If Hitler's Germany had acted "rationally," then it argualy would still exist today. In fact, it's indisputable that it made war with too many people in too short a period, was ganged up on and was absolutely crushed. It's empire lasted a mere 12 years. Hitler invaded Russia too quickly, and he did so because he was scared of the alleged menace posed by slavic peoples in Russia, who were also bolsheviks. That does not strike me as rational behavior in the slightest.
No.
It was the strongest state at the time (in europe), it had the most prestigious and charismatic leader, Europe was still weak and damaged from WW1, and Germany itself was deep into military industry, incapable to sustain intself in other industrial fields. It was a rational decision of a state. Ideology served as the means. It could be ANY ideology. It's just that that particular ideology served it's purpose better at the time. The fact that Nazi Germany lost eventually has absolutely nothing to do with Ideologies.
You're ignorning the historical context of the time. Bolshevism and communism were seen as a threat to the great powers since its inception in the 1860s. Communism in Russia was the result of decades and decades of thought and organized protest. Lenin and Trotsky didn't appear out of nowhere and just think communism was a good idea to placate the masses. They were building on a very real movement that had protested the Tsar for a long time.
Communism itself was a very itnernational movement that spanned boundaries in ways that are difficult for us to conceive of today (because there aren't many global ideas anymore).
When Lenin came to power, he took a lot of flak from communists for implementing capitalism, but he cited to Marx, saying that Russia had to move through capitalism before it could get to communism. this was called the "New Economic Policy"
When Stalin came to power, he had to purge a lot of these people as well as Trotsky. He was a bit less ideological when it came to communism -- but at the same time, he also collectived farming, a highly ideological decision which resulted in widespread famine and killed millions, especially in the Ukraine.
So I don't think it's accurate to say "there were no ideas." Communism guided Russian policy well through Stalin. After Stalin died, I would agree that the dictatorship in charge became less ideological and more concerned with basic survival. It wasn't until the 1970s that the US made peace with China to block the USSR, and only AFTER China and the USSR became enemies in the late 1960s. I agree that that was realpolitik at work. But it only happened after the ideological glue failed to bind CHina and the USSR.
Lenin had little to do indeed with Stalin and the post 1922 Russia. Lenins ideology was one of the Just War theories. His theories are considered an example of Marxism put to action. After pluralism and realism, Lenins marxism is the only other approach. But that had nothing to do with Cold war russia or the post 1922 Russia. And up until now, it has never benn used, except when writing books.
Once again, ideas served as a motive for the people of Russia to follow their Government. The state chose and decided in a realistic and totally rationalistic way, having absolutely nothing to do with ideologies. Communism, or rather, the pretext of Communism, was used to motivate the people, simple propaganda, nothing else. Not one move made by the USSR has anything to do with Lenins marxistic IR approach.
I'm not sure how you can separate the two. I think my basic point is that it's not always accurate to assume that states act rationally in the international arena. What does it mean to act "rationally"? To put your long term interests ahead of your short term interests? In the case of nazi germany, I am once again reminded that perhaps one of the most powerful countries that ever existed lasted only 12 years. So they did not appear to act very rationally.
At best, realism seems like a "catch-all" explanation -- and thus justification -- for why states engage in cut-throat behavior at the expense of other states.
Wow wow wait a sec. What philosophy are you talking about? Structural Realism is a theory, an approach, with axioms and deductions. It's strategy. It's like maths. Same with Pluralism and it's theories. there is no explanation, this is international relations, there are no philosophers here.
It's not as if you can debate against the existence of one of the theories. You only choose to use it, or not use it.
When constructing political and military strategies, any analyst can use whatever he desires. Realism and precisely Structural Realism, is used most of the times to describe war situations.
At best, realism seems like a "catch-all" explanation -- and thus justification -- for why states engage in cut-throat behavior at the expense of other states. Henry Kissigner is a wanted war criminal in many countries. not the spokesperson I'd want for a philosophy, personally.
Yes. I despise that guy as well. But he was a diplomacy genius.
