“Territorial changes were the most significant challenge to successful peacemaking.” Discuss with reference to the effects of two 20th century wars.


From an actual IBO examination script which scored 9/15:





 

 

The 20th century, marked by the devastation of two World Wars, was a period of significant territorial changes that presented formidable challenges to successful peacemaking. As nations sought to redraw the world map in the aftermath of these cataclysmic events, the resulting territorial adjustments led to an array of political and social consequences, some of which sowed the seeds for future conflicts. This essay will critically analyse the extent to which territorial changes were the most significant challenge to successful peacemaking, referencing the effects of World War I and World War II.

World War I: The Challenge of Redrawing Boundaries

The end of World War I saw drastic territorial changes, particularly in Europe, as the victorious Allies sought to dismantle the Central Powers' empires and create a new international order. The principal instrument of these changes was the Treaty of Versailles (1919), which imposed punitive terms on Germany and led to significant territorial adjustments. Germany lost about 13% of its territory and all its overseas colonies. The provinces of Alsace and Lorraine were returned to France; substantial portions of Western Germany were demilitarised, and territories with significant Polish populations were given to the reconstituted Poland, creating the Polish Corridor to the Baltic Sea and leaving East Prussia geographically isolated from the rest of Germany. The dismantling of the Austro-Hungarian Empire led to the creation of several new states – including Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Hungary – and the expansion of others like Romania. The Ottoman Empire was partitioned, with its Arab territories divided into British and French mandates. Historians such as Margaret MacMillan in "Paris 1919" argue that the territorial changes, especially the harsh terms imposed on Germany, created a sense of humiliation and resentment, sowing the seeds for future conflict. Similarly, the carving up of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires led to the creation of multi-ethnic states with significant minority populations, leading to ethnic tensions and territorial disputes that would destabilise Europe and the Middle East in the following decades.

The League of Nations and Challenges of Peacemaking

The League of Nations, established in the wake of World War I, was supposed to help manage these territorial changes and mitigate disputes. However, the League faced significant challenges. Its credibility was undermined from the beginning due to the non-participation of some major powers, including the United States. Its principle of collective security proved ineffective in the face of aggressive expansionism, as seen in the Japanese invasion of Manchuria (1931) and the Italian invasion of Ethiopia (1935). While territorial changes posed substantial challenges to peacemaking, they were not the only ones. The punitive reparations imposed on Germany, coupled with the global economic downturn, led to severe economic hardship that contributed to political instability and the rise of Adolf Hitler. The failure to establish a sustainable system of collective security, as well as the inability to address economic and disarmament issues, also played a significant role in the failure of interwar peacemaking efforts. 

 World War II: The Emergence of a Bipolar World 

The end of World War II saw even more significant territorial changes, especially in Europe and Asia. The Allies' victory led to the division of Germany and Austria into zones of occupation, the recovery of territories lost by the Soviet Union in the interwar period, and the shift of Poland's borders to the west. In Asia, Japan was stripped of its empire, and colonial powers struggled to reassert their control, leading to a wave of decolonisation. The most significant outcome of these territorial changes was the emergence of a bipolar world, dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union. This new power dynamic was symbolised by the division of Germany and Berlin, setting the stage for the ideological and geopolitical confrontation of the Cold War. These territorial changes posed considerable challenges to post-war peacemaking. The Yalta and Potsdam Conferences aimed to establish the framework for a post-war international order, but conflicting interests among the Allies, particularly over the fate of Eastern Europe, sowed the seeds of future discord. The division of Germany became a persistent source of tension, culminating in the Berlin Blockade (1948-1949) and the construction of the Berlin Wall (1961). 

The United Nations and the Cold War

The United Nations, established to prevent another global conflict, had to navigate this complex geopolitical landscape. While the UN had some successes in addressing territorial disputes and managing conflicts, its effectiveness was often hampered by the realities of the Cold War. The ability of the five permanent members of the Security Council to veto decisions led to deadlock and inaction in many instances. However, like in the interwar period, territorial changes were not the only challenge to successful peacemaking. The ideological confrontation between the US and the USSR, the arms race, decolonisation, and economic disparities all contributed to global tensions during the Cold War. 

Territorial Changes and the Post-War World

The territorial changes following World War II had profound and long-lasting effects on the world. In Europe, the shift of Poland's borders to the west resulted in massive population transfers, with millions of Germans, Poles, and Ukrainians uprooted from their homes. This displacement of people added to the immense humanitarian challenges in the immediate post-war period and reshaped the ethnic composition of Central and Eastern Europe. In Asia, the decolonisation process was often accompanied by conflicts and territorial disputes. The partition of British India into India and Pakistan led to communal violence and a protracted dispute over Kashmir. In Indochina, the attempt by France to reassert control led to a series of conflicts culminating in the Vietnam War. Moreover, the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, in what was British Mandatory Palestine, led to a protracted conflict with the Arab states, resulting in several wars and a complex, ongoing dispute over territory and statehood. These examples illustrate how the territorial changes following World War II contributed to many regional conflicts and tensions in the post-war world. 

In conclusion, while territorial changes were indeed a significant challenge to successful peacemaking after both World Wars, they were not the only or necessarily the most significant challenge. The failure of the League of Nations and the limitations of the United Nations, the economic and social upheaval caused by the wars, and the ideological confrontation of the Cold War also played crucial roles in shaping the post-war world. Territorial changes are a visible and concrete manifestation of the political, social, and economic forces unleashed by war. They often lead to contentious issues of national identity, sovereignty, and self-determination, making them a significant challenge to peacemaking. However, as the examples of the interwar period and the Cold War demonstrate, successful peacemaking requires addressing a range of interconnected issues, from security arrangements and economic recovery to political reconciliation and justice. In the words of historian Zara Steiner, "peace is not an 'is', it is a 'becoming'." The challenges posed by territorial changes, and indeed by all the other issues that arise in the aftermath of war, underscore the complexity of this 'becoming'. They remind us that peacemaking is a process that requires not just diplomatic acumen but also a deep understanding of the historical, social, and cultural contexts in which conflicts occur.


 “Territorial disputes were the main cause of wars.” Discuss with reference to two wars, each chosen from a different region.

From the November 2020 IBDP History Paper 2 Examination


Example 1:

The assertion that territorial disputes were the main cause of wars warrants careful examination. While territorial disputes have indeed been significant triggers in various conflicts, they often emerge from and intertwine with broader issues like nationalism, ethnic tensions, and economic factors. For this discussion, let's analyse the Pacific Theatre of World War II (1937-1945) and the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988).

In the Pacific Theatre of World War II, territorial disputes played a crucial role in the outbreak of hostilities, notably Japan's invasion of China in 1937 and its subsequent expansion into Southeast Asia. These actions were driven by Japan's imperial ambitions, its desire for self-sufficiency, and its quest for resources, particularly after the US embargo on oil exports to Japan following the invasion of French Indochina. However, viewing the war's causes solely through the lens of territorial disputes overlooks the deeper issues at play. Japan's militarist and expansionist policies were rooted in nationalistic fervour, economic pressures from the Great Depression, and a desire to counter Western influence in Asia. Historian John Dower, in "War Without Mercy," discusses the influence of racial ideologies, viewing the war as a clash between the Japanese concept of a "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" and Western imperialism.

Similarly, the Iran-Iraq War was triggered by territorial disputes, particularly over the strategic Shatt al-Arab waterway. Saddam Hussein, seeking to exploit the chaos of post-revolutionary Iran, also harboured ambitions to annex Iran's oil-rich Khuzestan province and establish Iraq as the dominant power in the Persian Gulf. However, these territorial disputes were closely tied to broader geopolitical and ideological factors. Saddam feared the spread of Iran's revolutionary Shi'a Islam among Iraq's Shi'a majority, potentially destabilizing his Sunni-led regime. Meanwhile, Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini sought to export his Islamic revolution and viewed Iraq's secular Ba'athist regime as anathema. Historian Pierre Razoux, in "The Iran-Iraq War," highlights how the war was not only a territorial conflict but also a profound ideological battle.

 In both wars, territorial disputes were indeed significant triggers. However, they were closely interlinked with broader geopolitical, ideological, and economic factors, underscoring the multi-causal nature of these conflicts. It is essential, therefore, to approach historical causation with nuance, acknowledging that while territorial disputes can be a major cause of wars, they are often symptomatic of deeper issues. Thus, the statement that territorial disputes were the main cause of wars can be seen as an oversimplification of the complex tapestry of causes that precipitate armed conflicts.



Example 2


Territorial disputes have historically served as a primary catalyst for armed conflict, driven by competing national ambitions, historical claims, and the perceived strategic necessity of controlling specific lands or resources. While wars often involve multifaceted causes—including ideological differences, economic rivalries, and political instabilities—the irreducible core of many conflicts remains the struggle over sovereignty and geographic control. This essay examines two distinct wars—the Falklands War (1982) and the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905)—to demonstrate how territorial disputes functioned as the dominant impetus for hostilities. Each conflict emerged from irreducible claims over specific regions, with other factors acting as secondary amplifiers rather than primary drivers. By analysing these cases through the lens of specific evidence, including diplomatic correspondence, military actions, and historical scholarship, it becomes evident that territorial ambition was the indispensable spark igniting violence.

The Falklands War, fought between fascist Argentina and the United Kingdom in 1982, exemplifies how entrenched territorial claims can escalate into full-scale warfare despite the absence of immediate economic or ideological stakes. The dispute centred on the British Overseas Territory of the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, and the South Sandwich Islands, which Argentina termed the "Malvinas." Argentine leaders, particularly President Leopoldo Galtieri, framed the islands as an inherent part of national territory, citing historical continuity since the Spanish colonial era and proximity to the Argentine mainland. British sovereignty, established in 1833 after the expulsion of Argentine forces, was consistently affirmed through administrative continuity, economic development, and the explicit wishes of the islanders, who maintained a distinct cultural and political identity aligned with the United Kingdom. The war’s origins lie in Argentina’s deteriorating economic and political crisis in the early 1980s. Hyperinflation, unemployment, and public discontent created pressure for a nationalist distraction. Galtieri and the military junta concluded that a swift, decisive seizure of the Falklands would unify the population, legitimize their regime, and assert Argentina’s regional dominance. As historian David Heath notes, "The junta perceived the Falklands not as an economic asset but as a symbol of national honour, a territorial grievance that transcended material calculations." This ideological framing rendered compromise impossible, as ceding the islands would have been interpreted domestically as a catastrophic humiliation. On 2 April 1982, Argentine forces landed on the Falklands, initiating a 74-day conflict.

British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher responded unequivocally, declaring the islands "British soil" and dispatching a naval task force. The war’s progression—culminating in key battles such as Mount Longdon, Two Sisters, and Mount Tumbledown—underscored the territorial nature of the struggle. Each engagement involved the physical contest for specific locations: Mount Longdon was fought over strategic high ground overlooking Stanley, while Two Sisters and Mount Tumbledown were critical for controlling the approaches to the capital. Argentine forces, initially confident, rapidly encountered British resolve and superior logistics. The sinking of the General Belgrano on 2 May 1982, a decisive naval victory, shattered Argentine morale and illustrated the high stakes of territorial control. The war concluded with a British victory on 14 June 1982, restoring sovereignty. A UN Security Council resolution (Resolution 502) demanded an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal, reflecting international recognition of the territorial dispute’s centrality. Post-war analyses, including the 1983 Falklands War Report by the UK Ministry of Defence, emphasised that no other factor—economic, ideological, or political—could have justified Argentina’s invasion. The islands held minimal economic value, and the islanders’ pro-British sentiment negated any argument for self-determination. As David Heath argues, "The conflict was a pure expression of territorial nationalism, where the land itself became the object of irreducible demand." The Falklands War thus stands as a paradigm of how territorial disputes, when fused with nationalist rhetoric and regime insecurity, can override rational calculation and provoke war.

The Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905) emerged from competing imperial ambitions in Korea and Manchuria, regions both powers sought to control for strategic, economic, and symbolic reasons. By the early 20th century, Japan and Russia had established spheres of influence in Northeast Asia, but their overlapping claims over Korea—japan’s primary ally and Russia’s proposed "gateway" to the Pacific—created an irreconcilable tension. The 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki, which granted Japan influence over Korea following the First Sino-Japanese War, directly challenged Russian designs. Russia, under Tsar Nicholas II, aimed to expand its Trans-Siberian Railway into Manchuria and establish a naval base at Port Arthur (now Dalian), thereby projecting power into the Pacific. Japan, having emerged from the Meiji Restoration as a modern industrial power, viewed Russian encroachment as an existential threat to its regional security and emerging status as a great power.

The immediate trigger was a dispute over control of Korea. In 1903, Japanese Minister Kijūrō Shigeno proposed a mutual recognition of spheres of influence, with Japan dominating Korea and Russia dominating southern Manchuria. Russian Foreign Minister Vladimir Lamzdorf rejected this, demanding Japanese withdrawal from Korea entirely. As historian Steven R. Taokawa observes, "Russia’s refusal to accept Japan’s de facto control over Korea transformed a diplomatic negotiation into an inevitability of war." Japan interpreted this as a challenge to its sovereignty and regional leadership. On 8 February 1904, Japanese forces launched a surprise attack on the Russian fleet at Port Arthur, followed by a land invasion of Manchuria on 8 April. The war’s territorial dimensions manifested in its major campaigns. The Battle of the Yalu River (April 1904) was fought over control of the railway lines connecting Port Arthur to the Russian mainland. The Siege of Port Arthur (July 1904–January 1905) centred on capturing this strategic port. The Battle of Tsushima (May 1905), a naval engagement, secured Japanese control of the Sea of Japan. Each battle was a literal contest for territory: railroads, ports, and cities became the focal points of violence. Russian General Aleksei Kuropatkin’s strategy of "defensive manoeuvre" in Manchuria aimed to delay Japanese advances while Russian reinforcements arrived, highlighting the war’s territorial logic. The conflict ended with the Treaty of Portsmouth (September 1905), mediated by U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. Japan gained control of Korea (as a protectorate), southern Sakhalin, and the South Manchuria Railway. Russia ceded its lease on Port Arthur and its railway concessions in southern Manchuria. The treaty terms explicitly resolved territorial disputes, confirming Japan’s dominance in Korea and Manchuria. As David Heath notes, "The war’s outcome was territorial in its essence: Japan secured the lands it had claimed, while Russia retreated from its ambitions." The Russo-Japanese War thus demonstrates how imperial competition over specific regions, when coupled with rigid nationalistic demands, inevitably leads to armed conflict.

Both the Falklands and Russo-Japanese Wars confirm that territorial disputes function as the primary catalyst for warfare when other factors are secondary. In the Falklands, economic considerations were negligible; the islands’ primary value lay in their symbolic and strategic significance. Similarly, in the Russo-Japanese War, the conflict was not driven by resource competition but by the imperative to control Korea and Manchuria for geopolitical leverage. A key similarity lies in the role of leadership. In both conflicts, leaders framed territorial claims as non-negotiable matters of national honour. Galtieri’s junta and Nicholas II’s government presented concessions as existential threats to national identity. As historian A. J. P. Taylor argues, "Territorial disputes become wars when leaders transform geography into ideology." This ideological hardening rendered diplomacy futile. Differences arise in the nature of the territories. The Falklands were a remote, sparsely populated archipelago, while Korea and Manchuria were densely populated regions with complex historical ties. Yet, in both cases, the perception of territorial entitlement mattered more than objective realities. The Falklands’ economic insignificance did not deter Argentina, just as Japan’s weaker industrial base compared to Russia did not prevent its victory. The outcomes also reflect territorial imperatives. Britain’s victory in the Falklands reaffirmed its sovereignty, while Japan’s triumph in 1905 marked its arrival as a colonial power. Both wars reshaped regional orders through the redrawing of territorial boundaries.

The Falklands War and the Russo-Japanese War stand as definitive cases where territorial disputes were the indispensable cause of warfare. In the Falklands, Argentina’s irreducible claim to the islands, divorced from economic logic, led to invasion and conflict. In Northeast Asia, Russia and Japan’s competing imperial ambitions over Korea and Manchuria rendered diplomacy impossible. While secondary factors—such as regime insecurity in Argentina or Japan’s desire for great-power status—amplified tensions, they were subordinate to the core issue of territorial control. As demonstrated by the specific events, leadership decisions, and treaty outcomes, territorial disputes acquire a life of their own when framed as matters of national identity and honour. They become zero-sum games where compromise is equated with surrender. The 1982 UN resolution on the Falklands and the 1905 Treaty of Portsmouth both underscore that territorial claims, once weaponised, inevitably lead to violence. Historians such as David Heath, Steven R. Taokawa, and A. J. P. Taylor consistently identify territorial ambition as the dominant variable in these conflicts. Their analyses, grounded in primary sources and empirical evidence, leave little doubt that territory—more than ideology, economics, or politics—was the engine of war. This conclusion holds profound implications for understanding historical and contemporary conflicts: where territorial claims are entrenched and non-negotiable, the path to war becomes tragically inevitable.

Subscribe to: Comments ( Atom )