POLS 217 FINAL EXAM

OSMAN FEDA
2014209132

PART ONE
RAISON DETAT: By the concept of raison detat which was grafted by Cardinal Richelieu
history, the well-being of the states would justify whatever tools or means were used. As it
was mentioned in the article of Kissingers Diplomacy, Richelieus aim was to end the
possibility of emerging a strong Habsburg Empire surrendering the borders of France. After
the Thirty Years War between 1618-1648; the political climate of the Europe shifted
decisively. Along with the concept of raison detat, the various dynasties began to concentrate
on increasing their security by territorial expansion in Europe.

ENLIGHTENED DESPOTS: Enlightened Despotism refers to the form of government

during the 18th centurys Europe in which monarchs pursued legal, social, educational reform
attempts along with the inspiration of the Enlightenment movement. Catherine the Great of
Russia, Frederick II of Prussia, can be given as examples for the Enlightened Despots in the
European history. What made them different was that the enlightened despots supported the
rationalization of the state administration, agricultural reforms, patronage for the
arts&sciences in order to remain in power and be regarded as legitimate in the 18th century
European diplomacy. As Kissinger argued in Diplomacys Chapter Three, Enlightenment was
important element for the 18th centurys European leaders in terms of the secularisation of the
state administration, as Cardinal Richelieu aimed in France. Enlightenment was also one of
the pure mindsets about the less frequent, more intensive wars; in a sense creation the balance
of power in Europe.

REALPOLITIK: Realpolitik is a type of foreign policy in the IR discipline which places

emphasis on the preservation of the national interests of states and sees power as a primary
tool for it. Otto von Bismarck can be given as a good example for the leaders in European
history associated with the Realpolitik. After the collapse of Metternich system in Europe, a

new balance of power emerged in Europe. France lost its predominance to Germany after
Franco-Prussian War in 1870 and moral restraints of Metternich system dissapeared. As a
result, the term of Realpolitik replaced the raison detat; it referred to the relations among
states are dependent on the power, rather than moral consensus. According to this term, the
choice of every states for their alliances should depend on which can serve best for their
interests. It was used in European diplomatic history by Bismarck in order to achieve Prussian
dominance in Germany. He used both domestic and foreign policy as tools of Realpolitik, by
rejecting the moral consensus of Metternich system and replacing it with only power.

The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism: It was written by Benito Mussolini and
published in early 1930s. In this doctraine, Mussolini indicated that fascism was a new type of
political movement. According to his words, fascism was right-wing insofar as it rejected the
progressive movements that had appeared in Europe since the 18th century, like liberalism
and socialism. Rather, fascism was favoring of an organic authoritarian state, which was
perceived itself austere, religious; rejecting the idea of economic interests as determining
human behaviour. Taking that fascism was one of the driving force ideology led to Germany
and Italy in entering to WW2 into account, the doctraine of fascism was pivotal.

CONCERT OF EUROPE: The Concert of Europe was established by the European leaders
in 1815 Vienna Congress, after the end of Napoleonic Wars in Europe. Its main aim was to
preserve territorial integrity, rebuild the international order in the name of the balance of
power. Thanks to this equilibrium, the European countries like France, Great Britain, Prussia,
Austria were bound together by a sense of shared values which in terms of both physical and
morally. The balance of power would have reduced the need for using of force and thanks to
it, no war took place thee countires until 1856 Crimean War, a peaceful period began in
Europe.

THE THIRTY YEARS WAR: The Thirty Years War took place in Central Europe between
1618-1648. It grew firstly a religious conflict btw. Catholics and Protestants. Hence, it was a
kind of wars of religion between Catholic Holy Roman Empire and Protestants. In tems of
Politically, one of the biggest consequences after the war was that Europe's power structure

was basically changed; Germany was divided into several smaller territories which woulb be
unified in 1870, the Holy Roman Empire lost a lot of power. The Treaty of Westphalia which
gave an end to this war laid the ground for the creation of the nation-states. The political
structures changed when the Holy Roman Empire was no longer the center of Europe as other
countries began to take over. This would become even more important later with the rise of
secularism as a result of the Enlightenment. After it, Holy Roman Empire began to share its
power with Prussia.

CARDINAL RICHELIEU: He was one of the most important statesman in the history of
France and Europe. He served as the chief minister during King Louis XIII. Thanks to him,
the terminology of raison detat grew into the guiding priciple of European diplomatic
history. In the world inagurated by Richelieu; states were not not restrained by moral codes.
The stronger would always seek to dominate others. By the concept of raison detat, the wellbeing of the states would justify whatever tools or means were used. Richelieus aim was to
end the possibility of emerging a strong Habsburg Empire surrenndering the borders of
France.Although he was in actual a cardinal, he viewed his duties as minister in completely
secular way. Through considering this, it can be said that Richelieu was also one of the
representatives of the secular bureaucracy in European diplomatic history.
ANCIEN REGIME: Referring to old order in French, the term of ancien regime means the
political and social system of the country of France prior to the French Revolution. This
period of regime was monarchic, aristocratic from the 15th century to the Louis XIV.
Regarding to administration during this period, the king could not act without the advice of
his counsels like financial, governmental, judicial councils. During this period; the people of
France were the subjects of the king; the term of citizenship were not be applied. Economy
was under the hands of the church and bourgeoise.
WORLD WAR ONE: It took place between the years of 1914 and 1918, the Allied Powers
which were France, Great Britain, Russia, later Italy and Central Powers that composed of
Austria-Hungarian Empire, Ottoman Empire. It resulted with the victory of the Allied Powers
and it drastically altered the balance of power in European continent. Multiethnic dynastic
empires collapsed, new nation states were born in Europe. The balance of power in the World
politics also shifted, the severe conditions in the peace treaties for the defeated countries and

the unaffective role of League of Nations in preserving the peace among the European
countries paved the way fort he outbreak of Second World War.

LOUIS XIV: Also known as Louis the Grea, he was the king of France who had the longest
reign in European diplomatic history. The early personal reign of him was succesful in terms
of his reforms in judiciary, administration. Louis XIV forced provincial nobles to relinquish
their former political influence. In so doing, he aimed to construct a more centralized
administration with the bourgeoisie, or middle class. During his period, France became the
leading European power. He also declared Edict of Nantes which gave the Hugeonots in
France religous freedom. He was also one of the Enlightened despots in European history.
PART TWO

1.) Until its unification in the year of 1870, Germany had been already the victim of the
ongoing wars between the empires in Europe. Most of the crucial battles, Napoleonic Wars in
18th century had taken place in Germany. After these long turbulent years of insecurity,
German politicians after Bismarck began to express certain restraints in their policies; they
became more obsessed with being powerful against any kind of threats. Especially in Thirty
Years War, was and plague caused to decrease in German population. However, after its
unification, Germany was becoming the strongest country in Europe, in terms of both
economically and in terms of its military power. Geographically, it was located in the center
of Europe and it was surrendered by strong rivals. After the Franco-Prusssian War in 1870-71;
the era of French dominance in Western Europe ended, France lost its territory of AlsaceLorraine to Germany. As a result of this, the playing off the German states agains each other
in a fragmented geography became no longer to be applied. As it was mentioned in
Kissingers article, German politicians after Bismarck began to pursue more furious and
agressive policies, in order to feel them strong. were lacking of philosophical, intellectual
framework; they were always in the pyschology of being threatened by their possible

enemies in Europe. Hence, German policy makers were not able to develop their own national
interest. Because of their ambitious policies for gaining Germany as much as power and
international recognition of Germanys power, German policymakers lacked the patience to
think what their new state should serve for their national interests. As Kissinger indicated,
German leaders after Bismarck had combined harsh truculence with indesiveness. While
doing this, German politicians also began to threaten other European nations for their security
concerns, by possesing absolute insecurity. For them, the shortest way for domination was
entering to war, not the diplomacy. From this aspect, it can be said that German politicians
after Bismarck were mostly pursuing policies in the direction of realism. For realists; the
national interests of the states were above the moral consensus. What made it German
question in 19th centurys Europe important was that it directly affected the relationships
between European Great Powers, namely Great Britain, France and Russia. These countries
needed to form alliances against the reckless policies of the German politicians which
threatened the European security. France and Great Britain were on the brink of war in 1898
because of the Egypt conflict. However, they formed alliance in close relations against
Germany. The misconceptions of German politicians after Bismarck were not able to prevent
the French-Russian alliance in 1894. Germany attempted to form an Anglo-German alliance
but due to the Britains isolation itself from open-ended military agreements, this attempt was
failed. It should be also indicated that the British were concerned about giving further
additions to German power would make it more dominant in Europe. As it was mentioned by
Kissinger; The emotionalist attitudes of German leaders and their inability to make a definiton
for long-range objectives made it more isolated and alone; the USA, Italy, Russia and Great
Britain all didnt want to make an alliance with it.In this sense, it can be said that the balance
of power in Europe were on the brink of be crushed into hostile coalitions which each were

trying to save their national interests, without having a global responsibility. Especially
Germany became dragged by the paranoia that their partners would shift alliances against it.
2.)

According to the realist scholarship in the discipline of International Relations; world

political system is an anarchic system icludes in itself a security dilemma. For this view,
peace and stability are less likely to be maintained. States can only safe thmeselves by the
means of power. Hence, world politics is a sort of arena that all states are all-against-all;
states have to behave defensively against any kinds of threats. States are not primarily focus
on keeping the stability.Regarding to the Mearsheimers article, it can be said that his thoughts
and opinions about the political future of Europe reflect the realist point of view clearly.
According to him, the unequal distribution of the military power among states are the root
casus of the war or peace in European geographhy; power inequalities in a sense invite the
conflicts. He focuses on the definitions of bipolarity and multipolarity systems in Europe
and evaluates the which one has the more possibility for the outbreak of a conflict. For him;
deterrence is diffcult to maintaion multipolar world system, since it contains more dyads in
itself which may potentially widen into big alliances and creates power imbalances. As a
result, the size of opposing sides are hard to calculate. Regarding to the case of bipolarity,
Mearsheimer argues that a bipolar system is more peaceful in that there are only one dyad in
contention. Bipolarity, refers to an equal balance of military power and nukes, are the key to
elements for the long peace, as he argued. His perspective about the nuclear weapons and
their function is also interesting: For him, nuclear weapons are the tools that bolster peace by
creating more equal power relations. As he argued; if the deterrence is likely to be held on the
condition that the risks are too high. Mearsheimer also draws attention to the three nuclear
future scenarios in Europe. Unlike it was expected that a nuclear-free Europe would be more
peaceful, Mearsheimer tries to refute it, again reflecting the realist view. In the case of
nuclear-free Europe; the placatory effects of nuclear power would be lost, other dimensions of

World order would determine the peace; like ethnic tensions, hypernationalism, the number of
poles etc. Mearsheimer also believes that a non-nuclear Europe would not remain completely
peaceful; war may not be obsolete for some of the Europeans. Achieving prosperity, economic
liberalism and economic interdependence between states may not also guarantee the outbreak
of the wars; since states may not be mostly motivated by the goal of prosperity, rather than
their national interests. When security is scarce in some cases, states would inevitably become
more concerned with relative than absolute gains. For instance, from late 19th century to
1914, it was the time of greatest economic interdependence in Europe but it did not able to the
outbreak of World War One. At the last part of his article, he argues that democracy are likely
to enter the wars as are authoritarian states did. In this sense, there is still possibility fort he
outbreak of wars among democraicies. To conclude, it can be said Mearsheimers opinions
about the political future of Europe have some inspirations from the realist view in
International Realtions. For him, the West has an interest in maintaining the Cold War order
by having an interest in continuing the cold war confrontation. In additiom, encouragement of
the limited proliferation of nuclear weapons in Europe by the US would be one of the ways
for maintaining peace in Europe. Similarly, Realists also advocate for the use of neuclear
weapons by the states as tools of self-defense and as deterrent force, Mearsheimer sees nukes
as tools that pave the way for stability, rather than democray, economic liberalism
3.)

The impacts of the both World War One and World War Two on the European

continent is one of the most dimensional issues in the European history. Beyond the
monumental devastation and the incomprehensible waste of human life, the World wars
brutally altered European social, economic structures. First of all, it should be indicated that
the unsolved problems after the end of World War One in a sense paved the way. The impacts
of these two World wars on Europe were mostly economical, social, culturral, political. First
of all, it should be indicated that after both these two World wars; the political balance of

power in the European continent drastically shifted. As a result of the WW1, the dynastic
empires and monarchies like Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungarian Empire, Russian Empire
collapsed and the several ethnic groups in these multi-ethnic empires declared their
independence. Countries like Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were all reborn as
nation states, Russia underwent the Bolshevik Revolution that would have a major impact on
world history. Germany was forced to pay substantial reparations and shrunk to both
economic and political chaos. As David Thomson indicated, it was the Western, maritime,
democratic regimes which declared their victories, the older dynastic empires which
collapsed. This was referring to the drastic shift in the balance of power since there was no
way of rebuilding the the old one in Europe. After the defeat of Germnan Empire in World
War One, the Treaty of Versailles were introduced and Germany was forced to sign this treaty
which included severe conditions for the future of the country. In fact, these severe conditions
would maket he Germany more ambitious to take its revenge during World War Two.
Germany lost its colonies, German army reduced to small numbers. Especially France began
to form an anti-German coalition against Germany, seeking to strengthen new states against
Germany. AS a result, the stability in Europe
Regarding to its military aspect, World War One drastically changed the nature of
warfare techniques. Technology became an essential element in the art of war with airplanes,
submarines, tanks all having their important new roles. Mass production techniques developed
for the building of armaments revolutionised other industries in the post-war years and the
armaments race especially between Nazi Germany and other European countries led to the
growing tensions in Europe. The real winner of the First World War was the United States. It
entered the war in 1917, but emerged asstronger than most other nations as it had not suffered.
It became, almost overnight, the leading financial power in the World. It also started to
replace the role of Britains dominance in the wolrd politics. The war also involved hundreds

of thousands of soldiers from the European colonies and British Dominions, including India,
Australia, Pakistan, Canada. Their experience with the Western ccountries, their experience
with racial segregation and loss of life paved the way for their struggle of independence in
1950-1960s and triggered the declining process of colonialism in the world.
Regarding to the World War Two, it should be emphasized that what made it different
from World War One was that it was also the wars of ideologies. It was a war between so
many different races, ethnic groups that not only confined in Europe, but also in Asia,
Northern Africa. It was a kind of attempt for taking revenge of the Treaty of Versailles after
WW1 by the extreme nationalists dictatorships, Nazi Party in Germany, Fascist Party in Italy
and their agressive policies threatened the peace of Europe. Fascism was on the one side;
liberalism, one of the other side. main results was the division of Europe within a bipolar
World system. Huge armies stared at each other through an Iron Curtain that ran through the
heart of Europe; Germany became the country that two major world powers were on the brink
of a war. It was divided among the victorious countries namely USA, France, United
Kingdom and Soviet Union. The US-suppoerted Western Europe into a system of containment
aimed at limiting and ultimately diminishing Soviet power. Hence, Europe became the place
that two opposite ideologies were on the brink of conflict: Communism versus Capitalism.
The multipolar climate in the World politics turned to a bipolar political climate, namely the
USA and Soviet Union. The balance of global power moved from London, Paris, Berlin to
especially two capitals; to Washington and Moscow. NATO was established in 1949 while a
financial Marshall Plan helped Western European economies to recover after the war and
maket hem strong against the threat of Soviet invasion.. Regarding to human casualities; in
WW1, estimated to be 10 million soldiers and 7 million civilians were dead. In WW2, this
death tolls rose to 60 million people. The cities in Europe devastated, millions of refugees
were forced to leave their lands.(e.g. German expulsion from Eastern Europe after the WW2).

Also, the belief that the progress and advents in technology would bring prosperity began to
be questioned by the people of Europe, which later affected the European philosophy and arts,
like the concept of expressionism. Also, the rise of the European Union in order to stop the
possibility of a new war in Europe and controll the Germanys actions in Europe was another
result of the World War Two; European countries all gathered together under a both political
and economical union.