Hawk1981
VIP Member
- Apr 1, 2020
- 209
- 270
- 73
Published just before the Second World War broke out in 1939, Edward H. Carr's book The Twenty Years' Crisis was a critical appraisal of international relations of the period from 1919 to 1939. Dividing the current international relations academics into either realists or utopians, Carr defended realists as those who grasped the fundamentals of international relationships of 'what works is right' and attacked the utopians 'peace through law' approach.
Carr argued that politics had primacy over ethics, and that there is no universal morality in the international arena because morality is defined as a function by the dominant nation or group of nations. The stronger power compels the weaker power to submit for fear of more disagreeable compulsion.
The Twenty Years' Crisis submits that the First World War was a breakdown in diplomacy to maintain the status quo for the Great Powers. The result of the war through the Versailles Treaty and creation of the League of Nations was to apply a utopian approach of lawful peace and the imposition of reparations on the defeated nations as a thinly veiled aim to continue the Great Powers' status quo.
Carr argues that the League of Nations was tasked with enforcing a 'harmony of interests' for law, order and peace that was based on a peace settlement that was fundamentally flawed. He concluded that the League was a hopeless utopian dream that could never hope to do anything practical.
Carr defended the policy of appeasement as the practical approach to redressing grievances from the Versailles Peace Treaty. He criticized the Czechoslovak President for clinging to a treaty with France when the most realistic option was to recognize that Czechoslovakia was destined to be in Germany's sphere of influence. With regards to Poland, Carr praised the Polish government's efforts to balance relations between France, Germany and the Soviet Union as a brilliant grasp of the realist position of the fundamentals of the European situation.
Citing the importance of economics in the political domain, Carr describes nations economically as 'Haves' and 'Have-nots', with the Haves wielding greater power and determining the place of 'morality' in international law. From the point of view of the Have-nots, the League of Nations was created as a utopian vision of the victor's morality to punish the defeated nations.
Critics noted that Carr was underestimating the political and economic intentions of Germany, Italy, Japan and the Soviet Union and providing aid and comfort to the totalitarian regimes. Carr was attacked for leaving readers in a 'moral vacuum' and a 'political dead point'. Though obviously sympathetic toward the realist point of view in international relations, Carr himself felt that realism lacked "a finite goal, an emotional appeal, a right of moral judgement, and a ground for action."
Carr argued that politics had primacy over ethics, and that there is no universal morality in the international arena because morality is defined as a function by the dominant nation or group of nations. The stronger power compels the weaker power to submit for fear of more disagreeable compulsion.
The Twenty Years' Crisis submits that the First World War was a breakdown in diplomacy to maintain the status quo for the Great Powers. The result of the war through the Versailles Treaty and creation of the League of Nations was to apply a utopian approach of lawful peace and the imposition of reparations on the defeated nations as a thinly veiled aim to continue the Great Powers' status quo.
Carr argues that the League of Nations was tasked with enforcing a 'harmony of interests' for law, order and peace that was based on a peace settlement that was fundamentally flawed. He concluded that the League was a hopeless utopian dream that could never hope to do anything practical.
Carr defended the policy of appeasement as the practical approach to redressing grievances from the Versailles Peace Treaty. He criticized the Czechoslovak President for clinging to a treaty with France when the most realistic option was to recognize that Czechoslovakia was destined to be in Germany's sphere of influence. With regards to Poland, Carr praised the Polish government's efforts to balance relations between France, Germany and the Soviet Union as a brilliant grasp of the realist position of the fundamentals of the European situation.
Citing the importance of economics in the political domain, Carr describes nations economically as 'Haves' and 'Have-nots', with the Haves wielding greater power and determining the place of 'morality' in international law. From the point of view of the Have-nots, the League of Nations was created as a utopian vision of the victor's morality to punish the defeated nations.
Critics noted that Carr was underestimating the political and economic intentions of Germany, Italy, Japan and the Soviet Union and providing aid and comfort to the totalitarian regimes. Carr was attacked for leaving readers in a 'moral vacuum' and a 'political dead point'. Though obviously sympathetic toward the realist point of view in international relations, Carr himself felt that realism lacked "a finite goal, an emotional appeal, a right of moral judgement, and a ground for action."