There is no H2' because the lack of verification gives states little reason to object to meeting together. The third hypothesis is that transparency reduces unwarranted fears and worst-case assumptions H3. Faced with uncertainty in their threat assessments, states must often make worst-case assumptions to ensure their security. By definition, worst-case assumptions are likely to be wrong and, if wrong, they create unwarranted fears. Increased transparency allows states to replace worst-case assumptions with facts, and this will reduce unwarranted fears in most cases.
This in turn reduces tensions and security spirals, reducing the likelihood of war and increasing the likelihood of cooperation. The main observable implication of this hypothesis is that threat assessments should become more benign during meetings of the Concert. The fourth hypothesis is that transparency reduces optimistic miscalculation H4. The absence of transparency may cause or exacerbate optimistic miscalculation, a frequent cause of deterrence failure.
For example, states start wars because of unwarranted beliefs that offense is easy or victory assured offensive optimistic miscalculation. Or states may think that defense is easier or that war is less likely than they actually are and they may fail to deter defensive optimistic miscalculation. If states can not determine the payoffs associated with war, miscalculation is likely. As Geoffrey Blainey notes: "most wars were likely to end in the defeat of at least one nation which had expected victory. Increased transparency reduces false optimism.
The main prediction for H4 is that military plans and political goals will change upon receiving more information about the capabilities and intentions of others. These changes will be caused by information provided by the regime and actors will explain these changes with reference to this new information. The negative variant is that transparency helps plan aggression H4'.
This would be found when increased transparency provides information that helps states plan attacks on others. The final hypothesis is that transparency clarifies bargaining positions and reduces conflict H5. This can happen in three ways. First, states can learn the extent to which they may realize joint gains through cooperation. Second, states may clarify their positions, stakes, and relative power in such a way as to make coercion work. Finally, states may realize that they are in deadlock.
Deadlock need not lead to conflict. As Kenneth Oye reminds us, deadlock may result more often from the absence of mutual interest than from unwarranted fears, security dilemmas, accidents, and miscalculations. The main prediction for H5 is that new information will clarify positions, stakes, and relative power, and spur agreement, successful coercion, or acceptance of deadlock. The negative variant is that transparency clarifies positions and increases conflict H5' and this occurs when new information makes bargaining harder and relations are worsened. States may see war as increasingly likely or necessary, and tensions may spiral upwards.
H3 and H5 are similar, except that H3 focuses on threat assessments, security dilemmas, and spirals while H5 focuses on bargaining and H4 focuses on planning for war, while H2 focuses on the promise of transparency as a motivation for regime formation. Table 1 summarizes the main findings by hypothesis:. Table 1: Summary of Hypotheses. Main question used to examine hypothesis in the cas e studies:. Regimes provide transparency H1. Regimes spread misinformation H1'. Does the regime use a transparency mechanism to help exchange or generate information and is the information accurate? Transparency promotes cooperation H2.
Does the promise of regime provided-transparency promote cooperation? Transparency reduces unwarranted fears and worst-case assumptions H3. Transparency confirms fears H3'. Transparency reduces optimistic miscalculation H4. Transparency helps plan aggression H4'.
Does transparency change war plans and prevent or provoke war? Transparency clarifies positions and reduces conflict H5. Transparency clarifies positions and increases conflict H5'. Does transparency help establish the positions and stakes in a conflict and does this increase or reduce conflict?
To test these various hypotheses and check on their observable implications, I will focus on examining turning points in crises. In these turning points, I will answer the following questions: What explains why the crisis escalated or was diffused? How much of a role does transparency play? The First Partition of Poland.
On October 6, , war erupted between Russia and Turkey when Russian troops pursued Polish rebels across the Polish border and into the then Turkish-held town of Balta. In spring and summer , Russia won a series of military victories. Russia occupied Bessarabia and the Danubian principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia on the Austrian frontier. By mid, Russia had begun to conquer the Crimea , stirred up a revolt in southern Greece Morea , and, after sailing from the Baltic, had sunk the Turkish fleet with British help at Chesme in the Mediterranean.
Austria feared being dragged into this war along its Eastern borders, and Prussia in turn feared what might become a larger European war. Starting in August , Austria and Prussia began discussions over a number of issues, including exchanging articles of neutrality, possible mediation of the Russo-Turkish war, and initial ideas for a partition of Poland. In the partition, Russia would be given some of Poland as compensation for backing off from Turkey and withdrawing from the Danubian principalities it now occupied. Austria and Prussia would gain Polish territory as well.
Although Russia continued South and conquered Crimea on July 1, , domestic politics, an epidemic, fear of peasant revolt, and continued unrest in Poland led Russia to become more conciliatory; it began to see partition as a viable choice to end the stresses of war. Although Frederick believed that Austria actually would not be willing to fight for its new ally, he renewed his push for partition of Poland with Russia.
Russia viewed the Austro-Turkish treaty with greater alarm, especially when it learned that Turkey sent silver to Austria , as payment in accord with their not so secret treaty. Austria resisted the plan for several months, but eventually gave in as Russia and Prussia offered ever-larger shares of Poland. None required a security regime to make it effects known. In the end, Poland lost one-third of its territory and one-half of its population.
Prussia achieved its goal of partitioning Poland and avoiding being dragged into war. Austria received the largest share of Poland, and the Russians withdrew their threatening forces from the Danubian Principalities and returned the territory to Turkey but gave itself the role of protector of those lands.
A multilateral forum was not necessary to conduct the complicated diplomatic dance that preceded the partition, or to achieve the tripartite partition itself.
Browse by Poet
Could a multilateral forum, like the later Concert of Europe, have changed the outcome? A plausible counterfactual argument can be made that multilateral diplomacy would have reduced tensions between Russia and Austria and hastened - but not changed - the eventual outcome.
- Economic history of World War I.
- Allies of World War I.
- I. VISIONS OF WARFARE?
- Light of Eidon (Legends of the Guardian-King, Book 1)?
- Energy conservation in existing buildings deskbook.
- The Towns of Italy in the Later Middle Ages;
Multilateral diplomacy could have revealed those common interests sooner and reduced the need for what seems to have been an inefficient and time-consuming level of manipulation. Multilateral diplomacy would have had little effect on these factors. In the end, all one can conclusively say is that sequential diplomacy was sufficient to produce a multilateral outcome and that multilateral diplomacy was not necessary to do so. To what extent do these results offer a baseline for measuring increases in transparency provided by the Concert H1? The first partition of Poland suggests that there was already some transparency and diplomatic nimbleness without forum diplomacy.
On the other hand, the first partition of Poland took a long time to negotiate. In contrast, several disputes during the Concert were resolved with relative alacrity; they probably would not have been resolved so fast without the use of multilateral forum diplomacy.
The Concert of Europe. According to most scholars of the Concert, it was most effective and coherent during its earliest years: through the early s. I begin by sketching the origins and legal framework of the Concert. To the extent this is true, it supports H2 which contends that the promise of transparency promotes cooperation. Then I examine the five crises to see if the Concert actually provided transparency H1 and what effect this transparency had on crisis management.
The Formation of the Concert. The Concert of Europe took form through a series of military, political, and ideological treaties. Tracing these treaties shows that the Concert had its roots in the wartime alliance against Napoleon. It owes much of its existence to the momentum of that alliance, to continued fear of a resurgent and possibly revolutionary France, and to the fear of liberal revolution more generally. However, the contention that the promise of transparency helped spur the Concert into existence H2 receives mild support. This statement confirms H2 in that Castlereagh expressed his belief that a regime could promote peace with transparency.
Confirmation would be stronger if I had found evidence that Castlereagh used these arguments to persuade others to sign on.
The Talks begin
The defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo marked the next evolutionary step, when the Allies signed the Second Treaty of Paris, on November 20, While singling out the dangers of Bonapartism, the allies also expressed more general fears about liberal revolution:. And as the same revolutionary principles which upheld the last criminal usurpation, might again, under other forms, convulse France, and thereby endanger the repose of other States; under these circumstances the High Contracting Parties The most ideologically motivated of the various treaties of the period, it marked the beginning of the European Eastern-Conservative vs.
Western-more-liberal schism. The resulting Troppau Protocol endorsed the use of force against revolutionary states, and was signed only by Austria, Russia, and Prussia. By formalizing commitments and making states more explicitly express their views by voting on them, the Concert reduced ambiguity and heightened tensions with England.
However, this incident only mildly supports hypotheses about regimes increasing transparency H1 , and transparency increasing conflict H5' because Britain would probably have distanced itself from any conservative intervention, regardless of procedures. First Crisis: Poland and Saxony, late - early In this crisis, forum diplomacy helped Austria, France, and Great Britain quickly make an alliance and coerce Russia into ending the conflict. Clear diplomacy prevented Russia from miscalculating and led it to back down.
This offers support for H4 which contends that transparency can reduce miscalculation and H5 which contends that transparency clarifies positions and reduces conflict. The most difficult and dangerous problem that arose during the Congress of Vienna involved the ultimate governance of the Duchy of Warsaw Poland and the Kingdom of Saxony. By the end of the Napoleonic Wars, Austria, Prussia, and Russia had already signed treaties Teplitz, Kalisch, and Reichenbach to peacefully partition Saxony, Poland, and other territories when the war was over.
But some of Poland had been part of Prussia, so to placate Prussia, Russia backed giving it long-coveted Saxony in exchange. Central Europe would then no longer be strong enough to serve as a counterweight either to French or Russian expansion. Austria was concerned that Prussian expansion into Saxony would boost its influence throughout greater Germany and give Prussia a much longer border with Austria.
In the face of mounting resistance from England, Austria, and France, Alexander became increasingly adamant. Let them drive me out if they can! I have given Saxony to Prussia; and Austria consents. I should find it difficult to believe, it is so decidedly against her own interests. But can the consent of Austria give to Prussia what belongs to the King of Saxony? You are always speaking to me of principles. What do you think are all your parchments and treaties to me?
At this point, transparency was increasing tensions H5'. Talk of impending war swept the Congress from October on into December. Having lost on Poland, Austria dug in its heels on Saxony and tensions rose between Austria and Prussia. Castlereagh proposed to Prussia that it accept a limited part of Saxony and receive compensation elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Talleyrand had offered an alliance with Austria and Britain on December These rising tensions made Austria and Britain accept. On January 3, the three powers signed a secret treaty in which each promised to supply , troops in case of attack. The treaty strengthened the resolve of Metternich and Castlereagh in their continued discussions with Hardenberg, and Hardenberg began to yield.
Castlereagh met with Alexander on January 4, just one day after the treaty was signed. The quick formation and even quicker leak of the secret alliance was the turning point. Coercion was successful. Plans were changed based on new information whose provision was facilitated by the regime, reducing miscalculation that might otherwise have caused Russia and Prussia to persist with their demands in the face of ever more determined opposition.
In both cases, albeit with some risk, power relationships were made clear and then were no longer contested. At first, the forum helped states clarify their positions H1 , and this increased tensions H5' and led to balancing. Concert diplomacy facilitated the making of the secret alliance and Concert diplomacy also let news of the alliance reach Alexander efficiently. As this would have been very difficult to achieve with such speed prior to forum diplomacy, this is clear evidence that the Concert increased transparency H1.
Russia was successfully coerced and when Prussia then backed down, its aggressive optimism was revealed to be something of a miscalculation; thus transparency reduced miscalculation H4 and helped bargaining H5. The complex dance between rising tensions, balancing, and successful coercion is simply realpolitik, aided by transparency. Were norms or other institutional effects at work helping to resolve the crisis?
Russia reduced the costs of its fait accompli by transferring those costs onto Prussia by making Prussia accept less than it sought and less than it had been promised. Kissinger and Schroeder agree that no state truly wanted war, so some credit for the peaceful outcome of this episode is due to the shared moderation of the Concert states. However, perhaps more remarkable is all the talk of war from states who had just endured and fought together during the Napoleonic Wars.
The liberal rebellions in Naples and Spain highlight the ideological jockeying over the purposes of the Concert. This created a schism in the Concert. As a result, these cases offer modest support for H5', which contends that transparency may increase conflict. When a military-led revolution broke out in Spain in January of , the only great power concerned at first was Russia.
H-Diplo Roundtable XX-35 on David Stevenson. 1917: War, Peace, and Revolution
Having for years advanced the idea, particularly at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in , that the alliance should evolve into an anti-revolutionary league as well as a general alliance to defend the status quo , Russia soon called for a great power congress to confront the Spanish revolt. Naples adopted the same liberal constitution as that taken up by the Spanish revolutionaries. Austria wanted to intervene in Naples to restore conservative order in its Italian satellite. For France, this plan heightened the Franco-Austrian competition for influence in Italy, so it began to seek a congress in order to restrain Austria.
As at Aix, Britain opposed any allied steps towards a general policy of suppressing revolutions and it opposed a congress. Despite British opposition, a congress was held at Troppau in late , with Russia, Austria, and Prussia represented by plenipotentiaries and France and Britain by observers.
The three Eastern powers issued the Troppau Protocol on November 19 which stated in part:. Any state forming part of the European Alliance which may change its form of interior government through revolutionary means, and which might thus become a menace to other states, will automatically cease to form a part of the Alliance The Allied Powers Friendly negotiations will be the first means resorted to, and if this fails, coercion will be employed. Lord Charles Stewart, the British representative, returned from a visit to Vienna to find himself presented with the Protocol already signed by Russia, Prussia, and Austria.
He protested this fait accompli. Britain and France refused to sign. This shows how a document which was intended to express and consolidate norms instead ended up highlighting rifts in the Concert, as predicted by H5'.
In theory, this joint blessing may have reduced miscalculation H4. In reality, there was little threat of war due to the intervention, blessing or not, hence little potential for miscalculation. With regard to the revolt in Spain, Russia offered to lead an international army to quash the Spanish rebellion by sending its troops across Europe and into Spain.
This was a threatening prospect for the other powers, especially Austria, and preventing Russian intervention was one reason that Metternich so quickly supported action by France. France at first wanted to keep the matter out of alliance hands, but ended up supporting a Congress at Verona which convened starting in October Britain again objected to intervention.
The joint blessing to France made action in Spain more predictable, and helped keep Russia from marching across Europe. Thus, it is possible that forum diplomacy mildly reduced fears of Russian or French actions, and reduced any resulting miscalculation. This would support the predictions of H3 and H4. Every nation for itself and God for us all. Concerted diplomacy helped dissuade Tsar Alexander from following through with his plan. By clarifying actions, the potential for unwarranted fears H3 and miscalculation was possibly reduced H4. However, it is not clear that Concert diplomacy added much to what regular diplomacy could have achieved.
One of Carranza's rivals, Pancho Villa, moved to provoke a war between the Carranza government and the United States by crossing the border into New Mexico on March 9, , and killing several Americans. The expedition failed to capture Villa but provoked a confrontation between the Americans and Carranza's forces in which men on both sides were killed and several Americans were captured. Alarmed by the danger of war, Wilson reaffirmed his commitment to Mexican self-determination and agreed to discuss methods of securing the border area with the Mexican government.
Nevertheless, the president had moved unilaterally in carrying out a signature foreign policy initiative. Early in , when it began to appear that the United States could not avoid being dragged into the European war, Wilson withdrew all US forces from Mexico. The decision coincided with the publication of an intercepted message from Arthur Zimmermann in the German foreign office to the German minister in Mexico, instructing him to propose an alliance with Mexico against the United States if Germany and the United States went to war.
He believed that the underlying cause of the war, which would leave 14 million Europeans dead by , was the militant nationalism of the major European powers, as well as the ethnic hatreds that existed in much of Central and Eastern Europe. This incident triggered an explosion of demands and counterdemands. Within months, a complex set of entangling and secret treaties and alliances engulfed much of the world—due to the imperial holdings of Germany, France, and Britain—in war.
With nearly one in every seven Americans having been born in the countries at war, Wilson believed the United States must remain neutral. Because the American economy was in a recession when the war began, however, and the British and French were eager to buy American products, the administration interpreted neutral duties in ways that tended to favor the Allies. When Germany retaliated by using submarines to blockade the British Isles, Wilson refused to ban US travel on British or American passenger ships or to cut off arms sales to the warring nations, as the Germans demanded.
Wilson urged patience but demanded that Germany either halt or drastically curtail submarine warfare. Convinced that the president's policy would lead to an unnecessary war, Secretary Bryan resigned in June For a time, German concessions preserved peace, but Britain refused to abandon its blockade of Europe, and early in , Germany resumed its submarine warfare.
The Germans calculated that the move would force the United States into the war but not before they could mount a massive attack on Allied forces while destroying the British navy. After several American ships were sunk and the public release of the Zimmermann telegram outraged Americans, Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany. The Senate voted 82 to 6 to declare war on April 4, ; the House concurred on April 6 by a vote of to Jeannette Rankin of Montana, the first woman to serve in the House of Representatives, was among those who voted against the war.
He promised that the United States would fight to ensure democracy, self-government, the rights and liberties of small nations, and help establish an international peace organization that would end war forever.
Wilson had proposed a program of military preparedness as early as This helped the US Navy move quickly to aid the British fleet in destroying the threat of German submarines to Allied shipping by late The Army required more time, however, before it was ready for action. Congress passed the Selective Service Act in May , and eventually almost 2.
No women were drafted, but 13, joined the military, serving in clerical capacities in the Navy and Marines. Although the Army refused to enlist women, nearly 18, served in the Army Corps of Nurses but without rank, pay, or benefits. Another 5, civilian women served in various capacities in France, sometimes near the front lines.
Modern American Poetry
Many of these women were wealthy and well-educated; at first, they saw the war as a grand adventure, but like the soldiers, they soon understood its true horror. Approximately , African Americans also served in the war, and , were sent overseas. Emmett J. Scott, an African American and former secretary to Booker T. Washington, functioned as the special assistant to the secretary of war in charge of black soldiers.
Nonetheless, black soldiers were generally treated as second-class participants. Most black troops were commanded by white officers, served in segregated Jim Crow units in the Army that received the worst assignments, were relegated to food service in the Navy, and were totally excluded from the Marines. It was a bitter pill for activists such as W.