Realist Expansionism, Lebensraum, and Manifest Destiny

Expansionism has always been relevant in terms of the progress of any nation’s statehood as well as the status quo of the international theater as a whole. Specifically, realists have a unique claim to the motivations behind why state’s choose to expand and how it is that others seem to withdraw into themselves. This claim is based in the Realist belief that states act in a manner consistent with rational self-interest. Through the lens of Realism, international affairs are viewed in terms of power, security, and anarchy. Military expansionism’s motivations are well explained by these three tenets, as can be seen historically in a number of cases. Two very poignant examples include Nazi Germany’s practice of Lebensraum and the United States’ policy of Manifest Destiny.

States whose power surpasses those of their neighbors and especially any close rivals will enjoy a greater share of their ability to influence other states on the international level, thereby increasing domestic contentment. Moreover, “The best single indicator of a state’s power may be its total GDP...” (Goldstein & Pevehouse 45-46). Traditionally, the GDP per capita that a nation possesses indicates the standard of living for its population. Therefore, a high GDP will increase both a state’s international power as well as its quality of life at home. Clearly, any self-interested state would seek to increase its GDP. One of the most effective ways to go about satisfying that interest is through territorial expansion. As a nation’s resources and productive capacity are tied directly to the area that it encompasses, the state’s need to push out its borders becomes readily apparent. Expansionism offers a solution that increases a nation’s power in the short-run by increasing geopolitical strength, which becomes advantageous to military defense and the advancement of the nation’s self-protection. In the long-run, Expansionism steadily increases GDP, which increases the economic power that country wields. Realism argues that the most successful nations will possess this element of power. Because Expansionism channels power into a nation, it follows then that realists would predict that a self-interested nation would look to expand whenever possible.

In the case of Nazi Germany, Expansionism was clearly an element of the state’s attempt to gain power. German geographer and ethnologist Friedrich Ratzel coined the term Lebensraum, which means “living space” in English, as a way to describe the nation’s expansion (Martin). During Hitler’s control of Nazi Germany, he actively pursued Lebensraum as a means to “...secure for Germany the Ukrainian ‘breadbasket’ and open up vast territories for German colonization.” (“Germany”). Although Hitler justified militarizing his nation, expanding, and performing genocide upon the surrounding populations by regaining control of the Slavic nations to Germany’s east and proliferating a superior Arian race, there is no doubt that obtaining more land increased Germany’s economic, military, and geopolitical power. For example, the speedy takeover of Poland demonstrates Germany’s claim to that nation’s resources as well as a strategic military advancement upon the eventual target of Russia. In this instance, realists can claim that their model did indeed correctly predict the motivations of Nazi Germany’s expansion. As a remedy to the adverse conditions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles upon Germany and its people, a strong leader was able to rally his nation into a militaristic state in order to increase its “living space,” GDP, and international glory and prominence.

The American version of Lebensraum was called Manifest Destiny. Just as Realism had claims in Germany’s expansion, it has equal footing in the American territorial expansion from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean. During a swell of nationalism in the United states, New York editor John L. O’Sullivan put forth the idea that it was, “the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly expanding millions.” (Ferrell). Shortly after this proclamation was made, President James K. Polk continued the American tradition of westward sprawl by executing a steady and precise policy of military expansion. This nationalism and expansionary mood felt by Americans motivated the federal government to expand its borders at the expense of the Native American population who stood in its way. On the “Trail of Tears,” where countless indigenous peoples were led to be forcefully relocated, millions of their population perished. It was effectively a genocide of the lesser advanced people by a more aggressive and technologically equipped nation. In fact it was, “the booming economy [that] spurred the demand to bring ever more ‘virgin land’ still in Indian hands into the orbit of civilization.” (“United States”). Moreover, Manifest destiny can be linked to the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, and the Oregon Question. All three of which expanded the American landmass in pursuit of power. The model of Realism again correctly demonstrates the United States’ expansion through military campaign in order to obtain land for productive capacity and economic power, as well as its securement of the central element of the North American continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific in a geopolitical attempt at strategic national protection.

Realists will also look at anarchy and security as crucial elements of their international philosophy. Looking at Nazi Germany, both elements were present and can help to explain the nation’s actions. Security, from a realist standpoint, deals with the polarity of a region based upon the relative strength of the germane nations. Prior to World War II, there was a multipolar environment in Europe, which is the least stable form of the international balance of power. Truly it was unstable, as a catastrophic war ensued. Germany sought, in this instance, to expand its borders and become a regional hegemon. This is a rational action to take because it would create an extremely stable European theater, with Germany enjoying the benefits of the dominant nation. Moreover, this hegemonic Germany would effectively reduce anarchy in Europe, as it would come closer to performing the role of a government above the states. Realism effectively explains why Germany utilized an expansionist policy then in terms of anarchy and stability as well.

Manifest Destiny can be similarly accounted for based upon the realist tenets of stability and anarchy. The United States enjoys the unique geographic advantage of being separated by the Atlantic ocean from the powerful European nations. This gave America the opportunity for a regional hegemony, but only if it could expand to a more secure geographical position. If the U.S. could expand its borders across the width of North America, it would then only have to be concerned with attacks from the south and the north, as opposed to the south north, and west. Unlike in Germany, however, a multipolar environment did not exist in North America. Really, America was set from its founding to expand westward because of the lack of any credible regional rival. Its goal in the practice of Manifest Destiny was to secure a hegemony for a stable national future. In turn, America’s dominance in North America reduced the anarchy and instability that was seen later in Europe during World War II.

Interestingly, both the United States and Germany followed a very similar path in their aims of national expansion, however, the outcomes of each venture were very different. This is where the realists fall short. How can it be that a policy of national expansion worked out so well for the United States, eventually making it a worldwide superpower, while Germany’s Lebensraum effectively brought about its destruction? It seems as though it was not a discrepancy in the effective execution between Lebensraum and Manifest Destiny, but rather the amount of oppositional force that each received. Possibly it could be that the regional weakness of America’s continental rivals allowed it to be successful, while Germany was matched against some of the world’s great powers, making expansion much more difficult. Whatever the case, the disparity between relatively similar international settings and the very different outcomes leaves something to be desired of the realist viewpoint.

Works Cited

Ferrell, Robert H. "Manifest Destiny." Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Grolier Online, 2011. Web. 21 Sept. 2011.

"Germany." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 21 Sep. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/ EBchecked/topic/231186/Germany>.

Martin, Geoffrey John. "Ratzel, Friedrich." Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Grolier Online, 2011. Web. 22 Sept. 2011.

"United States." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 21 Sep. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/ EBchecked/topic/616563/United-States>.

Goldstein, Joshua, and Jon Pevehouse. International Relations. United States. Pearson, 2011. Print.