The First School Of Realism During World War II

In the early times leading up to the World Wars, nations never had a need to fully understand the relations of the world and how this affected the world and politics. This means that before 1918, International Relations did not exist as a study on its own. International relations as a discipline grew out of the study of diplomatic history and International Law as cited by (Nicolson, 1939 as cited by Kydd n.d. ) . After World War I however, a new approach had to be found to better understand why it is that WWI occurred and to ensure that such devastation never again happened.
In this essay I will look at certain events, people and situations that occurred during World War I and World War II and how these reflect the different schools of
US President Woodrow Wilson was a great propellant and advocate of this Theory. Liberalism is primarily built on cooperation and interdependence. The term is taken from Latin “liber” which means, “free”, refers to the philosophy of freedom. The Realists was the second school of thinkers that came out in International Relations. Realism began as an contending view to Liberalism. Realists often refer to liberialists as idealists in the way they view International Relations. The school of realism builds its foundation from the bases of power and conflict and that this is the driving force in international relations. These two theories seem to account for a lot that happens in the playground of international relations. The later and third school of thinkers is Radicalisms. Radicalism is based on the premise that all the worlds’ problems and solutions lay in their economic state and
As it is distinguishes between truth and opinion, so it distinguishes between truth and idolatry. All nations are tempted – few have been able to resist the power for long – to clothe their own aspirations and actions in the moral purpose of the universe. To know that nations are subject to the moral low is one thing, while to pretend to know with certainty what is good and evil in the relations among nations is quite another. There is a world of difference between the beliefs that all nations stand under the judgement of God, instructable to the human mind and the blasphemous conviction that God is always on ones side and that what one wills ones self cannot fail to be willed by God also.