Military casualties and exchange rates during the First World War: did the Eastern Front matter?

Abstract

Although the First World War was ultimately decided in the west, historians have emphasized the importance of the often ‘forgotten’ Eastern Front in understanding its complex evolution. This article examines the perception of contemporary foreign exchange traders concerning the relative importance of the Eastern Front over time. Using a newly compiled dataset on prisoners of war and on soldiers killed and wounded, we show that traders were concerned with casualties on both fronts, recognizing the significance of the two‐front war in the early war years. From the autumn of 1916 onwards, traders seemed to believe the key to winning the war lay in the west only.

Conflict and exchange rate valuation: Evidence from the Russia-Ukraine conflict

“…The results established that the RUB exchange would not have lost value if the conflict had not broken out. The studies of Warburton [ 14 ]; Odhuno [ 15 ]; Duarte et al [ 17 ]; Cheung [ 18 ]; Lemaire [ 19 ], and Michail [ 20 ] support the results of this study, which explained that different civil conflicts and conflict has a negative impact on the exchange rate and explored the evidence of depreciation. Similary, in the case of Russia, some studies, such as Dreger et al [ 16 ], examined the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2014 on the RUB exchange rate and revealed that the war resulted in sanctions which amplified the depreciation of the RUB.…”

“…Moreover, the oil prices and sanctions were related to RUB volatility. Duarte et al [ 17 ] showed that conflict considerably affected exchange rates during the first world war. Cheung [ 18 ] examined the Syrian conflict's impact on the macroeconomic indicators and concluded that civil war negatively impacts the well-being of citizens.…”