Search

Begin New Search Political Geography United States Publishing Institution Centre for International Peace and Security Studies

11. Debunking the 1930s Analogy: Neville Chamberlain's Grand Strategy Re-Examined

Author:
Christopher Layne
Publication Date:
11-2006
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Peace and Security Studies
Abstract:
The key events of the 1930s Hitler's rise to power, Germany's reoccupation of the Rhineland, the Anschluss with Austria, Munich and the subsequent German occupation of Prague in March 1939, and the outbreak of World War II in September 1939 transpired some seventy years ago. The events of the 1930s or at least Churchill's depiction of them have provided the standard images that have shaped U.S. foreign policy and scholarly research alike: falling dominoes, insatiable dictators, the interdependency of strategic commitments, the importance of demonstrating resolve, and the impossibility of achieving diplomatic accommodation with nondemocratic regimes. But does the myth track with the historical record? Does the 1930s myth accurately explain British grand strategy in the 1930s? Simply stated, my argument is that the 1930s myth as commonly understood in the United States is bad history, and that its use has contributed importantly to a series of dubious policy decisions by U.S. decisionmakers and still does. As I demonstrate, the British, in fact, were not willfully blind to the German threat or indifferent to the need to rearm to meet it. Rather, during the 1930s, London formulated a quintessentially realist grand strategy that attempted to blend deterrence and diplomacy to contain Hitler's Germany (and Japan and Italy), and defend Britain's interests as a world power by avoiding what, for Britain, could only be a disastrous war.
Topic:
Foreign Policy and War
Political Geography:
Britain, United States, Japan, Europe, London, Germany, Italy, and Austria

12. Leaders and Laggards: When and Why do Countries Sign the NPT?

Author:
Christopher Way and Karthika Sasikumar
Publication Date:
02-2005
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Peace and Security Studies
Abstract:
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) was concluded at the end of the 1960s, a decade which saw the drama of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the height of the nuclear arms race between the superpowers, and the entry of France and China into the club of countries that had tested nuclear weapons. The basic bargain underlying the NPT allows countries to surrender their right to develop nuclear weapons in return for access to international assistance in civilian nuclear technology. Five countries (the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, and China) that had tested nuclear devices before 1 January 1967, were conferred the status of Nuclear Weapon State (NWS) by Article IX. All other signatories (Non Nuclear Weapon States or NNWSs) pledged to abjure the development and diffusion of nuclear weapons technology.
Topic:
International Relations, Globalization, Nuclear Weapons, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
United States, China, United Kingdom, France, Soviet Union, and Cuba

13. America Adrift? Myths and Realities About the United States in the New World

Author:
Joseph M. Grieco
Publication Date:
11-2004
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Peace and Security Studies
Abstract:
The war in Iraq continues; its wisdom and consequences for the United States and the Middle East cannot yet be fully assessed. Still, it may be said that the lead-up to the war largely put to rest the view that an American president can readily respond to external threats with unilateral military force, and need not take into account the views of allies and the United Nations. Presidents, even those with unilateralist inclinations, such as that at present, are constrained to remain committed to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the UN Security Council because large majorities of the American public want their government to have allies and UN authorization when the United States goes to war. Americans are likely to want allies and international authorization because their possession increases the chances of pre-war coercive diplomatic success and, if war is necessary, success during and after it at lower cost. They may also want allies and international authorization for another reason, namely, to obtain a "second opinion" on the wisdom and the intentions of their leaders in taking them down a path that may end in war.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, NATO, and United Nations
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, America, and Middle East

14. When (And How) Regions Become Peaceful: Explaining Transitions From War To Peace

Author:
Benjamin Miller
Publication Date:
01-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Peace and Security Studies
Abstract:
Three important regions have moved from war to peace during the 20th century: South America in the beginning of the century, Western Europe in the middle while the Middle East has begun the move toward the end of the century. Not only did these moves take place in different periods in this century, but they also resulted in completely different types and levels of peace. How can we best explain these transitions and variations? Western Europe moved from a major war-zone to a zone of peace in the years following World War II. South America started the move to regional peace, even if not perfectly, much earlier in the 20th century. However, since the late 1950s Western Europe has reached a much higher level of peace than South America. A vigorous peace process began in the Middle East, in contrast, only in the early 1990s and the peace there is still much more fragile than in the other regions.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Diplomacy, and Peace Studies
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, and South America

15. International And Transatlantic Images Of Belonging: The United States And Europe In The 21st Century

Author:
John A. Hall
Publication Date:
01-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Peace and Security Studies
Abstract:
This topic was suggested to me by a fellow academic. Otherdirectedness has normally appealed to me in intellectual affairs, for it has encouraged thought on subjects otherwise not on my agenda. But I am uncomfortable on this occasion. Explaining why I feel as if I have been offered what chess players' refer to as a poisoned pawn allows immediate highlighting of the argument to be made.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Diplomacy, and Peace Studies
Political Geography:
United States and Europe