Russia and the Origins of the First World War

Lieven, Dominic

doi:10.1007/978-1-349-17201-6

Cited by 155 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The latter sparked off the First Morocco Crisis of 1905. While designed by German policymakers to break up the entente cordiale , it ended up only strengthening the Franco-Russian alliance while laying the first ‘bridge between the Anglo-French Entente and Russia’ (Fischer, 1975: 57; see Lieven, 1983: 29–31).…”

Section: Collapsing Empires and Rising Nationalisms: The ‘Peripheral’ Sources Of Geopolitical Conflict And Warmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, the Russian defeat of 1905 diminished St Petersburg’s ambitions in Central Asia, lessening the threat posed to British colonial interests in the region. The 1904–1907 war-revolution imbroglios also reduced London’s fears of Russian power providing ‘the essential backdrop’ to the Anglo-Russian agreement of 1907 (Lieven, 1983: 31). Though the issue of British participation in a future war on the side of France became a predominating question within German policymaking circles from then onwards, the Schlieffen Plan — as later altered by the younger Moltke — circumvented any chance of assuring British neutrality as it called for a first-strike offensive against France through Belgium (Gordon, 1974).…”

Section: Collapsing Empires and Rising Nationalisms: The ‘Peripheral’ Sources Of Geopolitical Conflict And Warmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

1914 in world historical perspective: The ‘uneven’ and ‘combined’ origins of World War I

Anievas

2012

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The causes of World War I remain a topic of enormous intellectual interest. Yet, despite the immensity of the literature, historiographical and IR debates remain mired within unhelpful methodological dichotomies revolving around whether a 'primacy of foreign policy' versus 'primacy of domestic politics' or systemic versus unit-level approach best account for the war's origins. Given that this historiography is the most prolific body of literature for any war within the modern age, it reveals a much deeper problem with the social sciences: how to coherently integrate 'external' and 'internal' relations into a synthesized theory of inter-state conflict and war. Drawing on and contributing to the theory of uneven and combined development, this article challenges standard interpretations of the war by distinctively uniting geopolitical and sociological modes of explanation into a single framework. In doing so, the article highlights how the necessarily variegated character of interactive socio-historical development explains the inter-state rivalries leading to war. Contextualizing the sources of conflict within the broad developmental tendencies of the Long 19th Century (1789Century ( -1914 and their particular articulation during the immediate pre-war juncture, the article seeks to provide significant contributions to recent debates in IR and historical sociology, as well as those concerning the relationship between history and IR theory.

show abstract

Section: Collapsing Empires and Rising Nationalisms: The ‘Peripheral’ Sources Of Geopolitical Conflict And Warmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Collapsing Empires and Rising Nationalisms: The ‘Peripheral’ Sources Of Geopolitical Conflict And Warmentioning

confidence: 99%

1914 in world historical perspective: The ‘uneven’ and ‘combined’ origins of World War I

Anievas

2012

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Having already experienced defeat in both the RussoJapanese War and the 1908-09 Bosnian crisis, Russia did not want to appear weak again. 90 Vigorous Russian support, in turn, strengthened Serbian resolve. 91 As Joll puts it, "[T]he Austrians had believed that vigorous actions against Serbia and a promise of German support would deter Russia: the Russians had believed that a show of strength against Austria would both check the Austrians and deter Germany.…”

Section: Trading On Preconceptions 143mentioning

confidence: 99%

Trading on Preconceptions: Why World War I Was Not a Failure of Economic Interdependence

Gartzke

Lupu

2012

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship between economic interdependence and military conºict is among the most studied and debated in the international relations literature. Scholars who argue that economic ties reduce the likelihood of conºict have struggled to reconcile this view with the outbreak of World War I. The conventional wisdom among political scientists is that World War I constituted a failure of economic integration to maintain peace. 1 Even prominent advocates of liberal theory view World War I as an unfortunate contradiction to the general argument that trade inhibits conºict. 2 These arguments are important for several reasons. First, they bear on scholars' understanding of the causes of war and peace and on more pragmatic issues of policy in an increasingly globalized, but still fractious, world. Whether interdependence encourages states to resolve differences diplomatically or not Trading on Preconceptions Trading on Preconceptions

show abstract

“…P. A. Bark, the minister of finance whose notes provide the key historical record of these deliberations, commented that Krivoshein's arguments not to abandon Russia's Balkan interests were critical to the cabinet's decisions. 91 Because concessions and caution had simply heightened German aggression, Krivoshein argued it was time for Russia to show "that we had come to the end of the concessions we were prepared to make." 92 Perhaps most important, the ongoing economic conflict with Germany contributed to the arguments that Russia was ready to defend its interests with actions that heightened the risk of war.…”

Section: Protecting National Interests? T H E Case Of World W a R Imentioning

confidence: 99%

The Achilles' Heel of Liberal IR Theory?: Globalization and Conflict in the Pre-World War I Era

McDonald¹,

Sweeney²

2007

World Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite substantial evidence that international trade has promoted peace in the post—World War II era, the commercial peace research program still faces an important historical challenge. Dramatic economic integration in the nineteenth century failed to prevent the increasing interstate hostilities that culminated in the outbreak of war in 1914. This article uses a theoretical revision grounded in standard trade theory to reexamine the relationship between commerce and peace in the fifty years before World War I, a period often referred to as the first era of globalization. The article focuses on domestic conflict over commercial policy rather than on interdependence to understand the conditions under which globalization promotes peace. In a sample dating from 1865 to 1914, the authors find that lower regulatory barriers to commerce reduce participation in militarized interstate disputes. Contradicting conventional wisdom, this evidence affirms a basic premise of commercial liberalism during the first era of globalization—free trade promotes peace.

show abstract

Russia and the Origins of the First World War

Cited by 155 publications

References 0 publications

1914 in world historical perspective: The ‘uneven’ and ‘combined’ origins of World War I

1914 in world historical perspective: The ‘uneven’ and ‘combined’ origins of World War I

Trading on Preconceptions: Why World War I Was Not a Failure of Economic Interdependence

The Achilles' Heel of Liberal IR Theory?: Globalization and Conflict in the Pre-World War I Era

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About