Diffusion, Reinforcement, Geopolitics, and the Spread of War

Most, Benjamin A.; Starr, Harvey

doi:10.2307/1954314

Cited by 211 publications

(115 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

112

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is often asserted that the harder the war experience is the higher the chances are that both the decision makers, as well as their followers, will abhor any interstate conflict [31][32][33]. Yet, although it makes sense to connect war weariness with the experience of defeat, in defeated countries the desire for revenge might overcome any war fatigue, and might even lead rather to mounting war enthusiasm [34,35].…”

Section: Theoretical Foundationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Importance of National Ethos in Military Victories

Lewin

2016

Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When nations are violently threatened, the choices that they make in order to cope with the challenge of war reflect different alternative possible reactions. They may choose to fiercely fight their battles; they may prefer to surrender, and sometimes the options lay in-between. One puzzle is, therefore, what makes nations fight, and more importantly-what causes them eventually to win or to lose the war. In search for an answer, this study inquires through secondary sources three historical case studies from World War II: Britain, France and Germany, and reviews how each of these major European powers acted throughout the war. After each historical description, the study examines the part that national ethos played in the manner in which each state handled war in moments of crisis. The national ethos of a people is the creed formed from the shared values and traditions through which the nation views its past, present and future; it is the integrating element that defines a nation's identity and bonds it into a coherent social group. The study reveals how national ethos is intertwined with another phenomenon of social psychology that turns it into a crucial factor in the management of international campaigns: war enthusiasm. Since national ethos is so crucial for the results of the war that a country might lead in order to survive or prosper, it is imperative for decision makers to bear in mind that it is also subject to a process of shaping and reshaping, as the Soviets have proved in relation to their Russian national ethos during World War II. A word of caution, however, is noteworthy: a wide historical perspective shows that even though the right kind of national ethos is essential for winning a war it is far from being enough. Hence national ethos proves, at the end of the day, to be a necessary condition for military victory but certainly not a sufficient one.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Foundationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Importance of National Ethos in Military Victories

Lewin

2016

Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is often asserted that the harder the war experience is the higher the chances are that both the decision makers, as well as their followers, will abhor any interstate conflict (Mueller 1989;Richardson 1960;Toynbee 1954). Allthough it does make sense to connect war weariness with the experience of defeat, in defeated countries the desire for revenge might overcome any war fatigue and might, in fact, even lead to mounting war enthusiasm (Most and Starr 1980;Organski and Kugler 1977).…”

Section: Theoretical Foundationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

National Ethos as a Necessary Factor in Mobilizing for Warfare

Lewin¹

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When nations are threatened with violence, the choices they make in order to cope with the challenges of war reflect different alternative possible reactions. They may choose to fight their battles fiercely or they may prefer to surrender and, sometimes, the options lay in-between. The question, therefore, is what makes nations fight and, more importantly, what causes them eventually to win or lose a war. In search of an answer to this riddle, this study examines secondary sources about three historical case studies taken from the first half of the twentieth century that deal with the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Norway, and the Soviet Union. It concentrates on the part played by national ethos regarding the manner in which each of them handled their wars in moments of crisis and reveals how national ethos is intertwined with another phenomenon of social psychology that turns it into a crucial factor in the management of international campaigns: enthusiasm for war. A wide historical perspective, however, shows that even though the right kind of national ethos is essential for winning a war, it is far from being enough. Hence national ethos proves, at the end of the day, to be a necessary condition for military victory, but certainly not a sufficient one.

show abstract

“…As states project farther from their home, the number of state interactions will increase. 5 An increase in the number of interactions between states means that opportunities for conflict will be greater (Most and Starr 1980;Most and Starr 1989;Siverson and Starr 1990;Starr and Most 1976). In other words, states are more likely to fight states that they interact with more frequently (Gartzke 2009;Gartzke and Rohner 2011;Hegre 2008).…”

Section: The Relationship Between Power Projection and Warmentioning

confidence: 99%