Stoessinger believes that to understand the war, you must understand the leaders of the war. As such, he has no use for the models of political science, which, to him, are "of debatable value" Martin's, ; 8th ed.
In the trade-off between narrative and analytical frameworks, Black would side with Stoessinger. Bush was a horrible president for lots of reasons. The United States was fighting against communism, while the Vietnamese were fighting against imperialism and colonialism and to protect their way of life.
Certainly he played an important part of the decision making for both of these conflicts, but I don't think he was out of touch with the American people when doing so. Black argues, however, that to approach the question of why wars happen by emphasizing twentieth-century--and even nineteenth- century--conflicts, "limits the basis for theoretical and general reflections" and truncates the search for continuities and changes from the past This was the pre-war boundary that split the two nations.
Hitler was convinced that it would be a quick and easy victory. In the American Revolution the thirteen colonies were looking to break away from their mother country, Britian. Pursue until complete annihilation. He decided to attack and eliminate the Russian people and paid no attention to the lessons learned by Napoleon when he had attempted to conquer Russia.
Even before democratic governments there were democratic societies. All of these countries had good motives for a war, therefore, it is illogical to place the blame just upon the leaders of those countries, rather than analyzing the circumstances that made the countries want to wage war.
He concludes that the single most important precipitating factor in the outbreak of war is misperception. Stoessinger was only a child when Adolf Hitler invaded his home of Austria in order to obtain Anschluss.
These fears and hopes obscured reality until they produced a nightmare that could not be denied: In the trade-off between narrative and analytical frameworks, Black would side with Stoessinger. Once again, Stoessinger states that there is a great misperception that lead to the start of the war and the outcome of the war: Tobacco and cotton could be grown and sold for a profit, which again could be taxed.
With the power they had they could have decided against war but their advisers, misconceptions, and likewise convinced them to start fighting. These defensive wars can be especially controversial when they are launched preemptively, the argument essentially being that:why nations go to war/john g.
stoessinger This 11th edition of Why nations go to war analyses ten case studies covering major international wars. The particular focus of each of the case studies turns upon the personalities of political and military leaders.
This 11th edition of Why nations go to war analyses ten case studies covering major international wars. The particular focus of each of the case studies turns upon the personalities of political.
"Meant to convey an understanding of modern warfare, Why Nations Go to War is a unique book built around ten contemporary case studies, emphasizing the pivotal role of the personalities of leaders who take their nations, or their following, into war.
WHY NATIONS GO TO WAR is unique. The reflections of author John G. Stoessinger are built around ten case studies and provide a deep analysis of the root causes of modern war, from from World War I 4/5(1). WHY NATIONS GO TO WAR is unique. The reflections of author John G.
Stoessinger are built around ten case studies and provide a deep analysis of the root causes of modern war, from from World War I to the modern day.4/5(1).
Why Nations Go To War has become an iconic text in the study of war and peace. The tenth edition of the text includes chapters on the United States post wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the results of which are still unfolding before us/5.Download