JAIN DIP-411 PERIOD 3 PAGE 1
RESPONSE PAPER
LAST NAME: JAIN
FIRST NAME: SANJAY
PROGRAM CODE: DMCR
COURSE CODE: DIP-411
PERIOD NUMBER: 3
INSTRUCTOR: CLEENEWERCK
Edit or delete text to show the actual information below:
The author applied U.K. conventions of grammar, usage, and mechanics
The student must use Turabian/Chicago parenthetical/in-text references (ideally with Zotero) and confirm below:
The author did use Zotero to insert references
The author did use Grammarly Premium
My plagiarism rate (per Grammarly Premium) is 0%
The author used the following software: MSWord for Mac 16.89
Five key concepts with page number in text:
1. The Leader As A Cause Of War (Stoessinger 1993, 5)
2. Nationalism As A Cause Of War (Stoessinger 1993, 24)
3. Misconceptions Leading To War (Stoessinger 1993, 45)
4. Alliances And Impacts On War (Stoessinger 1993, 63)
5. Social And Economic Causes of War (Stoessinger 1993, 84)
6. Ideology As A Cause Of War (Stoessinger 1993, 103)05/07/2018 09:47:00 PM
WHY NATIONS GO TO WAR
1) INTRODUCTION
John G. Stoessinger’s Why Nations Go to War (Stoessinger 1993) provides a
fascinating perspective on the motivations of leaders involved in national conflicts,
highlighting the choices of individual leaders and the erratic and unpredictable nature of
international relations. Stoessinger explains his perspective of several historical instances,
evaluating leadership roles, misconceptions, nationalism, power conflicts, and alliances
in the causation of wars. I have attempted to assess his arguments, concurring with some
insights while dissenting on others. Each topic is examined to ascertain the contemporary
relevance of Stoessinger’s perceptions in the current global scenario.
2) IT IS THE LEADER WHO GOES TO WAR, NOT THE
NATION
Stoessinger underscores the pivotal importance of leadership and the potential for
leaders’ miscalculations to precipitate warfare (Stoessinger 1993, 5). I concur with his
argument that individual leaders exert considerable influence over a nation’s trajectory,
JAIN DIP-411 PERIOD 3 PAGE 2
particularly with Adolf Hitler’s involvement in instigating World War II. Stoessinger
contends that Hitler’s unrestrained aspirations and warped perspective propelled
Germany into a disastrous conflict (Stoessinger 1993, 8). I agree that leadership can be
decisive between war and peace, as demonstrated by several historical instances. I
disagree with Stoessinger’s emphasis on leadership; I believe that although leaders are
pivotal, the structural conditions in which they function, including economic pressures
and public sentiment, also impact their decisions. Public unrest in Germany following
World War I created a conducive environment for Hitler’s power. I contend that
leadership and more comprehensive systemic variables must be considered.
3) NATIONALISM AS A CAUSE OF WAR
The historical role of nationalism and ethnic differences leading to or inflaming
conflicts is examined in detail. Great emphasis is placed on the Balkan Wars and the
disintegration of Yugoslavia (Stoessinger 1993, 24). I concur that nationalism can be
perilous, leading to conflicts among various ethnic groups and cultivating animosity
between states. This is well illustrated by the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians when
entrenched ethnic animosities erupted into violence (Stoessinger 1993, 27). I agree, as
historical evidence illustrates the perilous nature of unbridled nationalist fervour,
especially when associated with ethnic identity and territorial assertions. However,
Stoessinger does not adequately consider how globalisation has reshaped nationalism in
contemporary society. In the modern era, nationalism frequently intersects with global
migration trends and economic inequality. The emergence of populist nationalist
movements in Europe and the United States illustrates that nationalism is increasingly
driven by economic anxieties rather than solely by ethnic issues.
4) MISCONCEPTIONS LEADING TO WAR
Misconception can precipitate warfare, as exemplified by the Vietnam War,
where American officials misinterpreted the essence of Vietnamese nationalism and
overestimated their military capabilities (Stoessinger 1993, 45). I concur with
Stoessinger’s argument that misperceptions can yield catastrophic outcomes, resulting in
prolonged disputes that might have been averted via more transparent communication
and enhanced understanding. His examination of the Vietnam War underscores the
profound deficiencies in the U.S. leaders’ understanding of their adversaries and
themselves (Stoessinger 1993, 47). I do, however, believe that Stoessinger is entirely
correct in attributing the entire blame to the misperceptions of American officials while
inadequately examining the role of Vietnamese leaders in sustaining the conflict. Each
side maintained erroneous perceptions of the other, worsening the prolonged conflict. I
believe that misperception frequently constitutes a bilateral dilemma, wherein both
parties are trapped in a loop of misunderstanding, perpetuating each other’s deepest
anxieties.
JAIN DIP-411 PERIOD 3 PAGE 3
5) ALLIANCES AND IMPACTS ON WAR
Stoessinger has intricately analysed the role of alliances as catalysts for war,
particularly when nations are obligated to support one another, even in disputes that may
not correspond with their national interests (Stoessinger 1993, 63). I concur with his
evaluation that alliances, especially during World War I, were crucial in entangling states
in combat (Stoessinger 1993, 66). The intricate alliance arrangements of early 20th-
century Europe ensured that the attack on one nation ignited a chain reaction of fire,
which spread to other countries in the conflict. I agree, as alliances frequently establish a
sense of duty that may supersede a nation’s independent evaluation of its interests. I
disagree with Stoessinger’s assertion that coalitions are solely responsible in this context.
In contemporary society, alliances such as NATO serve as deterrents, preserving peace
by dissuading hostile actions from opponents. Alliances in the contemporary global
scenario are intricate; although they may involve undesirable conflicts, they offer security
and stability in a progressively multipolar landscape.
6) SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CAUSES OF WAR
The influence of economic and social forces in compelling nations to engage in
warfare, especially when resource scarcity or economic adversity motivates them to
choose battle as a resolution, has been highlighted (Stoessinger 1993, 84). I agree with
Stoessinger’s claim that economic aspects are frequently neglected in conventional war
analyses; however, they are essential for comprehending the motivations behind national
conflicts. His illustration of Japan’s pursuit of resources resulting in its expansionist
tactics during World War II exemplifies how economic necessities can propel aggressive
acts(Stoessinger 1993, 88). I, however, disagree with my assessment of the significance
of these factors. In my view, economic forces frequently serve as the factors by which
leaders react. War often emerges as a final recourse when diplomatic or economic
remedies become ineffective, especially in resource-depleted areas. The persistent
warfare in the Middle East can be partially ascribed to resource competition, intensified
by economic disparity and political instability.
7) IDEOLOGY AS A CAUSE OF WAR
Stoessinger examines the influence of ideology on warfare, suggesting that
ideological disputes, exemplified by the Cold War, are frequently intractable due to their
basis in fundamental worldview divergences (Stoessinger 1993, 103). I agree with
Stoessinger’s claim that ideological disparities complicate conflict resolution, extending
beyond simple territorial disputes to encompass issues of national identity and values
(Stoessinger 1993, 105). Although ideology is influential, it frequently conceals more
profound, actual reasons for conflict, including economic rivalry or power struggles. The
ideological confrontation between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War
JAIN DIP-411 PERIOD 3 PAGE 4
was a global influence and resource contest. I believe ideology may intensify disputes,
but it is frequently a rationale for more pragmatic issues.
8) CONCLUSION
Stoessinger offers significant insights into the origins of conflict, especially on
leadership, nationalism, misperception, alliances, and economic influences. I agree with
several of his assertions, especially concerning the impact of leaders and the significance
of alliances. However, I disagree with certain aspects, notably his undervaluation of
economic pressures and contemporary technical advancements. His analysis retains
significant relevance today; however, it might be enhanced by integrating the
contemporary dynamics of 21st-century conflict, including the influence of cyber
technology and the growing prominence of non-state players.
JAIN DIP-411 PERIOD 3 PAGE 5
REFERENCES
Stoessinger, John George. 1993. Why Nations Go to War. 6th ed. New York: St.Martin’s
Press.
