Chain gangs and passed bucks Enkhmaa Enkhbold I43016

In multipolarity states are structurally prone to two balance system destabilizing errors: Chain gang- chaining themselves to allies whose survival is vital for power balance- WWI Passed bucks- counting on the third parties to bear the costs and responsibilities of stopping a rising hegemon- WWII

Chain reaction 28 July 1914 - Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia (with German support) 1 August 1914 - Germany declares war on Russia (Dual Alliance leads to Austro-Hungarian declaration of war on Russia) 3 August 1914 - Germany declares war on France (again, Dual Alliance leads to Austro-Hungarian declaration of war on France) 4 August 1914 - Germany invades Belgium; UK and British semi-autonomous dominions declare war on Germany (as a result of the Treaty of London)

Kenneth Waltz and Robert Jervis Europe’s multipolar checkerboard geography gave to offensive military advantages that gave rise chain-ganging before 1914 The perception of defensive advantages gave rise to buck- passing before 1939.

Chain gang problem Approximate equality of alliance partners leads to high degree of security interdependence. If Austria-Hungary marched then Germany followed If France marched, Russia had to follow

Buck-passing problem In the face of a rising threat, balancing alignments fail to form in timely fashion because some states try to ride free on other states’ balancing efforts. A German threat grew, British and French leaders could hope to remain aloof, then Russia and Germany would balance each other off.

Vulnerability leads to self-help strategies that leave everyone else less secure. In multipolarity: Offensive advantage=chain-ganging Defensive advantage=buck-passing

Compared to multipolarity bipolarity system is more stable.

Alliance strategies: In 1914, European states adhered to unconditional alliances, committing themselves to immediate offensive in full strength to aid their allies. In 1939, these powers tried to pass the buck, making others to bear the burden of stopping rising Nazi Germany.

War strategies of WWI Germany : Schlieffen plan France: Abandonment by Russia became a greater risk than entrapment Russia’s quarrels Russia: “to prevent Germany from finishing with France or weakening her in order to have the possibility of redeploying forces against us.” Britain: Britain had the English Channel, the British fleet, and the resource of British Empire

War strategies of WWII Germany: Hitler’s piecemeal expansion strategy- lightning campaigns against the diplomatically isolated- Czechoslovakia’s industrial complex Skoda works. Soviet Union: buck-passing to France and Britain( defenders). Stalin had faith in the power of defense. France: strongly influenced by the desire to pass costs of defense to Britain. Ensure itself as a target. Britain: limited liability. Overestimated France’s defense. Wrong estimate of German strategic bombing capabilities.

Hitler and Chamberlain The Munich Agreement, signed by the leaders of Germany, Britain, France and Italy, agreed that the Sudetenland would be returned to Germany and that no further territorial claims would be made by Germany. Hitler did not keep to agreement invaded anyways Chamberlain’s political career ended never to be revived

After Munich agreement Hitler was “without question the most detestable and bigoted man” with whom he had “to do business.”- Chamberlain to his private secretary. The road to war was set and Chamberlain’s reputation sunk, never to recover. Munich came to be seen as a shameful betrayal of the Czechs.

Thank you.