Chapter 4 Assignment World War 2: International Relation

World War 2
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Title
Instructor
Date
World War 2
Historians regard the twentieth century as the bloodiest time the world has ever witnessed. Since then, explanations for the bloodletting that took place during the century have remained unclear. This is the reason why it has spurred an endless debate on the same. The first and second World Wars claimed over 60 million lives, and as such, this leaves the big question as to whether the 21st century will be any better. There have been many ideologies behind the cause of this bloody scene in the 20th century. Some of the thoughts tend to incline their explanations on economic crises, tyranny of rules and political arrangements of different states.
1 Which perspectives and levels of analysis do these arguments take? Can you name similar arguments (or the analysts who have made them)?
According to the perspective taken by Nialle Ferguson, there is no known cause for the bloodshed in the 20th century. This is attributed to the fact that the real place and timing is not clear. Some historians insist that it was because of the presence of superior weapons during the time. It is from this angle that Ferguson asserts that that is not true since crude weapons such as machetes, axes and knives were used in Cambodia’s genocide. On the issue of economic crisis like the great depression, he refutes the claim because some conflicts came during the period of growth. Finally, tyranny could not be the cause of the bloodletting since in modernity there have been substantial growth despite the fact that with the available infrastructure, some leaders could have mobilized their followers to wreak havoc, which they have not.
2 By focusing on the characteristics of specific territories, what concept is Ferguson bringing into play? Which perspective is this concept most often associated with?
Ferguson mentions out three factors to put the issue into perspective: economic volatility, ethnic disintegration, and the collapse of empires. According to the author, the one that stood out among the three was the collapse of the empires. However, there no single empire collapsed peacefully. Notably, some of the disintegrated empires were the Qing dynasty that was in China, the House of Romanov, the House of Hapsburgs, Ottoman and Hohenzollern. The older empires such as the Ottoman rule thrived for 469 years as compared to the Soviet Union that disintegrated only after 69 years. It is for this reason that he asserts that the moment imperialism is dissolved, there are high chances of violence erupting.
3 What perspective do you think Ferguson is using in this argument, and why? Does his argument mirror a specific theory (or school of theories)?
Ferguson is quick to note that a transformation from multi ethnic polity all the way to homogeneity is largely next to an impossibility. The collapse of the empires often leads to the scramble for power by the local elites. This is exactly what happened during the collapse of these major empires. There were numerous political realignments across the world. He also argues that by 1900, the regions such as France and England, matters of religion and ethnicity, mode...