Introduction
In its most popular and broadest sense, war denotes a conflict between political groups involving hostilities of considerable magnitude and duration. Throughout the history of global development, and especially in the second part of the twentieth century, in the aftermath of two global wars and in the shadow of chemical and nuclear attacks, further classifications of war emerged. Stroessinger’s (2010) exploration of armed or unarmed conflicts that took place between political players on both local and international scales allows differentiating cases in such groups as World Wars, Cold War wars, and Post-Cold War wars. The classification facilitates the further understanding of the sociopolitical climate within which the wars took place. While there are distinct features characterizing each type of conflict, there are also common themes that emerge on the basis of the general conceptualization and understanding of war.
The World War Era
While the issue of war in general warrants continuity in the attention of scholars, it is appropriate to single out global conflicts for intensive analysis as such a kind poses significant threats to international safety. The history of world wars allows us to understand them as crucial parts of a long cycle represented by a recurring pattern in the development and operation of the international systems. Both World War I and World War II took place on a large scale that was unmatched by any other war in the history of humankind (Stoessinger, 2011). Their scale can be explained by the fact that the motives for aggressor-nations to begin military expansion were primarily based on imperialistic nationalism. Attempting to conquer new territories and have control over a more significant number of resources, nation-aggressors had a sense of nationalistic entitlement that brought major powers into direct conflict.
When considering the waging of the world wars themselves, both global conflicts are marked by high rates of casualties. During WWI and WWII because different militaries took advantage and developed new technologies of warfare that allowed to cause high rates of deaths among their enemies. The progress that took place in the areas of submarine warfare, airpower, long-range artillery, as well as improved rifles. The innovative military method used in WWI was poison gas, while WWII saw the first use of nuclear weapons. Thus, because of the need of nations involved in the war to exceed their enemies and gain victory, an increased number of resources went toward the development of weapons and military strategies.
The targeting of a particular population is another issue that united both WWI and WWII. In both cases, a specific group of people was singled out as a target of genocide. During the first global war, mass atrocities and genocide were perpetrated under the Young Turk dictatorship that specifically targeted the Armenian population. Under pressure from its enemies, Ottoman military chiefs pressed to deport Armenians from war zones due to fears that they could become a potential fifth column acting in the interests of Russia. Moreover, the authorities of the Ottoman Empire massacred populations on the front that were viewed as potentially disloyal, which resulted in additional conflicts and massacres. The genocide of the Jewish population that took place during WWII was far more significant in scale compared to the targeting of Armenians; however, there are parallels between the two regarding oppressors’ fears of the groups getting the power that they seemingly did not deserve because of their nationality.
The Cold War Era
Cold War wars took place after the establishment of global peace after World War II and the unique characteristics that set them apart. Even though the USSR and the US fought together in WWII to defeat the Germans and their allies, the postwar Soviet expansionism in Eastern Europe and the USSR’s resentment of the American rhetoric began causing tensions between the two former allies. As the United States started pursuing the strategy of containment aimed at Russia’s expansive tendencies, tensions started increasing with both superpowers’ strive to develop and produce atomic weapons as well as exceed in the exploration of space (Stoessinger, 2011). The strive for global dominance and influence is evident in the Cold War, which allows drawing parallels to the expansionary tendencies of WWI and WWII regarding the spreading of a specific dominant ideology.
While the conflict between the US and the USSR was rather political and propaganda-fueled, wars emerged in other regions, and the two rival superpowers were quick to find their roles in them. The Korean War started in June 1950 with the soldiers of the North Korean People’s army pouring across the thirty-eighth parallel, which divided the Soviet-supported Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the north and the Western Republic of Korea to the south (Stoessinger, 2011). It was the first military action of the Cold War, and by July of the same year, the US troops had entered the battle on behalf of South Korea. Initially, the US planned to stay away from war because of the challenges of standing up against China and the Soviet Union. However, the Cold War paranoia associated with the atomic weapon race and the growing impact of communism globally caused the intervention. In line with the conceptualization of war, the entering of the war between North and South Korea was associated with the rivals’ pushing of their political ideologies and establishing influence abroad.
Similarly, the Vietnam war became another ‘playground’ for the Cold War opposition between the US and its communist rivals. The US made the decision to get involved in the war to prevent South Vietnam from falling under the influence of communist countries. At the beginning of the conflict, the government-operated ‘behind the scenes,’ but after the Gulf of Tonkin incident, President Johnson ordered the launching of a massive bombing campaign in Vietnam (Stoessinger, 2011). The USSR’s aid of North Korea’s interests was predicated on the idea of making it difficult for the US to push its democratic and anti-communist agenda. Drawing from the exploration of the Cold War and the two military conflicts that took place in that era, it becomes clear that its definitive features included the threat of nuclear battle, the high levels of competition over the loyalty of newly independent nations, as well as the military and economic backing of one another’s enemies across the globe.
The Post-Cold War Era
The post-Cold War era, the beginning of which was marked by the USSR’s collapse, is characterized by the increased levels of globalization, the digital revolution, and ongoing economic challenges around the globe. The most notable wars of the era are the War in Afghanistan ad the Israel-Palestine crisis, both of which remain ongoing to this date. When it comes to the US’s involvement in the Afghanistan war, the country opposed al-Qaeda’s threat to both American and international safety. After the 9/11 attack, the joint resolution signed by President Bush authorized the use of force to combat terrorism (Stoessinger, 2011). The Israel-Palestine conflict has also been happening in the post-Cold War era, although it has five-decade history characterized by escalations and peace establishment, followed by further escalation, and so on. The crisis has caused a significant divide in opinions within the global community while the resolution remains to be found.
Conclusion
The exploration of wars that occurred during the World War, Cold War, and post-Cold War eras shows that the reasons for armed conflicts are often similar. While all military crises were different in the use of armistice or ideologies being pushed by either party, they were identical in the sense that there was a struggle for influence and dominance. This common theme offers the basis of the general understanding of war and the reasons for its occurrence. Having the ‘upper hand’ was a driving force in parties’ participation in armed conflicts, and winning over influence was not always linked to capturing territories. Instead, it was important for parties to establish ideologic dominance and the support of the vision by large numbers of the population. Together with technological progress, nations could invest in the development of new types of weapons that would not be necessarily used but rather act as methods of fear-mongering and propaganda. As history shows, until there are world leaders or parties who want to pursue expansionary politics, whether related to capturing territories or spreading ideas, wars of any type are inevitable.
Reference
Stoessinger, J. G. (2011). Why nations go to war. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.