Geoffrey Blainey's The Causes of War: A Critical Review

Geoffrey Blainey: Author Background

The Causes of War is a book by the Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey. Blainey is noted for having had an exceptional academic career in Australia, despite the fact that he was eventually forced to retire due to controversial comments he made regarding Australia's immigration policies. Throughout his career, Blainey published over two dozen books, including the critically acclaimed A Short History of the World. Triumph of the Nomads, another of his works, is considered the classic study of Australia's original inhabitants. Among his numerous theories, Blainey is famous for coining the "black armband view of history" as a label for historians who argue that Australians committed genocide against Indigenous Australians. He is thus widely regarded as a right-wing historian.

In his academic career, Blainey held numerous chairs at the University of Melbourne. He also served as chair of Australian Studies at Harvard University for a period. Between 1994 and 1998, Blainey served as foundation Chancellor of the University of Ballarat. Among his many honors, he was made a Knight of the Order of Australia in 1975 and a Companion of the Order of Australia in 2000. His controversial work on war and the history of Australia continues to be the subject of numerous studies.

In The Causes of War, Blainey attempts to shed light on what has caused wars over the centuries. His main objective is to disprove previous theories of the causes of war as they have been handed down over time. In each chapter, Blainey selects a particular theme relating to the way war has been conceptualized by historians and systematically discredits it. Some of the theories he examines are more plausible than others. Blainey's ultimate purpose is to demonstrate that no single theory explains why wars happen. Rather, war is contingent on a number of different factors.

Central Argument and Structure of the Book

In the opening section of the book, Blainey explores the notion of peace. He begins by asking why thousands of pages have been written on the causes of war, yet hardly any on the causes of peace. The inference, he says, is that peace is the normal state of affairs. Statistically, however, this is not true. Throughout history, wars have been a constant presence; extended periods of peace have been quite scarce and rarely last more than a quarter of a century. By Blainey's own admission, the nineteenth century did produce much longer periods of peace than previous eras, though he ventures only that people during that era had grown weary of war.

In the next section of the book, "The Web of War," Blainey reiterates his thesis that "persistent patterns in war and peace have not been found for the simple reason that they do not exist" (35). For two countries to go to war, he argues, each nation must be confident that the conflict will lead to a quick victory; otherwise, nations will seek to avoid it. There is no rational incentive for engaging in a prolonged battle that costs millions of lives and billions of dollars. Without the confidence that victory will come quickly, no country will choose war. Thus, an overriding sense of optimism must be present in each country before hostilities begin.

Key Theories Examined and Refuted

Blainey then outlines his waterbird theory, which explains what he views as opportunism on the part of warring nations. When two waterbirds are engaged in battle over a fish, a third will often swoop in and attempt to seize it. As an illustration, Blainey draws on the numerous battles and near-battles that Bulgaria was engulfed in during the late nineteenth century: as soon as its army mobilized at one border, invaders from another country would strike from an unguarded one. This kind of opportunism in international affairs, he argues, has served as the catalyst for a number of wars throughout history.

It is commonly believed that wars break out as the result of an imbalance of power among nations. Blainey shows this is not always the case; there have been numerous historical instances in which war erupted precisely because of a perceived balance of power rather than an imbalance.

Another popular explanation holds that economic slumps are major factors leading to war. Yet Blainey notes numerous examples of wars that began during periods when a nation's economy was flourishing rather than declining.

There is also the idea that moderate treaties help maintain peace and discourage nations from going to war. The problem with this theory, Blainey observes, is that a number of moderate treaties have also led to increased conflict between nations. Harsh treaties are commonly believed to provoke further war, yet history also offers examples in which harsh treaties proved quite effective in maintaining peace.