When Right Makes Might: How Prussia Overturned the European Balance of Power

Abstract

From 1864 to 1871, Prussia mounted a series of wars that fundamentally altered the balance of power in Europe. Yet no coalition emerged to check Prussia's rise. Rather than balance against Prussian expansion, the great powers sat on the sidelines and allowed the transformation of European politics. Traditionally, scholars have emphasized structural variables, such as mulitpolarity, or domestic politics as the cause of this “underbalancing.” It was Prussia's legitimation strategies, however—the way Prussia justified its expansion—that undermined a potential balancing coalition. As Prussia expanded, it appealed to shared rules and norms, strategically choosing rhetoric that would resonate with each of the great powers. These legitimation strategies undermined balancing coalitions through three mechanisms: by signaling constraint, laying rhetorical traps (i.e., framing territorial expansion in a way that deprived others states grounds on which to resist), and increasing ontological security (i.e., demonstrating its need to secure its identity in international politics), Prussia effectively expanded without opposition. An analysis of Prussia's expansion in 1864 demonstrates how legitimation strategies prevented the creation of a balancing coalition.

A Preference for War: How Fairness and Rhetoric Influence Leadership Incentives in Crises

“…Voluminous evidence indicates that fairness concerns drive much of human interaction. In international politics, for example, fairness concerns appear to have dramatically restricted the bargaining space in the Arab-Israeli conflict (Goddard 2009;Hassner 2009). Both sides have appealed to fairness discourses, often in calls to action or the rejection of compromises viewed as unjust.…”

The hard truths about soft power

“…Moreover, outside the US-European system, the world is more anarchic, and therefore, these realist insights apply. Instrumental strategies to couch diplomatic policies in terms of larger norms and values are thus not the employment of soft power, but shrewd diplomacy (Goddard 2008). In such a world, we would expect that soft power is going to have less influence during power shifts precisely because states will be so wary of the capabilities of the rising power.…”

Khả Năng Dân Tộc Và Quốc Tế Của Vấn Đề Nước Đức Thế Kỷ Xix

“…Nước Anh, vì thế, thường đóng một vai trò rất trung lập trong vấn đề nước Đức thế kỷ XIX. Họ ủng hộ giải pháp thống nhất thị trường nước Đức của Phổ, vì điều đó có lợi cho hàng hóa của Anh thâm nhập thị trường châu Âu lục địa[20,. Ngược lại, giới quan sát và hoạt động chính trị của Đức lúc bấy giờ nhìn vào nước Anh và Mỹ như một mô hình phát triển đáng mơ ước [1, Tr.…”