Document Type : Original Independent Original Article
Highlights
Introduction
The issue of revisionist powers has always been one of the important subjects in the study of international relations, especially in the literature of realism. From the perspective of many realist theorists, revisionist powers are regarded as a source of instability, intense competition, and even large-scale wars because they challenge the existing rules and arrangements of the international system. However, the history of international relations shows that not all revisionist powers have necessarily led to the disruption of international order or the emergence of widespread crises. Some of these powers, after attaining their objectives, have succeeded in consolidating their gains and integrating into the new order, whereas others, by continuing expansionist policies, have laid the groundwork for the formation of broad coalitions against themselves and, ultimately, for their own defeat. Accordingly, the central question of the present study is why some revisionist powers, after attaining their objectives, are able to preserve their gains, while others continue expansionism and ultimately lose those gains.
By focusing on two important historical cases, namely Germany during the chancellorship of Otto von Bismarck after German unification in 1871 and Germany under the leadership of Adolf Hitler on the eve of the Second World War, the present study seeks to answer this question. The selection of these two cases is important because both states, at different historical moments, belonged to the category of revisionist powers and succeeded in achieving important objectives in the realm of foreign policy; the difference being that Bismarckian Germany was able to preserve its gains for a long period, whereas Hitler’s Germany, by expanding its objectives without limit, ended in strategic failure and total collapse. This study seeks to examine, through the theoretical framework of neoclassical realism, the role of international structure and domestic variables in explaining this difference.
Research Method
This study is based on the theoretical framework of neoclassical realism. While emphasizing the role of the structure of the international system, neoclassical realism holds that the impact of the external environment on states’ foreign policy is transmitted through domestic variables. Accordingly, in this study, international structure was examined as the independent variable, and the two variables of “leaders’ perceptions” and “decisions of political elites” were examined as intervening variables.
The research method is qualitative and based on a historical-comparative study. To collect data, both primary and secondary sources were used, including historical documents, the works of international relations theorists, speeches, political memoirs, government documents, and relevant scholarly studies. In addition, document analysis and comparative analysis were employed to compare the two cases of Bismarckian Germany and Hitler’s Germany. Within this framework, the structural conditions of the international system, the nature of foreign relations and alliances, leaders’ perceptions of the domestic and external environments, and the manner in which political elites interacted with the decision-making process were evaluated. The main purpose of this comparison is to identify the factors that led to differences in the preservation or loss of the foreign-policy gains of revisionist powers.
Findings
The findings of the study show that the success or failure of revisionist powers does not depend solely on the level of material power or the initial attainment of objectives; rather, the management of gains and the assessment of domestic and external conditions play a decisive role in this regard. At the level of international structure, Bismarckian Germany, after achieving national unification, sought to consolidate Europe’s new balance of power through the creation of a network of defensive alliances and active diplomacy. Recognizing the constraints of the international environment, Bismarck refrained from further expansionism and sought to prevent the emergence of a consensus among the great powers against Germany. His alliances were formed primarily on the basis of strategic necessities and the structural needs of the international system.
By contrast, although Hitler’s Germany was initially able to take advantage of the opportunities arising from general dissatisfaction with the Treaty of Versailles, because of its misassessment of the international structure and its continuation of expansionist policies, it gradually united all the great powers against itself. The alliances formed by Hitler were designed not on the basis of structural needs but on the basis of aggressive and ambitious objectives, and ultimately led to the weakening of Germany’s position.
At the level of leaders’ perceptions as well, important differences were observed. Bismarck pursued limited, realistic objectives grounded in balance-of-power considerations. He preferred preserving security and consolidating existing gains to the endless expansion of power. By contrast, under the influence of ideological and expansionist ideas, Hitler pursued unlimited objectives based on the acquisition of greater gain and power. This approach caused Hitler’s Germany, after achieving initial successes, to embark on a path of confrontation with the international system as a whole.
In the sphere of the decisions of political elites, a striking difference was also observed between the two periods. In Bismarckian Germany, although the political structure was not fully democratic, political elites and different currents played a role in the decision-making process, and this helped moderate foreign policy. By contrast, in Nazi Germany, the elimination of independent parties and institutions and the full concentration of power in the hands of Hitler and the Nazi Party meant that no effective mechanism existed to restrain the leader’s ambitions.
Based on the findings of the study, four types of revisionist powers can be identified, only two of which are capable of preserving their gains. Among these, powers that pursue limited, legitimate objectives compatible with the structural considerations of the international system have a greater chance of consolidating their successes.
Conclusion
The findings of the study show that the principal factor in the success of revisionist powers is not merely the attainment of initial objectives, but rather their ability to preserve their gains and prevent the formation of broad coalitions against themselves. Bismarckian Germany constitutes an example of pragmatic and limited revisionism that was able to consolidate its gains through a correct understanding of the international environment, the adoption of limited objectives, the creation of networks of cooperation, and the use of balanced domestic mechanisms. By contrast, Hitler’s Germany was an example of unlimited and ideological revisionism that, by disregarding structural constraints and eliminating domestic control mechanisms, laid the groundwork for its own failure.
From a theoretical perspective, the findings of the study show that the neoclassical realist approach has considerable capacity to explain differences in the performance of revisionist powers, because in addition to the international structure, it also takes into account the role of leaders’ perceptions and the decisions of political elites. The results of this study can also be useful in analyzing the behavior of contemporary emerging powers such as China and Russia and can help distinguish between responsible revisionist powers and rogue powers. Consequently, a precise understanding of the nature and objectives of revisionist powers can be of considerable importance in managing power transitions and preserving the stability of the international system.
