The world after 1945: realism vs. liberalism perspective.

Hence, Germany was on the road to become economically, militarily, and geographically, again –a typical offensive realist approach. The rearmament of all the European powers brought war closer because it meant that other states were prepared to use force if the situation demanded so. Since the League of Nations had failed to balance Germany against weak states to its East, Germany strengthened its position in that area. For its neighbors, Germany was becoming too big and they could not risk the feeling of being comfortable, but if its neighbors united together, Germany would stop feeling comfortable. However, Hitler and the Nazi government increased Germany’s military power and began expanding its territory. The rise of Germany raises two questions for the realist perspective. First, why did no one balance against Germany? As Germany gained power, the other great powers did little to stop it – instead of pairing; they pursued policies of appeasement. Second, why did Germany over-expand? Possible realist explanations for overexpansion are that anarchy and imbalance of power encouraged conquest.ConclusionRealism and Liberalism both provide arguments in light of creating a connection between war and its causes. We have constantly seen attempts of finding solutions or answers from both theories; yet the connection of war, its causes and possible confrontations of economic interests needs to be developed more. Despite differences on how they operate, Realism and Liberalism both want peace and stability, but the way of achieving peace and stability is the point where they differ. Liberalists argue that the presence of a competent authority or hegemon is crucially needed to maintain international order. They constantly emphasize the importance of trade between states, and rely on economic interdependence to provide mutual benefits between States. When States trade with one another, they are able to create a cycle which is then followed by peace and interdependence. Liberals presume that this cycle creates ‘mutual causality in which peace and interdependence reinforce each other once the cycle gets started.This idea would ultimately enable States to create peace, stability and, therefore, little or no conflicts. Liberals argue that causes of the Second World War are mainly revolved around economic factors such as trade, the Great Depression, but mostly because of the absence of a hegemon.In contrast, realists do not believe that interdependence is connected to peace or stability, nor do they believe that economic relationships can generate stability; in fact, they view international politics and interdependence as an amoral process because the human nature is evil. Realist ideas rely on the belief that interdependence creates more conflicts or does not affect wars at all. Realists blame the League of Nations, as a liberal ideal, for failing to preserve order, and claim that if balance of power persisted, States would have acted accordingly, through alliance formation, to prevent ahegemon from rising into power. This of course eventually happened, but by then most of the world was set on fire.Focusing on either realism or liberalism to formulate an answer or understanding of war, interdependence, peace and stability may be inadequate. The puzzle of understanding how economic irregularities, economic interdependence, or simple international relations are translated into political power is still under-developed. But when you think about the matter in another way, it only adds to the ongoing difficulties with defining the concept of power. BibliographyDoyle, Michael W. “Kant, Liberal Legacies, And Foreign Affairs, Part 2.” Philosophy & Public Affairs12, no. 4 (1983): 323-353.History Of World War II. Ebook. 2nd ed. Tarrytown, NY.: Marshall Cavendish, 2005.Kissinger, Henry. World Order.Ebook. 1st ed. New York: Penguin Books, 2015.McMillan, Susan M. 'Interdependence And Conflict'. Mershon International Studies Review 41, no. 1 (1997): 33-58. doi:10.2307/222802.Morgenthau, Hans J. Politics Among Nations. New York: Knopf, 1967.Roberts, Priscilla Mary. World War II. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 2012.Soomo Publishing,. Theory In Action: Liberalism. Video, 2011.Schweller, Randall. Theory In Action:Realism. Video, 2011.Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory Of International Politics. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.,1979.Webb, Michael C., and Stephen D. Krasner. 'Hegemonic Stability Theory: An Empirical Assessment'. Review Of International Studies 15, no. 02 (1989): 183. doi:10.1017/s0260210500112999.White, Ralph K. Why Aggressors Lose. Ebook. 2nd ed. International Society of Political Psychology, 1990.