This article will argue that Angell who is a classical idealist and Carr and Morgenthau who are classical realists have different approaches to conflicts experienced during the 20th century but at the same time, they share some basic ideas. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay To begin with, the two classical ideologies that should be different, classical idealism and classical realism. The first is based on the main idea that cooperation is essential and that human existence is characterized by interdependence, which essentially explains how our well-being depends on the well-being of others. Angell believes that his premises are both “normative” and “factual,” and that what makes his idealism classic are its normative components. The second ideology is based on the idea of ​​a "utopian synthesis", according to which it is moral for a human being to be competitive and to defend one's own interests because humans are imperfect. He emphasizes that each state must look after its own interests, each must therefore ensure its own security. Realists believe in the power of maximization, where national control is necessary and international opportunism is essential. Morgenthau and Carr believe in the idea that every human being looks out for his or her own best interests and that we are all in constant competition with each other. another. On the one hand, Angell believes that to achieve peace, certain basic conditions must be respected, such as moral education, democratization and an international forum. On the other hand, realists believe that peace should not be achieved through persuasion, but rather through immoral behavior. They believe that idealists underestimate the separation of "subject" and "object" because they believe that philosophers cannot simply define the world according to their ideals since the world according to them is more real and more pessimistic . In particular, they believed that when Germany and Italy invaded Poland, someone should have "fight back" and that would have ended the conflict. They believe that a balance of power is the key to peace. Angell, Carr, and Morgenthau share conflict resolution to achieve peace. Even if it is true that everyone has a different point of view on the belic conflicts experienced in Europe at the beginning of the 20th century, they all arrive at the same conclusion: peace. On the other hand, they also share the ideology of democratization, since realists and idealists share democratic thinking that leads to peace. Plus, they all start from the same starting point. They agree that in an original state of nature or anarchy, men eat men. But they will differ later because of the realistic ideology of remaining at this stage and the idealistic ideology of evolving from this stage and the fact that cooperation is essential. These authors demonstrate great strength in defending their ideas and beliefs. Angell supports the idea that human nature is not essentially warlike. Military conquest is therefore not profitable for the conqueror “for the simple fact that its conquest would not assure the conqueror any profit”[1]. Meanwhile, realists differ on this aspect, since they believe in the competitiveness and self-interest of each nation and not a common interest like idealists. As Morgenthau expresses it in his texts, "the political objective of war in itself is not the conquest of territories and the annihilation of enemy armies, but a change in the enemy's state of mind." which will make him yield to the will of.27