The Russian origins of the First World War

[Chris_Baker]

Without doubt the most interesting and thought-provoking book on the First World War that I have read for many years. Sean McMeekin, Assistant Professor of International Relations at Bilkent University in Turkey, challenges many of the basics of our understanding of the origins and conduct of the war and our appreciation of Russia's part in it. He draws deeply upon primary and secondary sources from Russia, Turkey, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Britain and France and brings out of it a compelling and refreshing look at events.

Most WW1 historians have presented Russia as a backward, lumbering player on the Allied side: its advantages of huge scale were lost to an autocratic regime and bureacracy. It was slow to mobilise, compliant, victim of an early crushing defeat and huge losses on the Eastern Front and subject to the earthquake of Bolshevik revolution in 1917. McMeekin presents a different view, of a Russia that was modernising fast and growing economically at the rate of China today; that it managed superb diplomatic manouevres to bring Europe to a general war while making Russia's role look confined to support of Serbia; and that it did so to support its own mission to dismantle the Ottoman Empire and annex much of Asia Minor, including the great strategic prize of Constantinople (which it already planned to rename as Tsargrad). Not only was Russia not slow to mobilise, it did so in secrecy days before the other belligerents and put itself into an advantageous position for a strike into Galicia. (The latter being of precious little help to its ally France, who desperately needed large scale engagement of the German armies, not the Austrians). Furthermore, as the war developed Russia made show of agreeing to Allied strategies but in fact did little or nothing to pursue or support them, instead carrying out its own programme. Even beyond that, it encouraged the Allies to enter into operations at Gallipoli and in Persia which would, if successful, result in enormous benefits for Russia - yet contributed nothing to them. In other words, lumbering Russia played a much smarter, more nimble diplomatic and political game than its Allies and one that has been ignored in post-war clamour to bring blame squarely onto German shoulders.

The conclusions drawn are big ones and certainly intriguing. The presentation of the facts is clear, well written and well evidenced. It is right that with the centenary approaching we should examine again how the world came to enter into cataclysm, and "The Russian origins of the First World War" provides a valuable and challenging set of views. Well worth reading.

(This review was first published at http://www.longlongt...irst-world-war/)

I should also add that it includes some excellent, clear maps.

[Alan Tucker]

Chris Clark's 'Sleepwalkers' is also strong on Russian culpability in the July crisis

[salesie]

A massive question springs to mind immediately, Chris. If "Russia played a much smarter, more nimble diplomatic and political game than its Allies...", how come its policies failed so catastrophically (for Russia that is).

Cheers-salesie.

[Chris_Baker]

Better read the book, salesie.

[Simon_Fielding]

Thanks for a great review Chris - I really enjoyed this writer's book The Berlin-Baghdad Express and would happily read more of his work.

[salesie]

Better read the book, salesie.

No thanks, Chris. The end-result tells us that Russia's 'geo-political game' was not very smart at all (no matter how nimble), and for many years now I've been of the view that Germany did not have a monopoly on culpability for causing WW1 (though a major player in the not-so-smart geo-political gaming of the early 20th century). So why would I want to wade through yet another tome that tries to tell us how smart failure was (if only it had worked)?

Cheers-salesie.

[Chris_Baker]

Your call.

[MichaelBully]

I am fascinated by this thread.

Reading Dutch historian J.H.J. Andriessen's book 'De andere waarheid -Een andere visie op het ontstaan van de Eerste Wereldoorlog ' ( 'The other truth-Another view of the origin of the First World War' ) got me thinking about the role of Tsarist Russia in the outbreak of hostilities in 1914 and made me move away from the notion of exclusive German 'war guilt'.

Andriessen particularly cites the diplomatic intrigues of such luminaries as Iswolski and Sazonov on the Russian side as provoking war and the mechanics of the Franco-Russian alliance.

'De andere waarheid' has not been translated into English which is a shame.

Would be interested to learn how much of a wider 'war party' there was in Tsarist Russia-besides these two individuals- at the time, and if there were also influential figures who were urging the Russian authorities to avoid war, apart from Rasputin.

Anyhow looks like that I will have to read 'The Russian Originals of the First World War' and 'Sleepwalkers'. Thanks for the recommendations guys.

Regards

Michael Bully

[michaeldr]

Thanks for the review Chris

just ordered the book

[kenneth505]

it managed superb diplomatic manouevres to bring Europe to a general war while making Russia's role look confined to support of Serbia;

that hint alone is enticement enough.

[mconrad]

Neither Richard Evans http://www.newrepublic.com/book/review/the-road-slaughter or Dr. Coutinho http://diplomatofthefuture.blogspot.com/2012/08/war-origins-again-review-of-sean.html consider McMeekin's book a success. Pretty much to the contrary. That aside, I was especially struck by the implication that one might consider Dr McMeekin a paid agent of Turkey.

Evans seems to say that D. C. B. Lieven’s book "Russia and the Origins of the First World War," published in 1983, has not been overtaken by McMeekin.