×
Log in to StudySoup
Get Full Access to FSU - INR 3003 - Class Notes - Week 2
Join StudySoup for FREE
Get Full Access to FSU - INR 3003 - Class Notes - Week 2

Already have an account? Login here
×
Reset your password

FSU / International Studies / INR 3003 / Italy invades Ethiopia when?

Italy invades Ethiopia when?

Italy invades Ethiopia when?

Description

School: Florida State University
Department: International Studies
Course: Introduction to International Affairs
Professor: Whitney bendeck
Term: Fall 2016
Tags:
Cost: 25
Name: Introduction to International Affairs week of 9/13
Description: These notes cover the lectures from class on tuesday 9/13 and thursday 9/15.
Uploaded: 09/18/2016
8 Pages 4 Views 8 Unlocks
Reviews


September 13, 2016


Italy invades Ethiopia when?



Overview of lecture Key Points 

Realism & the Origins of Major Power Wars 

1. WW1

a. Germany and the Security Dilemma

b. Balance of power and Reasons for its Demise

i. Power Transition

ii. Russia and Preventative War

2. Interwar to WW2

a. Pyrrhic Victory

b. Balance of Power?

c. League of Nations

i. Japan (Manchukuo) & Italy

d. Appeasement

e. Nazi Germany as a Revisionist State

i. Mearsheimer’s viewpoint

3. Cold War Erupts

a. Division of Post-War Europe

b. East-Central Europe = Soviet Satellites

c. Marshall Plan

d. NATO (1949) Warsaw Pact (1955)

e. Bi-Polar world = Balance of Power  Don't forget about the age old question of chem 1 study guide

Prisoners Dilemma  

∙   2 prisoners arrested, they have to decide if they will confess the  other did the crime so they can be free


How many people died in WW2?



∙   Outcomes

o Prisoner A and Prisoner B don’t talk = both get 1 year o Prisoner A does not confess Prisoner B = B gets parole, A  gets life in jail

 Best choice for B  

o Prisoner A confesses and Prisoner B does not = A gets  parole B gets life

 Best choice for A

o Both confess = both get 20 years  

 Each prisoner is assuming this is likely, avoid worst  outcome of life in jail  

∙ Used as part of game theory to help us break down the thought  process that states will go through to understand their decision  making

∙ Realist standpoint on PD

o No communication between the 2 prisoners We also discuss several other topics like four point msu

o Play as a “one chance” game  

 You have to make the right decision the first time

 Instantaneous consequences for states actions

∙ During cold war, politicians used this mindset when thinking if we should arm with nuclear weapons


July 1956 Nasser nationalized what?



o If we disarm and the USSR disarms = minimal  

consequences

 We do not trust the USSR will disarm  

 USSR doesn’t disarm because they don’t trust US will disarm

o Avoided worst outcome of nuclear war because neither  acted with weaponry  

World War I 

The Set Up  

∙ Started due to mix of events

o Not assassination of Ferdinand

 Easy singular event to blame

o Unification of Germany  

 Went from 39 states to 1

 Weak with 39 states

o Otto von Bismarck  

 Practitioner of realpolitik

 New German empire would be very strong under him ∙ Started negotiating alliances to help secure  

new German empire

o  More tension (realists don’t trust states,

didn’t know what they wanted or what  

they would do)

o Increases security dilemma

o Outsiders felt they had 2 choices to ensure Germany  wouldn’t harm others

 1. Stop the growth

∙ Went into play after WWI  clearly didn’t work  We also discuss several other topics like pexs

 2. Befriend them  

∙ Went into play after WWII

∙ Power transition  

o Realists believe this is the best time for war  

o Don’t see this as something that tends to happen  

peacefully

o Power transition taking place as Germany is surpassing  Britain

 Declining power may act aggressively as they try to  maintain their position

 Rising power may act aggressively so they can prove they are powerful  

o Balance of power is the best way to avoid war, so why did  WWI erupt?

 Realism says even with BOP, things can go wrong

o Russia on the rise  

The War  

∙ Major alliances

o Triple entente

 Britain, France, Russia  

∙ US joins later

o Central powers  

 Germany, Austria, Hungary If you want to learn more check out humberto lopez castillo ucf

∙ Italy in the start, switches over throughout  

∙ Death toll ~ 15 million  

∙ 4 European empires fell with the war

o Ottoman, German, Russian, Hungarian  

∙ Ends with Treaty of Versailles  

Post-War 

∙ Victors

 o Pyrrhic Victory: the victory wasn’t worth winning

 More is lost than gained

 Come out weaker  

∙    Great Britain, France and US lost a generation  Don't forget about the age old question of How do we interpret and respond to external events?

of men

∙    Most of war was fought in France  devastation  

of the country  

∙    No balance of power in Europe

o Great Britain often seen as major power but there was no  way they could maintain peace

 Psychological harm If you want to learn more check out What is cellular differentiation?

∙    War revolt  

∙    TS Elliott’s “Wasteland”  

o  Multi-polar Europe

League of Nations and Inter-War period 

∙ Did not mesh with state behavior

∙ Created by Wilson, not passed by Congress  US never joined

∙    Tried to bring about collective security, peace through  cooperation  

∙    Had no way of enforcing cooperation  

o No military  

 Member states would have had to provide and no  

one was strong enough  

 Could only enforce sanctions  

o No way of making powers stay in league

∙ Failed at maintaining the peace  

o Japan in 1931 – increasing its imperial possessions and  moves into Manchuria (Chinese territory)  Manchukuo  First time the league was tested and failed  

∙ Japan member with veto power and left the  

league  

o Italy in 1935- invades Ethiopia  

 Ethiopia appealed to the LoN  

 Italy member of LoN

 LoN issued token sanctions  

∙ Sanctions that wouldn’t hurt Italy  

 Nazis had already overcome Germany and fascism  was strong in Italy—LoN was scared to aggressively  

treat Italy  

 Lost Rhineland  

∙ Frances buffer  

∙ During this time and power struggle within the LoN, Germany  violated Treaty of Versailles and openly rearmed

∙ Concerns for Germany were growing and the LoN failed to stop  their growth  WWII

o Realists blame that there was no BOP  

∙ No one blames the LoN because no one thought it would work  o States will act in their own individual interests  

 Japan, Germany, Italy

∙ Liberals believed it could work, so they place blame on LoN  o Institution itself was flawed, not the idea  

 Major flaw: US didn’t join  

Mearshimer’s assumptions on States from a Realist Viewpoint  1.  

2.  

3. States can never be certain of each other’s assumptions 4. Survival is primary goal  

5. States are rational actors, calculating how to ensure their survival  ∙ Powerful incentives for great powers to think and act offensively  with regard to each other

o Great powers fear each other

o Function according to self-help

 Shouldn’t e surprised that Germany, in an inter-war  period, acted aggressively  

∙ No one was in the system that could stop Germany from  becoming a hegemon  

o No potential hegemon wants “friends”  alienates potential hegemons from other countries  Cold War  

o

Rise of the Cold War 

∙ ~ 75 mil. People died in WWII (BENDECK DID NOT LECTURE  ON THE ACTUAL HAPPENINGS OF THE WAT) 

∙ After WWI we tried to weaken Germany what should we do  now?

o Divided up between the 4 allied powers  

∙ “cold” war because we had a balanced power  no fire  ∙ Marshall Plan (1948): offering economic aid to the states of  Europe, linking the 3 allied zones together

o British, American and French merged into 1 economic unit  o USSR threatened by this because they didn’t know what  the intentions were  Blockaded Berlin  Berlin Air Lift  o 1949 official split in Germany between the East and West

September 15, 2016

Overview of lecture

Realism and the Cold War 

1. Nature of the Cold War

a. Suez Canal Crisis

i. Nasser

ii. Suez War (1956)

iii. Lessons We Can Learn

b. Cuban Missile Crisis (1962)

2. Cold War Deterrence

a. Weighing the Risks

b. Conventional vs. Nuclear Weapons

c. Impact of Nuclear Deterrence

d. Nuclear Power and a Peaceful End to the Cold War

3. Ending the Cold War

a. Decline of Soviet Military Power, Influence and Economy b. East-Central Europe

c. The Fall

4. Will We Miss the Cold War?

Cold War 

∙ Very genuine concern of nuclear war

o Nuclear attack drills in schools

∙ Proxy wars: wars on the periphery

o Common during cold war

o Vietnam war

 USSR “Victory”

∙ War between 2 nuclear powers is unwinnable

o Rational power would not engage because they would see  the calculated risk  

o Nuclear weapons have far-reaching effects  

 Larger impact, greater devastation  

∙ Power of deterrence  

∙ Less big territorial land grabs  

∙ Spread of communism  increased USSR power  

Role of Egypt 

∙ Little states can play a huge pivotal role  

∙ Suez Canal important for flow of goods

∙ Gamal Abdel Nasser, President of Egypt in 1956

o Primary concern: Egyptian security

o Both poles in CW were trying to buy over Nasser for control of the canal  

 Played both sides

 Aswan High Dam project

o Recognized communist China  escalated tensions with US  US recognized Nasser was playing them, pulled  

economic support  

∙ July 1956 Nasser nationalized the canal

o Britain lost control of very important area

o Israel concerned because Egypt is strengthening and  aligning with Syria and Jordan

∙ October 1956 Israeli army moves and occupies Sinai peninsula o French and Brits send in troops to occupy canal zone o US encouraged all 3 powers to stop, OPEC sanctions  

against Israel, OPEC oil embargo against Brit and France   Why?  Risk of USSR threatening Brit and France with attack  cold war  hot war

∙ If the USSR attacks an US ally in Europe, US  

promised to get involved

∙ “if you attack one of our allies in Europe, it’s  

the same thing as attacking us”

∙ Eisenhower said we would hit them with  

“everything we have”  nuclear war  

∙ Both sides understand that a nuclear war was not what anyone  wanted, so threats were taken seriously  

Cuban Missile Crisis 

∙ 90 miles off coast of Florida

∙ USSR seeking to “nuclearize” Cuba  

∙ Security dilemma for US

∙ Geography crucial  

∙ End result: both sides end up backing down

o USSR backs down first after US ultimatum

 If USSR doesn’t dismantle, US engages in war

o Ensured an exit strategy so that USSR could back down   Both countries worked to maintain BOP to avoid  

nuclear war  

∙ Realists focus on importance of deterrence in conflict  o Countries will only engage in war if they feel they can win  war  

Ending the Cold War  

∙ Soviet system comes crashing down

o China pulls out of USSR alliance

o Cuba was sucking money and could not hold weaponry  USSR humiliated at the fail  

o USSR 10-year war with Afghanistan 1979

 Had to walk away without a victory  

o Ronald Reagan re-energized the nuclear arms race  USSR  realizing they could not keep up with us

o Easter European satellite states being supported by  Moscow

o USSR going broke  

∙ Gorbachev rises to power

o Implements political and economic reform  

o Encourages soviets to take more initiative  fall of berlin  wall  

 He would not crack down on them like previous  

leaders  

o Malta conference

 Met with Bush Senior

∙ Negotiated the end of the war

 Gorbachev recognized the US would become the  hegemon  

∙ Peaceful end to war  

∙ Realists say that ultimately the US possessed the advantage  o Liberals say that the US and USSR leaders started meeting  together and the more frequent conversation  less of an  enemy  

∙ Mearschimer says we will miss the cold war

o BOP with bi-polar configuration

o Never had a hot war

o Half a century of peace

o Once we no longer have this equilibrium, powers were  align against it

Page Expired
5off
It looks like your free minutes have expired! Lucky for you we have all the content you need, just sign up here