Balance+of+Power

is driving .. Gay ??? first .. u grab a stick 😳😳 then u throw it in reverse 😣😣 n go backwards .. which is the opposite of straight .. 😦😦 n then pull out 😡😡 of your parking spot ........ idk ... jus know imma be walkin to school from now on 🏃🏽‍♂️💯

//Balance of Power & World War One (//pg. 54-63)

1. Explain the author’s belief about balance of power & the preservation of peace. What is meant by “anarchic state system”? The author believes that the balance of power is essential to peace. Having one country that is too powerful might try to control or take over everybody else. Having a sovereign state is pretty important because they need to rule themselves. The balance of power is simply put, a scale. Once the scale tips too far one way, it leads to bad things. A state is a self-governing political entity. An anarchic state system is every system for themselves. At the end of the day, country X is looking out for county X’s security. The European Union acts as separate bodies, some countries sent troops to Iraq, others didn’t. 2. Define “power”. He says that power is the ability to achieve one’s purposes or goals. It’s also defined as the ability to get others to do what they otherwise would not do. Hard power is the first definition and soft power is the second. Both say that it’s to get eventually what you want. Obama has the ability (OR POWER) to persuade. That’s why when he tells the Egyptian leader to step down, his voice has weight. 3. What is “power conversion”? Power conversion is a converting resources into effective influence. It’s the capacity to convert potential power, as measured by resources, to realized power, as measured by the changed behavior of others. 4. What is the significance of the growth of rail systems? Rail systems allow rapid mobilization of troops and supplies to the front. Usually takes a while. It took them about six weeks to mobilize. 5. Explain the difference between “hard power” and “soft power”. Hard power can be accomplished through “sticks” or through “carrots”, which means they themselves are in charge of getting people to do things. Soft power is getting others to do what you want for you. Hard power could be defined as violence, such as the punching of faces. Soft power could be incentives. 6. Summarize/outline “Balances as Distributions of Power” 7. Summarize/outline “Balance of Power as Policy” Balancing of Power can be considered as a policy of balancing. It predicts that states will act to prevent any one state from developing a preponderance (overwhelming majority) of power. Bandwagoning – going along with the winning side, or the side of the majority. 8. Summarize/outline “Balance of Power as Multipolar Systems”. Multi-polar – opposites! Incredible ups and down in policy. An example of extreme polarization is Germany, there was communism or fascism. THAT WAS IT! If you weren’t one, you were the other. French revolution gave rise to liberalism. It means democracy, or the rights of the individual. There was a bipolarity of alliance systems. remember to always include the alliance system, and the –isms!! This is why Hitler is more or less the most studied person from this time period.
 * Balance of power can mean any distribution of power
 * balance of power can mean security
 * the opposite of security can mean change
 * If one small state changes sides, it could act as a catalyst for further change.
 * diplomacy – using negotiations (compromise) to deal with international relations as opposed to violence
 * collective security – if any state loses sovereignty, then all states are theatened

The International System (1871-1890) · The European State System in 1871 o Europe finally has “Nation-States” § Nation-State – representatives of the nation run the government and state institutions, state boundaries coincide with those of the nation § the desire for nation-states is STILL hotly debated o Ottoman Empire § by 1870 known as the “sick man” of Europe § soon it’s going to DIE § After WWI, it’s one of the defeated countries · made into Turkey · there was no Turkey until after WWI – important to make this distinction · Conflict in the Balkans… o Ottoman Empire as the “sick man of Europe” … creates a “power vacuum” o Russian pan-Slavism § the fatherly approach of Russia as the protector of all the Slavic people · pan – greater (latin) § Serbs are in the Balkans · to some extent caused WWI · after WWII became Yugoslavia o did away with nationalism · 1991-1992 o Yugoslavia broke up  o genocide – NATO bombing o still (today) half destroyed o mountain mines… o horrible ethnic cleansing


 * Was Bismarck’s foreign policy a success of failure?
 * success: kept France isolated for 20 years, period of unprecedented peace in Europe
 * failure: short term responses were simple crises management; set background for future problems
 * Europe finally has Nation-States
 * the boundaries coincide with those of the people
 * Bismarck
 * crafts new international system
 * Germany needs stability, status quo
 * unification brought hegemony, no need for huge war
 * consolidate to become a genuine nation-state
 * German nationalism
 * hatred of foreigners was bred in schools
 * Nationalism breeds Nation-States
 * fine line between good and bad
 * consolidate to become genuine nation-state
 * goal of all of Bismarck’s policies were to isolate French politically and diplomatically
 * there was no diplomacy! they were angryful at Germany
 * policy of revanchist
 * coopereate with GB
 * friendship with Russia
 * subordinate A-H through alliance
 * Bismarck could be the first real politician of the modern era – flexible
 * was willing to say one thing and do another
 * was the Chancellor – appointed by the Emperor (Wilhelm I)
 * gave Bismarck this freedom – had no problem with it
 * consolidate to become genuine nation-state
 * crafts new international system
 * Assumption that France will remain hostile to Germany
 * revenge for Alsace-Lorraine
 * encourage republic so France wouldn’t ally with Russia
 * drives them away from tsarist Russia
 * supports French liberalism
 * mostly through spies….
 * VERY pragmatic here
 * encouraged French Imperialism
 * why – to let them fight it out with Italy and GB in Africa and Asia
 * all of Africa was carved up… L
 * leads the French to become involved in wars
 * wants to isolate France every chance he can get
 * Bismarck pursued cooperation with GB
 * few potential sources of conflict
 * Bismark saw a really good opportunity
 * make good allies
 * GB has the world’s largest navy
 * nobody wants to mess with them J
 * and of course BG needs a strong Germany to balance power of France
 * Genuine cooperation between world’s biggest army (Germany) and navy (GB)
 * Machiavellian in a way – or PRAGMATIC!
 * Genuine cooperation between world’s biggest army (Germany) and navy (GB)
 * Machiavellian in a way – or PRAGMATIC!

Kasia Budzen

Together with the balance of power, the alliances before WWI can be argued to be one of the main causes of WWI. Although they are in a way intertwined, I will try to organize the notes and homework we took to give the overview of what we need to know about the alliance system prior to WWI in Europe. Relating to the focus sheet, the alliance system refers to the ‘breakdown of European diplomacy pre-1914’ in the intro and the first bullet point that refers to that as well as the third bullet point: ‘Relative importance of: the Alliance System’. I will update this list periodically and all people are welcome to contribute.

TROUBLES OF THE TRIPLE ENTENTE/ALLIANCE The Triple Entente lasted between Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia to protect each other in times of need. However, the ‘Triple’ in the title lasted only five years after which Russia withdrew from the Alliance, leaving Germany and Russia. It was started up again when Italy joined some years later, but its role was not as important and was limited to Italy not declaring a war on Austria-Hungary over land disputes. The reason for the withdrawal could be argued that Austria and Russia clashed in the Balkans because Russia still retained control over Serbia, but it was also the country which Austria-Hungary had the biggest probability of influencing. Germany was still allied with Austria, but it was uncertain that it would aid its partner in the dispute. Italy was really ambiguous in the Triple Alliance between her and Germany and Austria-Hungary and the Triple Entente between Russia, France and Great Britain was not a solid arrangement either. Allies of Russia were worried by its lack of military strength after their defeat in the Russo-Japanese War. BISMARCK & ALLIANCES As we learned, with the unification of Germany ended the German thirst for power and conquest. Instead, Bismarck wanted to focus on securing a safe international relations future within Europe, also to protect it from the French revanche that he knew would result after the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine. To do this, he started to build the complex system of European alliances. At the beginning, Germany did not fear a Franco-British alliance because of Great Britain’s self-declared ‘Splendid Isolation’. After a time, however, the French and the British formed the alliance known as the Franco-British Entente to counter the growth of Germany and to balance the power in Europe. MARTEL & ALLIANCES The system of alliances could have been an underlying cause of the war, because it led the countries into it by a ‘slippery slope’. The tight network gave them security, but also obligations. Martel underlines this by describing that the League of Nations was created precisely to give states an alternative to these networks that could be partly blamed for starting the destruction and chaos of WW1. Sources: Europe Book http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm (this is an awesome website by the way!!) Martel