalion. During this point in time, both of them were located in Japan where they formed a component of the Occupation Force of the British Commonwealth.
Discussion
SparkNotes records that, United States did not consider Korea as of strategic importance, but at this period, the Cold War political environment was one that would define that policy makers were tough on communism. Technically, the intervention by the US was in form of police action that was managed by a peace keeping force of the United Nations. In reality, the US and the anti communists of NATO were maneuvering the UN to suit their own interests (Poulantzas 332).
The Inchon attack
In September 1950, while the US, the South Korean, and the UN armies stuck beside the sea at Pusan, Spaknotes records that, a bold amphibious attack was coordinated by Douglas C. McArthur on Inchon. This is a port located on Koreas Western coast. MacArthur, who used to be the Southwest Pacific commander during the Second World War, oversaw Japan’s occupation period after war. He also was in charge of the UN army in the early stages of the war in Korea.
With this accomplishment, McArthur evoked the South Korea capital, Seoul, through a pincer progress thereby overwhelming the North Korea army which by then was attacking Pusan (Poulantzas 331). He did not get contented with this fast mission he made on South Korea, but with the help of the US, he traversed the 38th parallel. He chased the North Korean forces up to the North Korea northern most provinces (Poulantzas 332).
Chinese Intrusion
Scared, an army was clandestinely sent by the China Republic across River Yalu (Poulantzas 331). This is because the China Republic thought that US wanted to use North Korea to fight Manchuria. The Chinese force assaulted the US, the South Korea, and the UN armies. As of Australian War Memorial, when Lt. General Mathew Ridgway was appointed as the ground forces commander, there was progress in the American spirits, making the proposal to sway against the Chinese Communists’.
The Sack of McArthur
With the hope of ending the war fast, President Truman had to dismiss MacArthur as he did not oblige to his orders (Sweeney and Byrne 245). The president wanted him to be more diplomatic, but McArthur, the bright strategist, persisted, issuing provocative lines of his wishes of bringing together Korea.
According to SparkNotes, with the help of the Joint Staff Chiefs, the president was able to remove McArthur from authority. Though the decision was detested by Americans as McArthur was considered an admired war hero, the support of the Joint Staff Chiefs is the one that saved the president from prosecution after the dismissal.
Ridgway as the commander
As per Australian War Memorial, Ridgway held the position of the commander, and avoided the communists with strong defenses and entrenchments, immediate the 38th parallel north. This is by sending occasional insults against the iron triangle, which was the enactment area for assaults meant for South Korea.
SparkNotes notes that, in the years 1951 and 1952, peace dialogues pulled at Kaesong, then made their way at Panmunjom. Through strategic bombing, the US attempted to frighten the communists into making dialogues of a peace accord, but they refused to move, mainly on the Prisoner of War matter repatriation ((Turner Publishing Company 13).
Both sides wanted to emerge strong making the talks to continue, sometimes stopping for months. This is because the Communists alleged that they were insulted by Mathew Ridgeway, and were demanding for an apology.
According to Australian War Memorial, the negotiations were resumed on October, but the location was changed to Panmunjom. Merely after a war hero, Eisenhower, who did not fear republican disapproval became president, the US formed ample compromises to the communists.
A peace agreement was marked on 27 July1953 at Panmunjom, after seventeen negotiation days, bringing to an end the war in Korea, which lasted for two years (Turner Publishing Company 12).This brought back Korea to a split position, essentially to similar as it was, prior to the war. Both the war and its effect did not contribute to the reduction of the anxiety that was there in the Cold War period.
Conclusion
The war created a crisis in Korea as it destroyed most of the country’s industrial plants. Regardless of the hydroelectric and mineral wealth found in North Korea, the region ended up in poverty, and could not afford to catch up with the financial rate of South Korea.
According to SparkNotes, this made South Korea to be four times the gross domestic product of North Korea. However, North Korea stayed quite sovereign of PRC and USSR authority. Actually, Chinese and Soviet wrangling over the one supposed to settle the bill for the war in Korea was one aspect in the Sino-Soviet Split, obvious soon after the cold war.
The Korean War was a depressing occurrence for the US. This is because it was the first war in which the US involved itself in and lost (Sweeney and Byrne 245). The war which claimed a total of 4 million lives including 50,000 of the US soldiers showed the US that, though it was able to come out of the Second World War as a powerful country, it was unable to firmly and imminently achieve its will and desires. Through this ending, America was able to improve and harden the Cold War policy for its future (Sweeney and Byrne 245).
Works Cited
Australian War Memorial. Korean War 1950-53. 2011. Web.
Poulantzas, Nicholas, M. The right of hot pursuit in international law. Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002. Print.
SparkNotes. The Korean War (1950-1953). 2011. Web.
Sweeney, Jerry, K., and Byrne, Kevin, B. A handbook of American military history: from the Revolutionary War to the present. Lincoln, NE: U of Nebraska Press, 2006. Print.
Turner Publishing Company. Strike Swiftly Korea 1950-1953: 70th Heavy Tank Battalion. Nashville, TN: Turner Publishing Company, 1988.
The modern approach to war is radically different from the strategies used in the past. Direct confrontation and a single battle are nowadays replaced by the strategic maneuver and creation of the effective logistics chain. WWII became a critical stage in the history of humanity and governments and resulted in the reconsideration of the approach to military campaigns and measures needed to attain success.
As one of the winners of WWII, the USA learned an essential lesson of how to lead military conflicts and attain desired outcomes. Since 1940, U.S. success in warfare has centered around large-scale nation-state conflict focused on a whole-of-government approach, effective logistical processes, and the development of technology. It resulted in the emergence of new tactics and strategies and, at the same time, helped to make the U.S. positions at the international level stronger.
Government Approach
As stated in the thesis, the government and its support play a critical role in military campaigns led by the USA. The whole-of-government approach has been a marker of successful warfare at the strategic level since 1940. Synchronizing the defense, diplomacy, and development efforts of all federal agencies maximizes the use of resources and allows for a unified effort leading to greater chances of achieving strategic goals. Employing this paradigm, the USA managed to create a pool of resources that can be used for strategic purposes to focus on diplomacy or activity of governmental agencies and support their effective functioning.
The state’s position and strategy during the Cold War can be used as one of the examples explaining the critical role of the government in successful warfare. Thus, the National Security Council (NSC) 68 entitled “United States Objectives and Programs for National Security” was a top-secret report by the Defense Department, the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and other interested agencies.
NSC-68 was vital in America’s overall shift in foreign policy to a comprehensive containment strategy of a strategic great power competitor (Soviet Union) and towards all communist governments. Providing substantial governmental support to the work of this agency, the USA managed to generate a competitive advantage over its closest rival and avoid direct confrontation by using diplomacy and other non-military resources. As a result, the long-term goals were achieved, and the USA became the winner in the Cold War.
The work of Joint Task Force-Bravo can also prove the critical importance of governmental involvement. Its role in countering communism and narcotics from 1980 to 2010 cannot be denied, as this joint task force helped to eliminate numerous threats to the global order and protect the existing regimes. As a result, specific goals were achieved, and the USA preserved its influence in various regions. It became a result of the combination of military and non-military resources and collaboration between various agencies.
The global war on terrorism initiated by the U.S. government is another example of how the state attains success in warfare. The political decision to start military campaigns against various groups helped to gather support and use available resources to plan and carry out numerous operations. For this reason, the USA’s central role in resisting the terrorist threat is explained by its current approach to making war. Various forms of governmental involvement help to resolve existing issues and promote better outcomes.
Finally, Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) and USNORTHCOM are also critical parts of the existing strategy. It implies that the U.S. Army can be used to help civil authorities. For example, hurricane Katrina’s aftermath was managed using military forces, which helped to support order and avoid critical outcomes. In such a way, cooperation between the government and the Army results in numerous successes and the achievement of current goals vital for the state and its survival.
Logistics
As stated previously, current military operations are characterized by increased sophistication and demands for supply. Thus, similar to how the synchronization of all elements of national power has marked successful warfare at the strategic level in the modern era, the efficient logistics platforms for supply, transport, and maintenance have marked success at the operational level. It means that creating effective supply chains and transportation junctions is vital for attaining final success. Otherwise, the lack of planning and control will result in the collapse due to the insufficient supply of resources.
During World War II, the Battle of St. Vith illustrates the importance of controlling the flow of transportation to track supplies. The town was a critical road junction with increased strategic importance, meaning its control would help a party to acquire a competitive advantage. For this reason, today, the U.S. army focuses on gaining control over the infrastructure and junctions to align adequate supply and protect it from numerous risks. It helps to attain success and perform existing tasks. At the same time, it reduces the risks of being surrounded and defeated because of the lack of strategic maneuvers.
Furthermore, efficient traffic control and ammunition supply points increased the lethality of U.S. forces and ensured an armistice with North Korea. The military conflict was characterized by sophisticated strategic plans and decisions, as well as armies’ maneuvers and moves. For this reason, the U.S. control over roads and supply points reduced the effectiveness of the North Korean army and created the basis for negotiations and following peace. The example also proves the critical significance of logistics and the necessity to use all available resources to align the infrastructure vital for supporting the army.
The war in Vietnam also revealed the fundamental role of supply points and junctions. Effective logistical supply and transportation processes, along with the use of the helicopter during the battle of the la Drang Valley, ensured the sustainability of U.S. forces for long-term combat operations. At the same time, the U.S. failure to secure its major roads and infrastructure from constant attacks resulted in the failure of the whole campaign and the inability to attain success in the region.
Technology
Finally, technology also becomes one of the critical elements of successful warfare. Since 1940, successful warfare at the tactical level capitalized on technological advancements, specifically with new weapons systems and equipment. Increasing the speed of kill-chain lethality, sometimes through technological advancements, enables faster responses and allows for greater exploitation of successes before a subsequent reaction or counteraction. For this reason, The USA devotes much attention to developing military technologies as the guarantee of its security.
The atomic bomb during World War II served to deter future conflicts and hostilities and to end World War II. This event shows the significance of technological superiority and its use as a possible tool to win a war or attain success. Using a new and devastating weapon, the USA stopped the further escalation and avoided new victims among different populations. For this reason, today, technology has become a critical aspect of modern warfare and helps to minimize risks of unexpected strikes or attacks.
Lessons learned from previous operations also help to promote technological development. The Huey helicopter served as a combat multiplier for air assault and medical evacuation operations and resulted in better future weaponry, such as the Black Hawk. It resulted in the emergence of technological superiority and contributed to the creation of a new military vehicle. It could be used in different regions to struggle against enemies and defeat them. In such a way, the given examples show the critical importance of technologies for successful warfare and how the USA employs this aspect to create the basis for future dominance.
Conclusion
Altogether, the 20th century was characterized by critical alterations in the approaches to military strategy and tactics. Two world wars demonstrated the increased effectiveness of combined efforts and new methods to achieve current goals and attain success. Since 1940, success in warfare has centered around large-scale nation-state conflict focused on a whole-of-government approach, effective logistical processes, and the development of technology.
Nesting these three tenets under the strategic, operational, and tactical umbrella creates a coherent lens for commanders to understand, visualize, and describe their operations successfully. The USA successfully integrated these elements into its new strategy and reconsidered its approaches to warfare. Ensuring governmental support, controlling logistics and supply points, and fostering technological development, the army became one of the dominant forces in the world.
Bibliography
Army Futures Command. “Vision.” AmryFuturesCommand. Web.