This work poses a straightforward - yet at the same time perplexing - question about World War I: Why did it happen? Several of the oft-cited causes are reviewed and discussed. The argument of the alliance systems is inadequate, lacking relevance or compelling force. The arguments of mass demands, those focusing on nationalism, militarism and social Darwinism, it is argued, are insufficient, lacking indications of frequency, intensity, and process (how they influenced the various decisions). The work focuses on decision-making, on the choices made by small coteries, in Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, France, Britain and elsewhere. The decisions made later by leaders in Japan, the Ottoman Empire, Italy, the Balkans, and the United States are also explored. The final chapters review the 'basic causes' once again. An alternative position is advanced, one focused on elites and coteries, their backgrounds and training, and on their unique agendas.
具体描述
读后感
评分
评分
评分
评分
用户评价
强调决策者，小集团视角。战争原因方面，反对滑入说和意外说，甚至不认同“calculated risk”理论。认为所有五大国的战争决策都是理性的，充分认识到欧洲大战的结果，从未幻想将战争局部化。
评分强调决策者，小集团视角。战争原因方面，反对滑入说和意外说，甚至不认同“calculated risk”理论。认为所有五大国的战争决策都是理性的，充分认识到欧洲大战的结果，从未幻想将战争局部化。
评分强调决策者，小集团视角。战争原因方面，反对滑入说和意外说，甚至不认同“calculated risk”理论。认为所有五大国的战争决策都是理性的，充分认识到欧洲大战的结果，从未幻想将战争局部化。
评分强调决策者，小集团视角。战争原因方面，反对滑入说和意外说，甚至不认同“calculated risk”理论。认为所有五大国的战争决策都是理性的，充分认识到欧洲大战的结果，从未幻想将战争局部化。
评分强调决策者，小集团视角。战争原因方面，反对滑入说和意外说，甚至不认同“calculated risk”理论。认为所有五大国的战争决策都是理性的，充分认识到欧洲大战的结果，从未幻想将战争局部化。
相关图书
本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息，本站不存储任何数据与内容，任何内容与数据均与本站无关，如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度，google,bing,sogou 等
© 2025 book.quotespace.org All Rights Reserved. 小美书屋 版权所有