Essay: Unravelling the Security Dynamics of World War II: Exploring Realism, Balance of Power, Human Security and Securitization



The idea of security is something that is difficult to define, as it is a term that is highly contested by many, as it means different things to different people. This essay will look at security in the face of conflict and will use the approaches studied in this course to do so. The choice of conflict is World War II, and will be analyzed using the approaches to understand the dynamics and intentions behind the war. It will consider the main superpowers, Germany and the US in the conflict and use the approaches to understand their reason for the conflict. The approaches that we will use include, realism and the balance of power, human security, and securitization.

World War II has been chosen, as it is the one of the most recent conflicts in contemporary history, and each approach studied in this course can be applied to it in some way. Causalities of the Second World War are predicted to be 70 to 85 million and citizens that were not in the military took up 67% of these deaths. (Secondworldwarhistory.com, n.d.) Adolf Hitler who was in charge of the Nazi German army from 1933 to 1945 (BBC.co.uk, n.d.) was the catalyst behind these gross numbers. Hitler’s main ideology was that he wanted to spread ‘Lebensraum’; it was the idea of more ‘living space’ for his ‘superior Aryan race’. He essentially wanted to conquer more land to ‘ethnically cleanse’ other races, to have a pure Aryan race. (Theholocaustexplained.org, n.d.) Hitler’s biggest threat to achieving this was the US who was on the side known as ‘the allies,’ which also included France, Great Britain and Australia. Germany on the other hand was on the side known as ‘the axis’ with only Italy and Japan. (Overy, 2017) By January 1945 there were more than seven hundred prisoners in Hitler’s concentration camps. (Kirsch, 2015) Now whilst Hitler’s goal and means to spread his Aryan ideology were inhumane and perceived as a breach of human security, the direct threat this had on the countries involved through the mass power he had accumulated was the main reason for them to direct their attentions to arms, shifting the perspective to a balance of power threat.

E.H. Carr studied classical realism and focused on the role of power and self-interest, he believed that the cause of problems between international relations was a result of human nature. (Kirshner, 2010) Hans Morgenthau states that ‘politics is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature.’ (Kirshner, 2010) He is essentially trying to say that human nature is the problem, that conflict takes place because of everyone’s drive for power and influence. (Kirshner, 2010) This theory then developed to neoclassical realism, which tries to explain foreign policies of states and fill in the gaps that are not explained in previous realist views. (Dueck, 2009) Neoclassical realism is both a ‘theory of foreign policy’, which explains the actions of states in the international scene, and a ‘theory of international politics’ which focuses on the trends and tendencies of countries trying to balance their powers. (Dueck, 2009) Essentially, it is countries comparing themselves with one another, and deciding when to act depending on their gains in comparison to other states. This then developed into the balance of power theory; suggesting that national security is improved when there is a balance between states on a military level, however, we know human nature is self-serving. (Wohlforth et al., 2007). The balance of power also helps us understand how competitive behavior leads to equilibrium. (Wohlforth et al., 2007) This approach can be applied to security in World War II, as it can be understood as a game of strength, which countries will develop and gain the most in comparison to one another.

Now that we have identified that war is driven by human nature and self-interest we can apply the approach of realism and the balance of power to World War II. A prime example of the balance of power being used during World War II was the US supplying military support to ‘the allies’. (HISTORY, 2010) The fact that there were two sides, ‘the axis’ and ‘the allies’ was also an attempt to balance power. Germany was extremely efficient in their arms production, producing 80,000 new combat aircrafts from 1942 to 1945. However, the US produced 114,000 in 1944 alone, (Militaryfactory.com, n.d.) identifying that there was an arms race going on between the two superpowers, and that the US wanted to maintain their ‘imbalance’ of producing power. Before 1941 when the US declared themselves as part of the war, they were supplying Britain and the ‘allies’ with large numbers of equipment and arms due to the fear of German dominance within Europe, or the fear of an imbalance of power. This relates to the approach, as Germany becoming more powerful did not suit the self-interest of the United States, forcing them to intervene and aid Germanys opposition. Additionally, the Jews being killed may not have been the primary concern of the US (Blunt, 2015); they pumped all of this money in to ensure Germany did not become more powerful, not to stop the murder of innocent people. This arms race was greatly influential during the war as it slowed Germany down and gave Hitler too much to compete against; he was at a great disadvantage due to the United States productivity levels.

Now we will be defining human security followed by how it applies to World War II. Human security is also very vague ‘everyone is for it, but few people know what it means’ (Paris, 2001). We do not have a clear definition of human security, but it can be understood that the priority of human security is for humans to feel secure, and this is dependent on ‘safety from chronic threats such as hunger, disease and repression’ and ‘protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in patterns of daily life’ This means that a state must do everything in its power to protect ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ (Paris, 2001) Genocide and ethnicity cleansing, which is the ‘mass extermination of a whole group of people, an attempt to wipe them out of existence’ (Paris, 2001) is a major part of human security that can be applied to the Second World War. This opposes the realist view that the state should be the most important entity, but it also links with the realist theory, as these imbalances of power are what caused genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Genocide as well as ethnic cleansing was a consistent method used throughout World War II. Genocide and ethnic cleansing took place heavily in Germany under Hitler’s command. The holocaust is widely regarded as the worst genocide in history; it took place between 1941 and 1945. Six million Jews were killed which was around 2 thirds of the European Jewish population. The Romani genocide was also part of the holocaust and it is estimated that the Nazis killed 1.5 million Romani civilians. Hitler also ordered many crimes against the Polish, the Soviets and other Slavs, which resulted in the Germans killing 11 million noncombatants. (Snyder, 2011) This links to realism and the balance of power, as the only reason these genocides took place was for Hitler’s self interest; he wanted to spread his ideology of the perfect Aryan race and he wanted to gain more ‘living space’. However, since it’s the states role to protect the interest of its own people, nobody stepped in to interfere with the known genocides, as the risk was too high. This in turn fueled The Second World War further as Germany was getting more powerful and influential meaning the US had to produce more arms to provide to Britain and the other ‘allies’ until the United States a long with Britain and the Soviet Union finally stepped in.

The next approach we will explore is securitization, it is ‘the move that takes politics beyond the established rules of the game and frames the issue as a special kind of issue of above politics’ and ‘the process through which an issue is moved out of the realm of ‘normal’ politics and into the realm of emergency politics’ (Buzan et al, 1998). By using two of Buzan’s wide-ranging definitions of securitization, it is clear that this approach is heavily applicable to World War II. This paragraph will be defining each aspect of this approach, helping us understand how the theory applies to key events that took place during World War II, which will be covered in the next paragraph.

Securitization is based upon the speech of dominant actors such as Adolf Hitler and the moment of intervention, ignoring other forms of representation and allowing for a lot of power to one individual. (Buzan et al, 1998) Securitization suggests that security is only identified when in times of danger or threat. We will be looking at securitization through five sectors that are described in Buzan’s book ‘Security: A New Framework for Analysis’. The first sector in which securitization takes place is the military; military security states a nations ability to defend itself or to use force to impose political beliefs or ideas. Political security was the second sector; it is the safety of a countries people from their government. Economic security is the third sector, it is described as having a stable income to support a standard of living, but we will be looking at it on a wider international scale. The next sector Buzan speaks about is society security. This is about communities ranging from race to religion surviving as an interconnected unit. (Buzan et al, 1998)

This paragraph will delve deeper into each sector of securitization and apply them to the Second World War. Military security can be used to describe the invasion of Poland, which was the catalyst in setting off World War II. (HISTORY, 2010) As previously mentioned, Hitler wanted to ethnically cleanse Poland but more importantly, it was a power move, he wanted to eventually conquer Russia and spread his ‘political beliefs’ and Poland was a step towards that. (Hargreaves, 2010) Military security was a huge component during World War II as imposing your military on another country was the line between ‘normal’ politics and ‘emergency’ politics. (Buzan et al, 1998) Military security was the most used form of securitization during World War II and it links with the second sector; political security. This was of course discarded during the Second World War through Hitler’s concretion camps. 1.5 million people were predicted to be in concentration camps in 1939. Another 300,000 Polish were added to the camps following the invasion, (Kirsch, 2015) identifying that many people involved with Germany during this period had political insecurity.

Economic security is very useful when trying to understand World War II. On the 28th of June, after World War I, the treaty of Versailles was signed. This treaty called for Germany to accept all responsibilities of the war requiring them to pay 132 billion marks in damages, this was eight times the entire net worth of the country,(BBC Bitesize, n.d.) driving their economy down enormously. Germany lost territory, and had to dissemble their military, causing very high levels of insecurity in the country due to a major loss in power. This was essential in the cause of World War II as everyone in the country was desperate, giving Hitler the chance to take control and brainwash millions of Germans. This highlights that economic security is one of the most important aspects of securitization in a country as without it, people have a lower standard of living and are therefore unhappier, allowing for extreme actions to take place, such as the extreme polarization that took place between the Germans and the Jews.

Society Security links to the realist approach of security as people tend to care more about their own country, but in this case, over their own society. More so however, it links to human security and the balance of power as many countries had major decisions to make. For example, the US chose to side with ‘the allies’ for the better of its people, but in turn; this had a negative affect on Germany, and ‘the axis’. Society security is quite a prejudice approach, improving your own situation often led to dis-improving another societies situation; Hitler believed that killing Jews was good for his ‘Aryan’ race, but the consequence of this was the death of innocent people.

As stated by Hans Morgenthau, “politics is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature”, (P. Sempa, 2015) the core of conflict and the need for securitization stem from the hunger for power derived from human nature. This was seen explicitly in World War 2 with Adolf Hitler as the embodiment of the worst elements of human nature, and the world uniting to contain the threat. Although united under a common enemy, the securitization threats Germany presented to the world differed from the perspective of each of the allies, however consolidating the balance of power was unanimous among them. With elements of human security being present through the genocide and ethnic cleansing acts exercised by Hitler, and the economic instability with excessive funding to arm the allies, uniting to overcome the German threat was primarily due to the balance of power shifting in Germany’s favor, making it essential to even the odds. It is the most applicable approach in explaining World War II considering uniting to defeat a common enemy, while maintaining their own acts of self-interest. At its core, Hitler wanted to achieve his vision of a world dominated by the Aryan race with his wealth of power as the means to make it a reality. Because this threat was not contained to a specific region, and the sheer scale of it posing an immediate threat to the allied forces was the main reason, which implored them to unite and eliminate the growing power of Hitler.