Looking at the origins of World War I and II and the Cold War, the evidence shows that there are “no inherently aggressive states.” In all three conflicts, aggressive behavior was caused by actors responding to stimuli on basis of “external constraints” or past experiences of the state. Therefore, no state can be blamed for any of the above mentioned conflicts and only theories that place the blame on the circumstances rather than a state itself are viable. The causes of the conflicts were situational, and the leaders were only acting out of security interests for their respective countries. In the following essay, an example will be given from each side of the conflict to show evidence of how all countries involved played a part and that no one aggressor state is to blame.
On the eve of World War One, Germany did not necessarily want war. Germany's concerns about her security fatefully landed her the role as one of the key perpetrators of World War One. On July 5th, Germany issued it's “blank check” to Austria, effectively welding Germany’s fate with Austria's (Stoessinger 3). But this was not plainly because Kaiser Wilhelm felt a “personal attachment” to the Austrian leadership (3). Germany felt uneasy in the stew of Alliances being formed in the early 20th century. Russia and France, who had consolidated their alliance, seemed to surround Germany. To survive, the German leadership felt like they had to “preserve [their] only ally” (Roeder Lecture 2). Furthermore, German public opinion also expressed fatalistic concerns, that “Germany would be a world power or nothing”, here would be the “existence or non-existence of the Germanic race in Europe” (Van Evera 66). This extreme polarity in the existence of the Germanic peoples reflected the attitude of all Germans, including those in the German leadership. Indeed, the growing Russian force with the implementation of the Great Program along with Russo-French alliance made Germany uneasy...