A Study of War (Midway Reprint)

Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but arguments are invalid for post-WWII world
Review: Quincy Wright attempted to examine the origins and evolution of warfare and to thereupon apply evident generalizations in hopes of controlling modern "oscillations of war and peace." He offered many definitions of "war," conceding the fact that war in some sense has always been present in human culture. Interestingly, he contended that only in the most modern age had war been seen as a "problem" by a significant percentage of the world's population. Clearly, his ultimate goal was to "suggest political, economic, and social changes which might reduce the frequency of war or eliminate it altogether." As a social scientist, he qualifies himself as a man able to combine theory with correlative action.

The work is very much a product of its historical era. As he says, he began the work in 1926, the illusory age between world wars, and published it in 1942, when World War II was erupting across the world. The belligerent activities in and after 1939 did not fully overwhelm his simplistic hopes for peace. Only then, when innovations in communications and technology made possible the uniting of all peoples, was "world peace" conceivable. He seemed to argue for a "league of nations," that could act as one body to police any aggressor polities on the world stage. He tried to argue that war could be controlled by man because it was, after all, fundamentally a form of social behavior.

Wright took a scientific, orderly approach to the subject of understanding war. He traced the history and evolution of warfare through four basic stages: namely, warfare of animal, primitive, civilized, and modern dimensions. These stages were important in a comparative sense, but his primary focus was on the origin, theory, practice, and effectiveness of modern warfare. He identified four periods of modern civilization, tracing his contemporary era back to the post-1914 period. He identified the usefulness of propaganda in driving warfare, but his analysis precludes its full application to the intensified racism and nationalism of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. While identifying major trends, such as the creation of a league of united nations, Wright's analysis is not directly applicable to the Cold War and post-Cold War eras. Furthermore, today's ethnic warfare seems to invalidate Wright's conception of war as an instigator of political change.

Ultimately, Wright seems to have been stonewalled by the contradictions of the twentieth century, especially the emergence of totalitarianism. So long as the idea of national sovereignty exists, the world-community cannot be successfully integrated. While ethnic tension, class conflict, and religious persecution exist within societies, national sovereignty itself remains tenuous. Throughout history, as Wright concedes, progress and warfare have gone hand in hand; the great powers have been aggressors. Progress breeds independence, which eventually alienates a society; war is the great leveler. In the end, Wright's hopes for a future peace engineered by human cooperation seem illusory and naïve.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but arguments are invalid for post-WWII world
Review: Quincy Wright attempted to examine the origins and evolution of warfare and to thereupon apply evident generalizations in hopes of controlling modern "oscillations of war and peace." He offered many definitions of "war," conceding the fact that war in some sense has always been present in human culture. Interestingly, he contended that only in the most modern age had war been seen as a "problem" by a significant percentage of the world's population. Clearly, his ultimate goal was to "suggest political, economic, and social changes which might reduce the frequency of war or eliminate it altogether." As a social scientist, he qualifies himself as a man able to combine theory with correlative action.

The work is very much a product of its historical era. As he says, he began the work in 1926, the illusory age between world wars, and published it in 1942, when World War II was erupting across the world. The belligerent activities in and after 1939 did not fully overwhelm his simplistic hopes for peace. Only then, when innovations in communications and technology made possible the uniting of all peoples, was "world peace" conceivable. He seemed to argue for a "league of nations," that could act as one body to police any aggressor polities on the world stage. He tried to argue that war could be controlled by man because it was, after all, fundamentally a form of social behavior.

Wright took a scientific, orderly approach to the subject of understanding war. He traced the history and evolution of warfare through four basic stages: namely, warfare of animal, primitive, civilized, and modern dimensions. These stages were important in a comparative sense, but his primary focus was on the origin, theory, practice, and effectiveness of modern warfare. He identified four periods of modern civilization, tracing his contemporary era back to the post-1914 period. He identified the usefulness of propaganda in driving warfare, but his analysis precludes its full application to the intensified racism and nationalism of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. While identifying major trends, such as the creation of a league of united nations, Wright's analysis is not directly applicable to the Cold War and post-Cold War eras. Furthermore, today's ethnic warfare seems to invalidate Wright's conception of war as an instigator of political change.

Ultimately, Wright seems to have been stonewalled by the contradictions of the twentieth century, especially the emergence of totalitarianism. So long as the idea of national sovereignty exists, the world-community cannot be successfully integrated. While ethnic tension, class conflict, and religious persecution exist within societies, national sovereignty itself remains tenuous. Throughout history, as Wright concedes, progress and warfare have gone hand in hand; the great powers have been aggressors. Progress breeds independence, which eventually alienates a society; war is the great leveler. In the end, Wright's hopes for a future peace engineered by human cooperation seem illusory and naïve.