As described by Stephen M. Walt in his essay Revolution and War, social revolutions, or revolutions that seek to overthrow and reshape the social structure of a nation, are fueled and motivated by ideology. Walt writes that “it is hard to imagine a mass revolution succeeding without an ideological program that both justified revolt and gave participants some reason to believe they would win” (Walt 340). In The Old Régime and the French Revolution, Alexis de Tocqueville notes that social revolutions that are motivated by ideology are oftentimes the strongest and most unstoppable type of revolution because an ideology can inspire a revolution to be transcendental and boundless. Tocqueville writes that social revolutions driven by ideology can create “an atmosphere of missionary fervor and, indeed, assum[e] all the aspects of a religious revival” in that the ideologies of such revolutions are so potent that they cause unprecedented support and action in favor of the revolutionary mindset (Tocqueville 13). As such, it can be argued that the specific ideology of a social revolution drives the policy of the revolution; the ideology gives direction to the movement and propels it toward its eventual success or failure. If it is then accepted that policy in a social revolution is dictated by ideology, it can be further argued that war tends to occur when the ideologies of the revolutionary state and its surrounding states conflict. When threatened, an ideology will drive a nation to “continue” its revolutionary,
[...] In his and Revolution” speech, Lenin notes that, because of the unprecedented nature of the revolution's incredible power, the ideological “policy of the revolutionary class was bound to shake all the rest of autocratic, tsarist, imperial, and semi-feudal Europe to its foundations.” In his speech, Lenin states that the strong ideology of the French Revolution dictated the revolution's policy, and inevitable continuation of this policy of the victorious revolutionary class in France was the wars in which all the monarchist nations of Europe, forming their famous coalition, lined up against revolutionary France in a counter-revolutionary war.” Thusly, it becomes apparent that ideological conflict and the resulting, smaller-scale behavior caused by ideological conflict is a primary cause of international war after a social revolution, as policy, driven by the desire to expand a universal ideology, is continued into other nations by means of war. [...]
[...] The interactions between a revolutionary state driven by ideology and its surrounding nations often lead to war because a fundamental conflict of ideologies causes nations to over exaggerate hostility and threat levels, which in turn changes the perceived “balance-of-threat” between the two states. Once this cycle is set into motion, nations tend to continue to escalate their hostile interactions until one or both nations believe that the only way to categorically ensure the security of their nation is to go to war with the threatening nation. [...]
[...] However, the revolutionary ideology of the new Soviet Union did, in 1919, because the new state to engage in war with Poland as a result of conflicting ideologies. Specifically, the clashing of expansionist ideologies between the Russians and the Poles caused the two states to enter the spiral towards war, as, in the wake of WWI, Poland's Chief of State Jozef Pidolski sought to expand the borders of Poland as far eastward as possible. Concurrently, Vladimir Lenin saw Poland as a stepping-stone towards conducting communist movements elsewhere in the world. [...]
[...] In this essay I will argue that social revolutions breed war when a revolutionary ideology compels a state to “continue its policy by other means,” causing the nation to export its ideology upon an opposing state by means of war. I will continue further to expand upon the specific manner in which ideology influences the behavior of revolutionary leaders when interacting with foreign leaders of conflicting ideologies on a smaller scale. These specific, ideologically driven behaviors influence the “balance-of-threat” response between the revolutionary state and its surrounding states, as described by Stephen Walt, and “foster miscalculation and misperception and thereby create an environment conducive to conflict and (Walt 342). [...]
[...] the ideology of most revolutionary movement portrays opponents as hostile.” Thusly, interactions between the revolutionary leader and the surrounding states will be inherently biased solely because of a predetermined ideological prejudice. Spiraling occurs easily then because, as Walt describes, “even a mild diplomatic dispute is likely to escalate” because states will “exaggerate each others aggressiveness,” making war likely as “both sides . search for a way to eliminate the threat entirely,” often through war (Walt 342). Other circumstances that often arise within a revolutionary state also affect the behavior of a revolutionary leader and the spiraling of the revolutionary state and its surrounding states. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
