travlos cir 2006-08 thesis final
DESCRIPTION
This is my MA Thesis written as part of the requirements for the completion of a MA in International Relations at the Committee of International Relations at the University of Chicago.TRANSCRIPT
Konstantinos Travlos 1
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
No War Alike? Spheres of Influence, Sources of National
Power, Great Powers and War
By
Konstantinos Travlos
May 2007
A paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Master of Arts degree in the
Committee on International Relations
Faculty Advisor: Charles Lipson
Preceptor: Nuno Monteiro
Konstantinos Travlos 2
Abstract
Not all wars between great powers are total wars. In this article I explain variation in the
intensity of great-power wars. To do so, I distinguish between existential wars and wars
over spheres of influence. Whereas the former will always be total wars, the latter may
or may not, escalate to that level. This intensity variation depends on the nature of the
sphere of influence at stake in the war. A sphere of influence can be grounded on
different sources of state power: territoriality, internal mobilization, market control, and
ideological hegemony. The former two are ‘dual-nature’, because they are vital not only
for the maintenance of the sphere of influence but also for the maintenance of the state
itself, and for its capacity to fight existential wars. The later two, are ‘non dual-nature’,
because though they are essential to maintain the sphere of influence, they are not vital
for a state to succeed in an existential war. Consequently, wars over spheres of influence
are more likely to be initiated - and, once initiated, to escalate - when the sphere of
influence that is the object of dispute is grounded on a "dual-nature" source of state
power. Additionally, I examine how an intervening variable, the degree of exclusivity of
the sphere of influence, impacts the intensity of great-power wars. Wars over spheres of
influence are more likely to arise and escalate the more these spheres of influence are
exclusive. I illustrate my theory with two case studies. One is the Crimean War, a case in
which a great-power war fought over a sphere of influence grounded on "non dual-use"
elements of state power did not escalate to become a total war. The second is Pacific war
between the U.S and the Empire of Japan where a war initiated over spheres of influence
crucial to the latter power’s ability to fight an existential war, escalated to such a war.
Konstantinos Travlos 3
1. Introduction1
War among the Great Powers is one of the most potent forces in the international
system due to its destructive consequences and political ramifications. That is why it has
been extensively studied by International Relations (I.R) scholars. Three international
relations theories of war that vie to explain the causes of war have come to dominate the
academic field, the rationalist theory of war, the power transition theory of war and the
offense/defense theory of war.2 These theories say a lot about how great-power wars
start, however they fail to explain the variation in intensity among great-power wars.
Either they are silent on this matter or have a bias towards assuming that all great-power
wars have been fought with high intensity. In reality while some great-power wars have
been fought at high levels of intensity, most have not. The focus of scholars on the more
destructive wars is understandable, but limited great-power war can have large
ramifications on history. An example of this is the isolation of Russia and breakdown of
the Holy Alliance in Europe after the Crimean War of 1854-1856.
The absence of an explanation for the variation in intensity among great-power
wars can raise doubts to the claim of I.R theory that disparate events in international
relations can be explained by overarching broad theories. This is dangerous because on
this claim rests the scientific independence of International Relations as an academic field
from History, which rejects broad theories and promotes in depth ‘case by case’ analysis.
The I.R claim to the efficacy of broad overarching theory is not conditional in that it
argues that some international events can be explained by broad theory while others not.
1 This paper was facilitated by an 2006-2007 N.A.T.O scholarship form the Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a
Boylan- Sidlik Fellowship for 2007-2008. 2 On the ‘Rationalist’ theory of war see James D. Fearon ,Rationalist Explanations of War, International Organization Vol.49,
No 3 Summer 1995. On ‘Power Transition’ theories of war see Robert Gilpin War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge
1981, A.F.K. Organski World Politics Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 1968, Organski and Kulger , The War Ledger, 1990 and Dale
Copeland ,The Origins of Major War, Cornell University Press 2001. On the ‘Offense-Defense’ Theory of War see Stephen
Van Evera ,Causes of War, Cornell University Press 1999, Robert Jervis ,Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma. World
Politics, Vol. 30 No. 2
Konstantinos Travlos 4
A broad theory, providing a universal explanation should exist for any international
phenomenon. But while there exist broad theories on the causes of war, there is silence
on explaining the variation in intensity among great-power wars. This absence might be
taken as an inability of I.R to provide such a theory and could lead to challenges to the
validity of the general claim for broad theory.
Furthermore, this situation creates a heuristic gap in the I.R theory on war. As a
result students and scholars wishing to do comparative studies among different wars have
to rely on ‘case by case’ analysis with no overarching theory uniting the disparate cases.
This means that they have to create these ties from scratch, resulting in weak links that
greatly impair comparative study, the understanding of the similarities and differences
between wars, and thereby our understanding of the phenomenon of war.
In order to help avoid such a situation I propose a new theory explaining the
variation in intensity among great-power wars. The new theory will be compatible with
all the existent literature.3 My basic argument is that Great Powers have historically
fought two kinds of war; ‘existential wars’, and ‘influence wars’. Great Powers have
fought ‘existential wars’ in order to protect their independent political survival in the
international system. Great Powers have also fought ‘influence wars’ over spheres of
influence in the international system. ‘Existential wars’ have always been total wars due
to their objective of abolishing or greatly limiting the opponent’s independence. An
example of this is the German-Soviet war in the Second World War. They have also been
extensively studied in I.R., unlike ‘influence wars’.
3 I concentrate on Great Power wars for two reasons. First the majority of the dominant literature does so and
secondly in the case of Great Power vs. Minor Power wars the intensity levels of the war lack the unlimited escalation
potential of wars among equals. This is because even if a Minor Power is fighting at maximum levels of intensity this does not
necessarily dictate the levels of intensity for the Great Power. The disparity in relative power is large enough to permit greater
leeway to the preponderant power on how it will fight. This is not the case with equal and near opponents. Thus my model
should explain wars among Great Powers or alliances of Great Powers, and could explain wars among Minor Powers. For the
time being I opt to use only the first opponent dyads.
Konstantinos Travlos 5
In ‘influence wars’ Great Powers fight over spheres of influence that permit them
to shape and control events in the international system and gain additional military
power. These wars have historically varied in intensity. Some have escalated to levels of
intensity close to total war but many were fought at lower levels of intensity.
Consequently a theory that wishes to explain the variation in intensity among great-power
wars must explain the variation of intensity in great-power ‘influence wars’, since
‘existential wars’ do not vary. For example the Pacific War between Japan and the United
States during the Second World War was an ‘influence war’ that escalated to levels of
intensity close to total war. A limited ‘influence war’ was the Crimean War.
I argue that the reason why ‘influence wars’ among Great Powers have varied in
intensity from case to case is because the spheres of influence over which they fought
also varied in value for Great Powers. Some spheres of influence are more important to a
Great Power’s security than others. As a result Great Powers will be willing to fight
harder for some spheres of influence than for others. What determines the worth of a
sphere of influence is what type of ‘national source of power’ is its basis. Some ‘national
sources of power’ are vital for a Great Power’s ‘self-help’ capability to fight an
‘existential war’; others are not. A Great Power will go to great lengths to defend spheres
of influence that impact the former but not the later.
It is the variation in the importance of the ‘national sources of power’ that form
the basis of a sphere of influence, which determines the variation in intensity among the
great-power wars over spheres of influence. And that variation of value is defined by the
interaction of the ‘national sources of power’, spheres of influence, and the ability of a
state to fight an ‘existential war’.4
4 A state unable to fight an existential war is unable to unconditionally guarantee the existence and security of it’s legitimizing
constituent. It thus is always in danger of internal challenges to its legitimacy. Minor powers meet this need through alliances.
Great Powers must rely though on self help. These self help capabilities though also constitute the offensive potential of a
state, see John Mearsheimer ,The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, Norton 2003 pp 30, 32-36
Konstantinos Travlos 6
Establishing a broad theory on the variation of intensity among great-power wars
will enrich the I.R. literature on war, further validating broad theories of war. It would
supply students, scholars and policy makers alike with a powerful predictive and
explanatory tool. This tool will be able to produce hypothesis on the possible intensity of
future war among Great Powers and explain a significant amount of past great-power
wars that until now were studied in isolation. It will do this with a single overarching
broad theory that can cover cases across time and independently of shifts in the number
of Great Powers and technology. This theory is also compatible with extant theories of
war since they could explain why Great Powers would fight a total war over spheres of
influence that do not have an impact on their ability to fight ‘existential wars’.
The next section will define concepts and assumptions crucial to my theory like,
Great Powers, spheres of influence, war and ‘national sources of power’. It also contains
a quick historical survey that will show that indeed Great Powers have fought over
spheres of influence. Section three contains a review of the available I.R theories of war,
which will establish their inadequacy on the question of variation in intensity among
great-power wars. Section four explores the relationship among ‘national sources of
power’, the ability of Great Powers to fight ‘existential war’, spheres of influence, and
how the interaction of these three elements helps explain the variation in intensity among
great-power wars. From this explanation I extract three hypotheses of Great Power
behavior. The predictions that these hypothesis create are then tested in section five with
the use of the Crimean War, and the Pacific War during the Second World War as case
studies. After that I briefly look at the impact of the nuclear revolution on the theory, and
finish with conclusions and proposals for future research.
2. Concepts and Assumptions
Konstantinos Travlos 7
The purpose of this section is to define the concepts and assumptions that are
central to my theory.
War is the use of organized physical violence by one society on another in order
to compel the opponent to do one’s will.5 The intensity of war varies but essentially two
different broad levels exist. A war is either a limited war or a total war. These are not so
much set points on a line, but rather parts of a continuum of intensity. Limited wars vary
in intensity among themselves, and so do total wars. But all limited wars share something
similar that makes them different than all total wars, which also share a similarity. What
limited wars have similar among them, and different from total wars, is the military
objective of the two opponents.
A limited war is any kind of war where the objective is to defeat an opponent by
depriving its active military forces of the ability to win, without destroying its society.6
The most intense limited war is a war of military eradication were the objective is not
simply to deny objectives to the opponent’s active military but completely destroy it thus
leaving his society defenseless and unable to pursue its war goals. That said if the target
society decides to sacrifice additional resources in order to continue to fight, then the
opponent in seeking victory has to target the enemy society’s moral, economic and
military potential that permits continued military resistance, even after the active army
has been nullified. The target now is the potential and latent power of a state.7 This then
is the realm of total war which at its rare extreme can take the form of the genocidal
eradication of the opposing society. Examples of limited war were the two first Wars of
German Unification, while examples of total war were the Franco-German war of 1871
and the German-Soviet war during the Second World War.
5 Karl von Clausewitz ,On War,, Princeton University Press, 1989 page 75
6 Παναγίωτης Κονδύλης ,Θεωρία του Πολέμου, Θεμέλιο 1999(Panayotis Kondylis,Theory of War, Themelio 1999) page 136.
Kondylis has done a lot of scholarly work on Clausewitz, especially concerning a clausewitzian definition of limited and total
war, as well as the clausewitzian foundations of the Soviet military doctrine. 7 Ibid 159
Konstantinos Travlos 8
The intensity of war is a complex concept made up of, 1) the rate at which a state
expends available military power, and 2) the rate at which civilian assets are transformed
to military ones. The higher these rates are the more intense the war is.
A Great Power is a state that can fight a total war against any other state in the
international system, be able to hold its ground in such a war, and have a possibility of
victory.8 Historically Great Powers are very hard to defeat when they fight total wars.
Their defeat typically demands a coalition war, in which at least one other great power is
fighting on the coalition side. Additionally a Great Power has the economic, military and
political capabilities to try to influence the actions of other states and create spheres of
influence to shape the world around it and actively does so.9
Spheres of Influence (SoI) are defined by Paul Keal as determinate geographic
regions beyond the core territory of a Great Power ‘within which that Power exerts a
predominant influence, which limits the independence or freedom of action of states
within’.10
A Great Power decides how states within its SoI are to interact with it and
among themselves; who is right or wrong in disputes; and decides how the states within
the sphere of influence interact with those outside it, especially other Great Powers.
Spheres of influence provide a dominant Great Power with significant leverage over other
states and additional resources for fighting ‘existential wars’, while depriving its rivals
8 See Kenneth Waltz Theory of International Politics McGraw Hill 1979 pp 192, 194 - 195, John Mearsheimer The Tragedy of
Great Power Politics Norton 2001 page 5, Robert Gilpin War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge 1981 page 30,
Hedley Bull The Anarchical Society, A Study of Order in World Politics Columbia University Press 1977 pp 194 -223, Robert
Pastor A Century's Journey Basic Books 1999 Chapter 1 and Jack Levy War in the Modern Great Power System, 1495 - 1975
The University Press of Kentucky 1983 pp 10 - 19 9 A recurrent problem in the literature is what state is coded as a Great Power and what not. States that have continental power
projection capabilities like Great Britain in the 18th and 19
th centuries and Russia form the 18
th century onwards are not the
problem. The problem is the population of states that are typically called major regional powers. These states can essentially
fight a total war with a Great Power and still have a chance of survival, who have power projection capabilities that permit
them to attempt creating regional spheres of influence and try blocking the interference of Great Powers but which have no
ability to harm a Great Powers core territory. Depending on how one codes “regions” the U.S in the 19th century, Austria
Hungary throughout it’s history, Imperial China in the 1880’s-1890s and Japan from the 1890s to 1945 populate this class of
powers. For the purpose of this study Major Regional Powers able to contest regional spheres of influence with a Great Power
at significant levels of war intensity are coded as Great Powers. 10
A core territorial area of a state is the area within which resides the constituency in the name of whose survival the state
legitimates its existence. The constituency can be a nation, a class, a religious group, a dynasty or any social group. From this
constituency the state draws its reason d’ etat. For the definition of sphere of influence look at Paul Keal ,Unspoken Rules and
Superpower Dominance, St. Martin's Press New York 1983 page 15
Konstantinos Travlos 9
from access to these resources. This makes spheres of influence an important tool in
international politics and states willing to fight over them.
The degree of exclusivity of a sphere of influence indicates how ‘open’ or
‘closed’ it is. The more open a sphere of influence is the more able the dominant power is
to accommodate the interests of other powers and share the benefits derived from the
sphere’s existence. The more closed a sphere of influence is, the less able or willing a
dominant power is to accommodate the interests of other powers.
‘National sources of power’ (NSoP) are material and ideational attributes that
expand the range of actions available to a state in seeking security. The more options a
state has the more secure it is. Security hinges on a state’s ability to fight and hold its
ground in an ‘existential war’, because losing such a war may destroy the state. It follows
that the richer in NSoP a state is, the better able it is to fight an ‘existential war’. Great
Powers also use their relative advantage in one or more of the NSoP to create spheres of
influence. Expanding on concepts put forward by Robert Gilpin and Antonio Gramsci, I
posit that there are four ideal types of NSoP, territoriality, internal mobilization, market
influence and ideological hegemony.11
All the NSoP can be used by Great Powers to create spheres of influence but only
territoriality and internal mobilization have a decisive impact on state ability to wage
‘existential war’. Consequently Great Powers will go to great lengths to defend spheres of
influence based on and infleuncing territoriality and internal mobilization. This happens
because if such a sphere of influence is lost then these NSoP will erode and therefore
undermine a Great Power’s ability to fight and survive an ‘existential war’. Such a
relationship arises because territoriality and internal mobilization contain important
military resources like geographical areas, raw natural resources, population, industry,
11
Robert Gilpin War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge 1981 pp 36-37, 107, 125, Antonio Gramsci, Letters from
Prison, University Press, New York ,1994, Volume I pp 127,271, Volume II pp 169,171-172
Konstantinos Travlos 10
and government infrastructure. Market control and ideological hegemony, on the contrary
do not contain factors important to state survival and so lack such an impact.
Nevertheless market control and ideological hegemony do permit a Great Power
to influence other states, and therefore can help it avoid an ‘existential war’.
Consequently spheres of influence tied to or influencing market control and ideological
hegemony may merit a limited war. However, they do not merit a total war since their
loss doesn’t have a significant impact on a state’s ability to fight and survive an
‘existential war’.
After establishing the concepts and assumptions that are crucial to my theory I
will do a quick historical survey to show that Great Powers have indeed fought over
spheres of influence.12
Taking the year 1815 as my starting point, and 1945 as my final
point, it is evident that a large part of great-power wars were fought over spheres of
influence.13
This claim is based on looking at great power objectives for starting the war.
We can do this by looking at the character of the peace treaties, which should correlate to
the objectives for which war was initiated. Any great-power war that ended with major
territorial redistributions of the core territorial area of a state, or its subjugation was not a
war over spheres of influence alone.14
For such extreme peace terms can only have
resulted either from an initial will to wage existential war, or from a change of the
character of the war. Any great-power war that ended with a peace that left core territorial
areas intact but created changes in peripheral areas that were controlled by the
vanquished or a change in the political role of the belligerents was a war over spheres of
influence.
12
For overviews of Great Power war see Jack Levy ,War in the Modern Great Power System, 1495 – 1975, The University
Press of Kentucky 1983, C.J Bartlett ,The Global Conflict; The international Rivalry of the Great Powers, Longman 1994.
Also extremely useful is Matthew Melko ,General War Among Great Powers in World History ,The Edwin Mellen Press
2001. Melko’s study focus is not Great Power wars per se but what he terms General Wars, a civilization concept very close to
what Gilpin would consider as wars of system change. 13
This is less of an arbitrary point then usually believed. 1815 saw the end of the Napoleonic Wars that permitted Russia and
Great Britain to expand their activities on a global level thus fueling the creation of the unified international system of today. I
chose 1945 as an ending point, as bipolarity and the nuclear revolution produced systems change again. 14
Essentially any territory that a state did not gain by the Congress of Vienna.
Konstantinos Travlos 11
Table 2 Great Power Wars 1815-1945
War Great Power
Opponents
Loser Initiator
objective
Change of Core
Territorial Area
Change of Periphery territory or
role
Italian
Unification 1854
France-Austrian
Empire
Austrian
Empire
Influence No (no change in
pre 1815
territories)
Yes ( Loss of influence in Italian
States)
Crimean War France, Great
Britain-Russia
Russian
Empire
Influence No (no change in
pre 1815
territories)
Yes (Loss of role in Concert of
Europe and influence in Orient)
Opium Wars*15 Britain, France -
China
China Influence No (loss of
peripheral
territories,
limitations but
not abolition of
sovereignty)
Yes (Loss of Hegemon Status)
Seven Weeks
War
1866
Prussia-Austrian Austrian
Empire
Infleunce No Yes (Loss of influence in German
States)
Franco –
German War
1871
France- Prussia and
German States
France Influence Yes Yes (Yes loss of influence in
German States and Great Power
status)
Sino*-French
War
1888-1889
France- China France Infleunce No Yes (Blocking of expansion of
French influence from Indochina
into Southern China)
Sino*-Japanese
War 1895
China-Japan China Infleunce No Yes (Loss of traditional influence in
Korea)
Russo-Japanese
War
Russia- Japan Russia Infleunce No Yes ( Blocking and loss of influence
in Korea)
World War One Entante- Central
Powers
Central
Powers
Existential Yes Yes
World War Two
Europe
Allies- Axis Powers Axis powers Existential Yes Yes
World War Two
Pacific
Allies-Japan Japan Infleunce Yes Yes
Moreover, Paul Keal in his book the Unspoken Rules and Superpower Dominance
(1983) analyses how the United States and the Soviet Union formed and managed their
spheres of influence, a concept implicit in the Yalta agreements. Consequently both the
historical record and theoretical literature show that at least since 1815 Great Powers are
interested in spheres of influence and make them the prize of wars fought among them
and the subject of peace treaties.
3. The inadequacy of the extant the literature
A survey of the existent literature in International Relation’s theory on the causes
of war shows that essentially three broad groups of theories exist. First there are the
power-transition theories of war that encompass the theories of Robert Gilpin, A.F.K
15
*China is a borderline case as a Great Power from 1830 to 1895. But she is unquestionably a Major Regional Power that
tried and sometimes succeeded in blocking the influence of other regional major powers or Great Powers (Sino-Franco Wars
of 1880s). Since her role is crucial in the Far East and since the whole area was undergoing system change as evident by large
upheavals like the Taiping and Bakumatsu events, I will for now code it as a Great Power.
Konstantinos Travlos 12
Organski and Dale Copeland.16
Then there is the rationalist theory of war argued by
James Fearon and others.17
Sharing some concepts with the rationalist theory of war are
the offence-defense theories of war as argued by writers like Robert Jervis and Steven
Van Evera.18
As noted in the introduction all three theories put forward interesting
arguments on the causes of war and especially great-power war. But the question I ask is
whether they say anything about the variation in intensity among great-power wars.
The power-transition theories of war argue that changes in the relative power
among states lie at the center of the causes of war. Three general models are out there.
The first and classical one is the A.F.K Organski, updated by the same and Lemke. War
among Great Powers is the result of differential growth rates that by creating parity or
near parity of relative power permit rising powers to challenge previous predominant
powers over the control and character of the international order. Robert Gilpin expanded
the model using ‘expected utility’. He argued that great-power war happens when a rising
challenger is able to attain near parity with a dominant power, as a consequence of the
declining ‘expected utility’ of the international order for the latter, and so be able to
challenge it. Finally, Dale Copeland argued that while deferential growth rates and power
transition cause war, it is the declining dominant power and not the rising challenger that
initiates preventive conflict in order to stop the negative trends.
The power-transition theory of war is unable to explain variation in the intensity
among great-power wars. A.F.K Organski and Lemke only care about wars that are by
definition total wars. For them Power Transition will lead either to major war or no war.
Limited war is not a possibility. The same bias characterizes Robert Gilpin’s Hegemonic
War concept. Wars among Great Powers will be large intense conflicts with crucial
16
Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge 1981, A.F.K. Organski ,World Politics, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
1968, Dave Copeland, The Origins of Major War, Cornell University Press 2001 17
James D. Fearon ,Rationalist Explanations of War, International Organization Vol.49, No 3 Summer 1995 18
Stephen Van Evera ,Causes of War, Cornell University Press 1999, Robert Jervis, Cooperation Under the Security
Dilemma, World Politics, Vol. 30 No. 2
Konstantinos Travlos 13
consequences for the international system. But as noted above some limited wars among
Great Powers had crucial consequences as well on international order. Dale Copeland
while noting that dominant powers interested in preventing negative relative power trends
can choose between war or the initiation of crises, once more equates total war or high
intensity war with his preventive war, not considering the possibility of limited war.
The rationalist theory of war as put forth by James Fearon and others, argues that
the main cause of war is the inability of states to find an optimal bargaining position that
would lead to a peaceful resolution of all conflicts.19
This happens because of imperfect
communication and the existence of private information which creates bargaining
incentives to misrepresent truth, the existence of indivisible issues on which no bargain
can be made, and commitment problems that cast doubt on the validity of present
agreements for the future. These factors create a ‘fog’ which leads states to misperceive
the costs of peace and war and choose to go to war even if peace was a better option
because they wrongly perceive peace as the worst option.
Fearon is almost completely silent on the matter of variation in intensity among
great-power wars. Nowhere does he posit why any war might be limited or rise to the
levels of total war. To a point we can infer that the more indivisible an issue is the more
probable a war is, and the more intense a war will be. Unfortunately, Fearon does not
provide an answer on what defines the indivisibility of an issue and thus the possible
intensity of a war over it. More recent scholarship by Powell argues that in truth only
informational problems, and commitment problems can explain war.20
In the case of
commitment problems war happens either because of rapid shifts in the distribution of
power that lead states to renege on agreements, or because states perceive the costs of
war as cheaper then those of deterrence. While this new formulation can explain
19 Charles Galser, Realists as Optimists: Cooperation as Self Help, International Security, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Winter 1994/95),
pp. 50-90. and The Security Dilemma Revisited, World Politics, Fiftieth Anniversary Special Issue, Vol. 50, No. 1 (October
1997), pp.171-201 20
Robert Powell, War as a Commitment Problem, International Organization 60, Winter 2006, pp 169-203
Konstantinos Travlos 14
prolonged wars, it still doesn’t explain why a war will be more intense then another. At
the center of commitment problems there still remains the question of indivisible issues,
otherwise why would states care if someone reneges on an agreement? And invisible
issues are the crucial concept that explains variation in intensity among great-power wars.
Still neither Fearon nor Powell offers an explanation of why an issue is indivisible.
Finally the offense-defense theories of war as argued by Robert Jervis see the
cause of war in the dominance of the offense over the defense. When technological,
geographic, or political factors make it easier for a state to conquer territory than it is to
defend it, conflicts and confrontations that would have been contained by defense
dominance will flare to full fledged wars. Stephen Van Evera extended the theory by
arguing that offense dominance is not a necessary condition for war-the perception of its
existence is sufficient to cause war.
The offence-defense theories initially say nothing on the variation of intensity
among great-power wars, equating defense dominance with peace, and offense
dominance with war. While not axiomatically equating war with total war they are not
providing any clear way of why wars might vary in intensity. One can infer that the
technological level of the belligerents will define the intensity of war but such an
inference is problematic for three reasons. First, this says nothing on why wars among
countries at the same technological level will differ in intensity. Secondly, the theory fails
to explain variation in the intensity of great-power wars within offense or defense
dominated eras, when the two opponents were of comparable technology. Finally it fails
to explain why there is still variation of intensity between wars in offense and defense
dominated eras, when the opponents have the same technological level.
In a nutshell all of the dominant theories of war have little to say on the variance
of intensity among wars. They seem to rely on the truism that a war’s intensity is dictated
Konstantinos Travlos 15
by the issue at stake. While this is logical it is inadequate to create a causal relationship.
A testable answer must be given to the question why one issue will lead to total war and
why another will lead to limited war even when the protagonists are the same. The
escalation-spiral studies of the cold war cannot help because although they admirably
explain why a specific war might escalate from a limited conflict to a total war they do
not provide an answer of why one war will be limited and another total and they are tied
to the nuclear age. The main task of my theory in this thesis then is to provide a testable
answer to the question of why one great-power war is limited and another total.
4. National Sources of Powers and Spheres of Influence.
Great Powers use their relative advantage in one or more of the four NSoP to
create spheres of influence. States fight over spheres of influence, exactly because they
impact the NSoP tied to them. The variation in intensity among great-power wars over
spheres of influence can be traced to the variation of the importance that great powers
attribute to those spheres of influence, which in turn depends on how important the
national sources of power affected by the sphere of influence are to the state. This in turn
is tied to whether those NSoP affect or not a state’s self-help capabilities. The four NSoP
are territoriality, internal mobilization, market control, and ideological hegemony.
21Technology changes the efficiency of each one, making some preferable to others at
specific moment of time, depending on the technological environment.
Territoriality or territorial control is the oldest NSoP and continues to constitute
a part of a Great Power’s attributes.22
It encompasses the control of landmass and water
bodies as well as the raw material resources and population that reside on them. The
21
The concept of ‘national sources of power’ is inspired by Robert Gilpin’s phases of state expansion coded as territorial,
industrial and market system. Where we diverge is that while for Gilpin one phase is replaced by the other due to technology,
my argument is that the four “national sources of power” are always present. Thanks to Kevin Narizny for pointing this out to
me. 22
Robert Gilpin ,War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge 1981 pp 36-37, 107, 125
Konstantinos Travlos 16
range of control begins at the absolute level of a state’s legitimate monopoly on the use of
armed force over its core territorial area and extends from such arrangements as
occupations, colonies, leased basing or economic exploitation rights to tight military
alliances. The defining factor is that only the controlling state has the right or capability
to use the territory for military purposes and determine the rules of usage governing it.
Spheres of influence created by territoriality greatly augment a Great Powers self-
help capability by providing increased ability to field mass armies, strategic depth,
control of transportation routes, and independence in raw resources. In the same time it is
very hard to accommodate the interests of other states within them. Classical examples
constitute the ancient and continental empires.
However the importance of territoriality as an NSoP has been changed by the
Industrial Revolution.23
Internal Mobilization, the ability of a great power to efficiently
mobilize and exploit the resources available in its territory, trumped extent of territory.
Internal Mobilization describes a state’s capacity to exploit the resources available to it
and how well it can use industry and organization to multiply the benefit conferred by
them. It encompasses economic and bureaucratic efficiency, population productivity,
industrial production capacity, technological innovation, ideational mobilization and
education of the population, war fighting efficiency and social stability. A useful measure
is A.F.K Organski’s Political Development Index24
.
Spheres of Influence tied to internal mobilization augment self-help capabilities
significantly more then those based on territoriality. The reason for this is that they do so
more cost-effectively since with less territory a state can produce more power. Spheres of
Influence tied to internal mobilization tend to take the form of areas dominated by an
industrial power, where the economic life of the other polities is tied to the dominant
23
Robert Gilpin ,War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge 1981 pp 24,33-34,71,80-81,118, 170-171, 123-126, 132,181-
182,208, 218,233 24
A.F.K Organski and Kulger, The War Ledger, 1968, see pages 72 – 83
Konstantinos Travlos 17
power’s industrial capacity. Unlike the spheres of influence of territoriality, which
primarily concern themselves with power projection, raw materials, and the exploitation
of military manpower, those of internal mobilization are characterized by a concentrated
effort to fashion the economic and social development of the dominated polities in
service of augmenting the mobilization ability of the dominant polity. The heyday of
Imperialism from 1880-1945 was characterized by such spheres of influence.
Market Influence is an NSoP based on a developed commercial system between
states. Modern economic and technological progress has led to the creation of what
Gilpin calls the ‘global market system’, essentially a global sphere of influence for whose
dominance Great Power’s now compete.25
Market Influence is essentially a state’s ability
to aggregate resources and political influence from economic relationships with other
states. Of all the NSoP it is the cheapest to create and the hardest to retain predominance
in. Crucial components are a state’s monetary health and abundance of economic factors
that permit it to create a surplus that can be used in trade. A state uses Market Influence
to change the rules of trade and the behavior of its trading partners in such a way as to
maximize the benefits it reaps. Unlike territoriality or internal mobilization, market
control indirectly influences a state’s self help capabilities. It confers though a lot of
political influence on the behavior of other states.
Spheres of Influence tied to market influence differ from those of internal
mobilization in that the dominant powers cares less for controlling the economic and
social development of the polities within the sphere, and more on controlling trade flows.
Ideological Hegemony finally is inspired from the concept of class ideological
hegemony from Gramsci.26
It encompasses the ability of a Great Power to use
25
Robert Gilpin ,War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge 1981 pp 24,56-59,83,138-139,173-178,233 26
Antonio Gramsci, Letters from Prison, University Press, New York ,1994, Volume I pp 127,271, Volume II pp 169,171-
172. Gramsci’s concept is different from my own in that his hegemony is tied to the material-economic reality of the world. It
legitimizes this reality, and reproduces that legitimacy. This can be the case for ideological hegemony as well, as a veneer of
legitimacy in stratified spheres of influence. But ideological hegemony can be existent by itself as well, indifferent to the
Konstantinos Travlos 18
transnational ideologies in order to influence the behavior of states, and its ability to
legitimize actions that violate the sovereignty of a state to the offended state or other
actors. Great Powers do this by promoting the spread of a certain ideology in the
international system, controlling its discourse, and using force to protect the ideology’s
adherents. The ideology can be political or religious. By itself ideological hegemony does
not augment directly a state’s self – help capabilities but it does permit the influencing of
the behavior of other states.
The four NSoP are not used in isolation from each other. A state’s relative power
is the sum of all four. Consequently more then one can be used to create a sphere of
influence and be tied to it. This means that spheres of influence tend to be stratified and
that states see a hierarchy of NSoP within each sphere of influence. The mix in each
sphere of influence and the hierarchy among the national sources of power tied to it
depends on the general level of technology available to a state and the level of
interactions existent in the international system. For example territoriality requires neither
a high level of technology nor complex international relations to produce benefits.
Internal mobilization requires high levels of technology, but can still produce benefits in
a world of low International Relations. On the other hand market influence or ideological
hegemony require either a substantial technological level, deep international interactions,
or both. States are cost-averse actors and if the environment permits them to gain power
and security on the cheap they will do so. Accordingly while all sphere of influence are
the products of various mix of NSoP, extra systemic reasons will determine which one
dominates the mix.
This dominance of the character of a sphere of influence by a specific NSoP is
extremely important for determining the value that a sphere of influence has for a Great
material reality. Gramsci’s concept is an inspiration, but it is fundamentally different. Robert Gilpin ,War and Change in
World Politics, Cambridge 1981 pp 30, 199, 238-240
Konstantinos Travlos 19
Power. This is because while all NSoP augment a state’s power, not all of them are
equally important for its self- help capability. As a result, the willingness of Great Powers
to go to war in order to defend spheres of influence or fight at high levels of intensity
changes from sphere to sphere depending on what is the predominant NSoP tied to the
sphere.
Of the four NSoP available to a state two, territoriality and internal mobilization
have a ‘dual nature’. They not only permit a state to influence and attempt to control the
international environment but, crucially, are also at the heart of a state’s self-help
capabilities and thus its ability to fight and survive an existential war. This happens
because as noted earlier territoriality and internal mobilization encompass resources that
are important for a state’s war fighting ability. Territoriality encompasses the available
military manpower of a nation, and the territory on which it will wage defense as well as
those resources needed to fuel the sinews of war. Internal mobilization encompasses the
industrial, organizational and bureaucratic skills and infrastructure that creates, mobilizes,
supplies and commands mass armies as well as those resources that permit a war
economy to function.
Market Influence and Ideological hegemony, while permitting a state to influence
the behavior of other states, do not reinforce directly a state’s self-help capability. Market
influence relies on the existence of trade relations that are usually substantially disrupted
by highly intense war. Ideological hegemony adds allies to a state’s side but does not
guarantee that they will remain there. Unlike self-help capabilities which a state controls,
ideological allies are more extraneous. Market Influence and Ideological hegemony are
‘non-dual nature’ NSoP, admirably suited for creating spheres of influence but less
effective in reinforcing self-help capabilities.
Konstantinos Travlos 20
The fact that spheres of influence closely tied to dual-nature NSoP help increase a
state’s self-help capabilities does not mean that states necessarily prefer to create such
spheres of influence. While increased self-help capabilities are desirable, the cost in self-
help capabilities of creating and maintaining spheres of influence tied to dual-nature
NSoP is high. States are cost sensitive actors. If the technological level and the
complexity of international relations permit it, they will prefer to secure themselves by
using the cheaper influence generated by non dual-nature NSoP relying only, on their
core territory for self-help capabilities. But if the technological level is inadequate or the
international environment dangerous, then states will seek increased self-help capabilities
rather than just influence.
The consequence of the difference in nature among NSoP is that states are more
willing to fight wars and intensify wars in order to defend the dual-nature NSoP than in
order to protect the non-dual nature NSoP. This is because erosion in the first will lead to
a state being less able to fight successfully an existential war. Furthermore, war is a
costly enterprise and its cost is measured in self-help capabilities. The state expends in
war exactly those resources that it needs to fight an existential war. Since states are cost-
sensitive actors, they will be willing to lose such resources only when the war is over the
dual nature NSoP that produce those resources. This in turn affects Great Power policy
over spheres of influence.
States use their NSoP in order to create spheres of influence that in turn provide
them with additional levels of those NSoP. States also attempt to erode or destroy the
spheres of influence of other powers. They can do this in two ways. They can either try to
erode the sphere of influence alone, or also the dual nature NSoP on which the sphere of
influence is based. But eroding the dual-nature dual nature NSoP erodes a state’s self-
help capabilities, creating incentives for resistance. This is not the case of non-dual nature
Konstantinos Travlos 21
NSoP. The character of non- dual nature NSoP, permits states to choose where they will
center their challenge in order to avoid maximum resistance. They can center on the
sphere of influence or the national source of power, or both. In the case of affected dual-
nature NSoP such a choice is impossible, as either option will lead to the same erosion of
self-help capabilities.
The Diagram below shows the causal logic of my theory.
After laying out my theory I now formulate three hypotheses on the relationship
between spheres of influence, national sources of power (NSoP), and the intensity of war.
Hypothesis 1: A state will be more willing to initiate war if its sphere of influence is tied
to the dual-nature NSoP than to non-dual nature NSoP.27
A Great Power facing a threat to a sphere of influence must decide between
negotiation and war, if it has not already been attacked. Crucial to this decision are the
expectations the Great Power has of the costs and benefits of each option. A great power
reacting to a threat seldom cares primarily about benefits. Instead it tries to minimize
costs. The nature of the NSoP tied to the sphere of influence will determine those
expectations.
27
In formulating this hypothesis I have drawn ideas from Robert Powell, War as a Commitment Problem, International
Organization 60, Winter 2006, pp 169-203
Konstantinos Travlos 22
The costs of war incorporate the amount of dual-nature NSoP expended to fight a
war. They also incorporate a possibility of defeat that may incur further costs in the form
of the loss of the sphere of influence, and the erosion of the dual-nature NSoP tied to it.
Against these costs a state weights the possible benefits of war. This is a possibility of
victory, which by averting defeat can permit a state to avoid the additional costs from the
loss of the sphere of influence. It can also mitigate the costs in expended dual nature
NSoP by the use of reparations or exploitation of the defeated opponent. If the state sees
the possibility of victory as higher than the possibility of defeat the state will have
incentives to initiate war.
Because war still entails a loss of dual-nature NSoP expended in the war effort, a
state will take into account the possible costs and benefits of negotiation, before choosing
war. Negotiation always contains possible costs, since it demands various levels of
accommodation the demands of challengers. This means an assured cost measured in the
erosion of the sphere of influence and the NSoP tied to it. The magnitude of that cost is
determined by the nature of the NSoP. The benefit of a negotiated settlement is that it
permits a state to avoid the certain loss of dual-nature NSoP that war fighting entails.
If the NSoP are dual nature then a state will have little incentive to avoid war.
Peace will mean an assured loss in self-help capabilities, and thus a weakening of the
state’s ability to fight an existential war. True, war entails expending such self-help
capabilities. But if the sphere of influence is retained, the losses can be recuperated.
Besides, self-help capabilities are an indivisible issue and no state would give them up
without a fight. The state can never be sure that the consequences of a negative
negotiated settlement over dual-nature NSoP will not be worst than those of war. In
addition, there is no guarantee, due to anarchy, that the challenger will not build on its
Konstantinos Travlos 23
diplomatic victory to launch an existential threat against the now weaker state. Between
two assured losses the state will chose the one that involves less uncertainty.
This is not the case with non-dual nature NSoP. In this case, an erosion of the
sphere of influence tied to such NSoP does not spillover to the state’s self-help
capabilities. Since the ability to fight existential war is not at stake, the state will have an
incentive to bargain and avoid the costs in self-help capabilities that war entails. While it
would still like to limit the damage done, the state would be highly reluctant to sacrifice
self-help capabilities over a sphere of influence that will not help it regain them.
Furthermore, a ‘negative’ peace does not erode the state‘s ability to defend itself in an
existential war. Even if the aggressor decides to take advantage of the peace to launch
war, the defender will still be able to defend.
Since a challenge to a sphere of influence based on dual-nature NSoP implies
higher costs of peace it is more likely to lead to war. Consequently a challenge to spheres
of influence tied to non-dual nature NSoP is more likely to be settled peacefully.
Hypothesis 2: War between Great Powers over spheres of influence tied to the dual-
nature NSoP will tend to be more intense than wars over spheres of influence tied to non-
dual nature NSoP.
If a Great Power wishes to erode or destroy another Great Power’s sphere of
influence that is grounded on a dual-nature NSoP, it will have to attack that NSoP.
Considering that those same NSoP are tied to a state’s self-help capabilities and its ability
to fight an existential war, the consequence is that the aggressor will be attacking the
defender’s core territory, and its self-help capabilities. Furthermore, the attack will create
an existential threat for the defender, even if the aggressor has no intention of posing such
a threat, because the attack will compromise the defenders self-help capabilities. While
Konstantinos Travlos 24
states do not always worry about the possibility of existential war, they will be unwilling
to tolerate being weakened in their ability to fight such a war. This in turn leads to a
willingness to intensify the defense effort thus further raising the level of war intensity.
States will be willing to escalate a war over spheres of influence tied to dual-
nature NSoP because if they lose they suffer two losses; they lose the sunk costs of war in
expended dual-nature NSoP, and they suffer additional costs in these NSoP due to the
loss of the sphere of influence. A state controls its escalation costs. It seldom controls the
demands of a victor. And escalation can bring victory which can lead to avoiding the
losses of defeat, and mitigating the losses of war. As long as the costs of escalating are
seen as less then the costs of a peaceful negotiation or surrender, the state will escalate. In
the case of dual nature national sources of power, the costs of any peace eroding them is
always higher then the possible costs of escalation, except if the costs are destruction of
the state. When the NSoP are not dual nature, the costs of peace seldom are higher than
the costs of escalation. The state has less incentive to escalate the war and will fight a
limited war with the object of bringing the aggressor to negotiations.
Consequently, the intensity of wars over spheres of influence tied to the dual-
nature NSoP will be higher than that of wars over spheres of influence tied to non-dual
nature NSoP. As a result the intensity of Great Power influence wars will vary from war
to war. Since ‘existential wars’ are axiomatically near the concept of total war, the
variation in intensity among Great Power wars stems from the variance of the intensity
among Great Power influence wars.
One major caveat is that war and escalation dynamics might change the political
objective of one side. It might radicalize it to the point of changing the nature of the war
to an existential war. But this is not an automatic process and the state that will make the
Konstantinos Travlos 25
crucial decision to escalate the war will be considering the cost/benefit analysis outlined
above.
Hypothesis 3: The higher the exclusivity of the sphere of influence the more likely it is
that it will spark a war, and the more likely that war is to escalate.
A great power challenges another great power’s sphere of influence for one of
two reasons. First, if a great power expects to fight an existential war with another great
power in the future, it may prepare for it by undermining the opponent’s ability to fight
such a war by challenging its spheres of influence. Alternatively a great power may
challenge a sphere of influence because it wishes to expand its influence in the
international system. While the first motive will lead to war, the second motive will not
necessarily do so. It all depends on how exclusive the sphere of influence is. If
exclusivity is high, the controlling state will have a hard time accommodating the
demands of the challenger, and war is more likely. If it is low then a bargaining space
exists. Of course, the controlling power can chose not to bargain. But more
fundamentally, the nature of the NSoP will determine how exclusive or not a sphere of
influence is, irrespective of the controlling state’s wishes.
Dual-nature NSoP are not easily divisible. Territoriality and Internal Mobilization
tend to create spheres of influence that are exclusive. It is hard for great powers to share
territory, military bases, populations, workforce, bureaucratic and military skills, and
scarce material resources. In this case the leeway for accommodation is scarce to non-
existent. What's more, the fact that these spheres of influence are tied with a state’s self-
help capabilities means that the state will generally be unwilling to accommodate a
challenger. More crucially, the very fact that such a sphere of influence is exclusive and
strengthens a state’s ability to win or fight an existential war will feed the security
Konstantinos Travlos 26
dilemma, leading the challenging state to escalate its challenge. This in turn creates an
escalation spiral, which is likely to lead to war and then the intensification of war.
This is not the case with spheres of influence tied to non-dual nature NSoP.
Market Influence and Ideological Hegemony are more divisible and accommodation of
other Great Power interests is easier. The reason for this is that neither NSoP is directly
tied with a state’s self-help capabilities, which are indivisible. Thus, there exists a
bargaining space that the controlling state can use to cut a deal as long as a challenge is
not directed to the dominant power’s right to determine and influence the rules of conduct
within its sphere of influence. Since accommodation will not threaten a state’s self- help
capabilities, the costs for a defender deciding to accommodate a challenger are not
prohibitive. This willingness to bargain can dampen a challenger’s demands, since an
escalation of demands might lead the controlling state to close the sphere of influence. In
either case the defender has little to lose, as its self-help capabilities are not in danger. On
the other hand the challenger risks losing an opportunity to achieve its goals without
risking the costs of war.
The impact of exclusivity holds even for stratified spheres of influence. If the mix
of NSoP tied to the sphere of influence is part dual-nature then exclusivity will be high.
There is still some bargaining space if the dual-nature and non-dual nature NSoP can be
separated, but this is unlikely. If it does happen then the likelihood of war will be made
less as the ability to separate the dual-nature from the non-dual nature NSoP increases.
States will still fight for the first, but they will be willing to bargain for the second.
To summarize; dual-nature NSoP create spheres of influence that increase a
state’s self-help capabilities and its ability to fight and win an existential war. Such
spheres of influence are highly exclusive, and divisible issues are few, therefore creating
a more acute security dilemma and leading to a higher likelihood of war and more intense
Konstantinos Travlos 27
wars. Non-dual nature NSoP lead to less exclusive spheres of influence that have less of
an impact on the self–help capabilities of states are characterized by low exclusivity and
more divisible issues. Consequently they lead to a lesser likelihood of war and less
intense wars.
This leads to the following predictions; Great Powers will avoid fighting over
‘open’ spheres of influence tied to non-dual NSoP; Great Powers will be more willing to
fight over ‘closed’ spheres of influence tied to non-dual nature NSoP but such wars will
be limited; and finally that Great Powers will be willing to fight over ‘closed’ spheres of
influence tied to dual-nature NSoP and such wars will be characterized by high intensity.
Case Studies
In this section I consider two case studies of great-power war over spheres of
influence. The first is the Crimean war of 1854-1855 between an alliance of Great Britain
and France against the Russian Empire. The second case study is the Pacific War of
1941-1945 between the Empire of Japan and the United States. In the first case study the
war remained limited. In the second case study the war escalated to the level of total war.
The two case studies test the last two predications from the previous section.
A test of the first prediction mentioned above would demand a detailed case study
about a great-power crisis over spheres of influence that did not lead to war. Possible case
studies are the Faschoda Crisis between France and Great Britain, the Venezuela Crisis
between Great Britain and the United States, the 1st and 2
nd Moroccan Crises, or the 1879
Crisis in the Eastern Question. But due to page limits, an interest in the effect of NSoP on
war escalation, and focus on the variation of intensity among great-power wars I will
have to do this test in an expanded paper. For now war, not peace is at the center of
attention.
Konstantinos Travlos 28
The Crimean War
At its core the Crimean war was caused by fear of the increased influence of
Russia in post 1848 Europe as the self proclaimed guarantor of the European political and
social order.28
From 1849 to 1852 these fears were centered on Russian policy in the
Black Sea and Ottoman Empire.29
The weakness of the Ottoman Empire had made
Russia, Great Britain, and Austria extremely interested in its fate; the infamous Eastern
Question. For Russia and Great Britain, the Ottoman Empire acted as a buffer between
Russia’s Black Sea sphere of influence and Britain’s Mediterranean sphere of
influence.30
Of crucial importance for both was the question of who controlled the
Bosporus Straits and Constantinople. For Austria, the status quo in the Ottoman Empire
was tied to the European status quo, the question of nationalism, and the Danubian trade
routes.31
Russia, since the Treaty of Adrianople in 1829, had a highly exclusive sphere of
influence based on market control and created through protectionist measures.32
This
sphere hinged on control of Dorbruja and the mouth of the Danube, which permitted
Russia to block the Danubian trade routes and redirect them to the port of Odessa. This
28
Norman Rich,Why the Crimean War: A Cautionary Tale,University Press of New England, Hanover and London 1985 pp 1-
4, Trevor Royale, Crimea the Great Crimean War, 1854-1856 pp 7-9, L.C.B. Seaman, Causes of Crimean War, pp 2-4 and
A.J.P Taylor: End of the Holy Alliance 1852-1853 page 103, in The Origins of the Crimean War, Brison D. Gooch ed. D.C.
Heath and Company, Lexington ,Massachusetts, 1969( abbreviated from now own as OCW,1969) 29
Norman Rich,Why the Crimean War: A Cautionary Tale, 1985, pp 1-4, Vernon John Puryear, England, Russia, and the
Straits Question 1844-1845, Archon Books, Hamden, Connecticut 1965, pp 4-12. Alexis Troubetzkoy,A Brief History of the
Crimean War: The causes and consequences of a medieval conflict fought in a modern age. Carroll & Graf Publishers, New
York, NY 2006, pp 6-8, 52-56, David Goldfrank,,The Origins of the Crimean War ,Longman Publishing, Harlow, Essex 1994
pp 13-14, 51-52, 119 30
Norman Rich, 1985 pp 1-4, 7-10, 19-20, 27-30, Andrew D. Lambert, The Crimean War British grand strategy, 1853-1856,
Manchester University Press, New York, NY 1990 pp 3,5,Trevor Royale, pp 28,44-45, 88, Vernon Puryear, 1965, pp, xi-xiv,
4-6, 7-12, 19-20, 27-28, 75-78, 82-83, 104, 125-128,346, -347, 379, Alexis Troubetzkoy, 2006 pp 6-8, 52-56, David
Goldfrank, 1994 pp 46, 119 31
Norman Rich, 1985 page 112, Andrew Lambert page 3, Trevor Royale 4-6, Vernon Puryear, 1965, pp 15-20, 132,135,
H.W.V. Temperley, Responsibilities for the Crimean War, in OCW, 1969 page 56, David Goldfrank, 1994, pp13-14 32
Norman Rich, Why the Crimean War: A Cautionary Tale, University Press of New England, Hanover and London 1985, pp
13-17,19-20, Andrew D. Lambert, The Crimean War British grand strategy, 1853-1856, Manchester University Press, New
York, NY 1990 pp 3,5, Vernon John Puryear, England, Russia, and the Straits Question 1844-1845, Archon Books, Hamden,
Connecticut 1965, pp 4-6, 7-12, 19-20, 93, 104, 136-137, Alexis Troubetzkoy, A Brief History of the Crimean War: The
causes and consequences of a medieval conflict fought in a modern age. Carroll & Graf Publishers, New York, NY 2006 pp
52-56, David Goldfrank,The Origins of the Crimean War ,Longman Publishing, Harlow, Essex 1994, pp 42,46,
Konstantinos Travlos 29
made Odessa a great economic center. In addition, control of the Black Sea was crucial
for Russian industrial exports to Central Asia and the export of Ukrainian and Southern
Russian wheat, on which the Russian economy depended.33
But the Black Sea sphere of influence was also grounded on territoriality. This
was the result of the great fortress–port of Sebastopol, and Russia’s role as guarantor of
the Danubian Principalities which gave rights of military passage. Together, they
permitted Russia to project military power quickly towards the Bosporus.34
This military
presence not only defended the Russian Black Sea sphere of influence but permitted
Russia to exert influence in the Ottoman Empire and block any other Great Powers from
forcing the Straits of the Bosporus.
The Russo-Ottoman war of 1828-29 made Russia aware of Ottoman weakness.
Increased worry that other Great Powers would take advantage of such weakness, led
Russia to decide the expansion of its Black Sea sphere of influence into the Ottoman
Empire proper. Since outright conquest was out of the question as Great Britain and
Austria would oppose it, Tsar Nicholas I unleashed an era of diplomatic activity in the
Ottoman Empire. 35
Its aim was to build a sphere of influence as a buffer between the
Russian sphere of influence in the Black Sea and the interests of the other Great
Powers.36
The Treaty of Adrianople in 1829, and the treaty of Unkiar – Iskelessi in 1833
were the bedrocks of this policy.37
The main components of the budding Russian sphere
of influence in the Ottoman Empire were ideological hegemony, based on the Russian
33
Andrew Lambert The Crimean War British grand strategy, 1853-1856, 1990 page 3, Vernon John Puryear, England, Russia,
and the Straits Question 1844-1845, 1965, pp 75-77.83,93,104,136-137, David Goldfrank,The Origins of the Crimean War,
1994 page 42 34
Norman Rich, Why the Crimean War: A Cautionary Tale, 1985 27-33, Andrew Lambert, 1990, page 5, Trevor Royale 39,
Alexis Troubetzkoy, A Brief History of the Crimean War: The causes and consequences of a medieval conflict fought in a
modern age. 2006 page 132,David Goldfrank 1994 page 42, Vernon Puryear, 1965 pp 7-12, 27-28,187-188, 315,346-347 35
Norman Rich, 1985 pp 27-33, Trevor Royale pp 10-11, Vernon Puryear, 1965 pp 4-6, 7-12, Temperley 61-73 36
Norman Rich, Why the Crimean War: A Cautionary Tale, University Press of New England, Hanover and London
1985,pp13-17, 89-94, Trevor Royle, Crimea : the Great Crimean War, 1854-1856 ,New York : St. Martin's Press, 2000, pp 7-
9, Vernon John Puryear, England, Russia, and the Straits Question 1844-1845, Archon Books, Hamden, Connecticut 1965, pp
4-12, 27-28 37
Norman Rich, Why the Crimean War, 1985 pp 13-20, Vernon John Puryear,England, Russia, and the Straits Question 1844-
1855,1965 pp 4-6, 19-20, H.W.V. Temperley, Responsibilities for the Crimean War, in OCW, 1969, page 63,David Goldfrank
The Origins of the Crimean War , 1994, pp 42,46
Konstantinos Travlos 30
claim of protectorate over Ottoman Christians, the Russian guarantee of the Ottoman
government, and territoriality stemming from the Russian power projection abilities in
order to assist or coerce the Sultan. 38
The Russians did not initially try to make their sphere in the Ottoman Empire
exclusive.39
This decision was spurred by fear of Austrian and British reaction and the
expectation that the Ottoman Empire would collapse.40
In that case there would be a
great-power division of spoils and the Russian sphere of influence would serve as the
basis for its exclusive spoils. Thus the Russians brought Austria and Great Britain into
their sphere of influence through the Treaty of Muchengraz, the Straits Convention of
1841 and the Nesselrode memorandum of 1844. This settlement gave Austria and Great
Britain the right to play freely in the Russian backyard.
The opening of the sphere of influence, however, eroded it. By 1848 Russia was
cognizant that Great Britain was trying to create its own sphere of influence in the
Ottoman Empire. The new aggressive eastern policy of France under Lois Napoleon
complemented the British challenge.41
Furthermore, Russia was alarmed by the
38
Norman Rich,1985, pp 19-20, Trevor Royle,2000, pp 19,27, Vernon Puryear, 1965 pp19-20, David Goldfrank,1994 page
42 39
Trevor Royle, 2000, page 21, Vernon Puryear, 1965 pp 4-6, 7-12,19-20,49,345, Alexis Troubetzkoy,A Brief History of the
Crimean War: The causes and consequences of a medieval conflict fought in a modern age. Carroll & Graf Publishers, New
York, NY 2006 pp 6-8,27-28, Alexander W. Kinglake, Transactions Which Brought on the War, in OCW, 1969 pp 21-22,
David Goldfrank, 1994 pp 46-47, 40
Norman Rich, 1985, pp 27-33, 89-94, C.E Vulliamy, Crimea The Campaign of 1854-1856, Jonothan Cape Thirty Beford
Square London Great Britain 1939 page 53, Vernon Puryear, 1965 pp 4-12,15-20,27-28,33-34,47-49,78,82,175,
AlexisTroubetzkoy, 2006, pp 3,6-8,27-28,56,103-106,108, Gavin B. Henderson, The Seymour Conversations, 1853, in The
Origins of the Crimean War, Brison D. Gooch ed. D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington ,Massachusetts, 1969 ,pp 13-15,
David Goldfrank, 1994, pp 46-47,119 41
On France see C.E Vulliamy, Crimea The Campaign of 1854-1856, Jonothan Cape Thirty Beford Square London Great
Britain 1939 page 31, Vernon John Puryear,England, Russia, and the Straits Question 1844-1845, Archon Books, Hamden,
Connecticut 1965 pp 197, 319, Alexis Troubetzkoy,A Brief History of the Crimean War: The causes and consequences of a
medieval conflict fought in a modern age. Carroll & Graf Publishers, New York, NY 2006 pp 97-98, L.C.B. Seaman, Causes
of Crimean War pp 2-4, Emile Bourgeois, Early Years of the Second Empire: Crimean War Origins pp 43-44, F.A. Simpson,
Louis Napoleon and the Recovery of France: Crimean War Origins pp 81-82, and A.J.P. Taylor ,End of the Holy Alliance,
1852-1853 page 97 all in OCW, 1969. David Goldfrank,The Origins of the Crimean War ,Longman Publishing, Harlow,
Essex 1994 pp 13-14,93-94, On England see Trevor Royle, Crimea : the Great Crimean War, 1854-1856
New York : St. Martin's Press, 2000, pp 28,75 Vernon Puryear, 1965 pp27-28,76,118,198-188,303 Alexis Trubetzkoy, 2006
page 66, R.W. Seton-Watson, The Origins of the Crimean War pp 24-33,in OCW, 1969, David Goldfrank 1994, pp 46-47,75-
76,
Konstantinos Travlos 31
willingness of the western powers to repeatedly violate the 1841 Straits Convention.42
Austria was either indifferent to Russia’s problems, or undermining Russian policy.43
By 1851, Russia acutely felt that her position had been compromised. The crucial
event was the Holy Places crisis of 1852 about religious authority in Jerusalem, instigated
by Louis Napoleon III, now emperor of France. The erosion of the position of the
Orthodox Church and the rise of Catholic and as a result of French influence, led Russia
to try and turn its budding sphere of influence in the Ottoman Empire into a highly
exclusive territoriality one.44
Russia initially did this diplomatically by dispatching Prince
Alexander Menshikov to Constantinople (Istanbul).45
The Russian attempt to solidify its Ottoman sphere of influence alarmed Great
Britain and Austria. Great Britain saw Russia’s sphere of influence in the Ottoman
Empire as part of the Great Game over Central Asia. While the British needed Russia to
defend the territorial status quo in Europe against French plans on Belgium, they were
not willing to see this status quo challenged in the Near East.46
The Russian attempt to
create a sphere of influence threatened the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire
which was crucial for British interests in the Mediterranean.47
It also threatened the
British market control sphere of influence in the Levant, which was based on the
Convention of Balta-Liman in 1838 and the close commercial relations between the
42
Vernon John Puryear, England, Russia, and the Straits Question 1844-1845, Archon Books, Hamden, Connecticut 1965, pp
136-137,175, 187-188, 197, 279, Alexis Troubetzkoy, 2006 pp 97-98, Temperely 61- 73,David Goldfrank, 1994, pp 93-94 43
Norman Rich, Why the Crimean War: A Cautionary Tale, University Press of New England, Hanover and London 1985, pp
13-17, 112, Vernon Puryear, 1965, pp 4-6, 15-20, 23-24, 132, 135 -1 37, Alexis Troubetzkoy, 2006, pp 138-139, David
Goldfrank, 1994, pp 13-14 44
Norman Rich, 1985, pp 27-33, Vernon Puryear, 1965 pp 125-128, 203,242,319, Alexis Troubetzkoy, 2006, 66,89-90,103-
106,Kinglake 19-20,Simpson 81-82, A.J.P Taylor 97, David Goldfrank , 1994, pp 75-76, 45
Norman Rich , 1985, pp 35-40, 53-59,Trevor Royle, 2000, pp 35,39,Vernon Puryear, 1965, pp 203,235, 257, 268, Alexis
Troubetzkoy, 2006, pp 103-106,117, Temperely 70, Taylor 98-99, David Goldfrank, 1994, pp 131-133, 135, 148,155 46
Norman Rich, 1985, pp 1-4, 7-10, Vernon Puryear, 1965, pp xi-xiv,190, 253, Trevor Royale 88, Alexis Troubetzkoy, 2006,
pp 52-56, Bell 35-37, David Goldfrank, 1994, pp 46, 51-52 47
Trevor Royle, 2000, pp 28, 44-45 ,Norman Rich Why the Crimean War: A Cautionary Tale, University Press of New
England, Hanover and London 1985 pp 106-107, Vernon John Puryear,England, Russia, and the Straits Question 1844-1845,
Archon Books, Hamden, Connecticut 1965, pp 4-6, 76, 108, 315, David Goldfrank,The Origins of the Crimean War ,Longman
Publishing, Harlow, Essex 1994 page 119
Konstantinos Travlos 32
Ottoman Empire and Britain.48
British politicians feared Sebastopol as a loaded gun
aimed at Constantinople and control of the Straits, which would one day permit the
Russian naval ensign to fly in the Mediterranean.49
Additionally Russia’s coercive policy during the crisis, posed a challenge to
Ottoman territorial integrity. This raised the specter of France using Russian territorial
changes in the east as a pretext to change the territorial status quo in Belgium. This
threatened British interest. Britain decided to accommodate French interests in the Near
East by opposing Russia alongside them in order to avoid a war in Belgium and the
East.50
Austria, while not having a sphere of influence in the Ottoman Empire, was
alarmed by Russian moves for three reasons. First like Britain, Austria saw the territorial
integrity of the Ottoman Empire as part of the territorial status quo in Europe and
especially in Italy where France was a threat. Additionally, Austria feared the rise of
nationalism that the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire would bring.51
Second Austria
was hurt economically by the exclusive Russian sphere of influence in the Black Sea and
was against its expansion into the Eastern Mediterranean.52
On a more fundamental level
though, Austria feared Russian expansion. The Ottoman Empire was seen as the last
buffer that the Habsburgs had against vassalage to the Romanovs. The consequences of
Poland’s dissolution and Nicholas the I’s frankness about his plans for the
48
Trevor Royle, Crimea : the Great Crimean War, 1854-1856 , New York : St. Martin's Press, 2000, pp 44-45, Vernon
Puryear, 1965, pp 76, 91, 108, 118, 125-128, Alexis Troubetzkoy, A Brief History of the Crimean War: The causes and
consequences of a medieval conflict fought in a modern age. Carroll & Graf Publishers, New York, NY 2006, pp 52-56,
David Goldfrank, The Origins of the Crimean War ,Longman Publishing, Harlow, Essex 1994, page 46 49
Norman Rich, 1985, pp 97-99, Andrew D. Lambert, The Crimean War British grand strategy, 1853-1856, Manchester
University Press, New York, NY 1990 pp xvi,xxi, 5,64, Royale 44-45, 75, 207, Vernon Puryear, 1965, pp 347, 356,360, 363,
Bell 35-37, David Goldfrank, 1994, page 196 50
Vernon Puryear, 1965, pp 190, 196, 242, 244, 253, Alexis Troubetzkoy, 2006, pp 119-121 51
Norman Rich, 1985, pp 5-10, 102,112, Alexis Troubetzkoy, 2006, pp 138-139 52
Norman Rich, 1985, pp 13-17, 112, Vernon Puryear, 1965, pp 15-20, 132, 135-137, 326-327,David Goldfrank, 1994, pp
13-14,
Konstantinos Travlos 33
dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, made the Austrians careful about Russia.53
Therefore Austria tried to stymie Russian aggrandizement by ‘grouping’ Russia rather
then fighting it.
Austria supported Russia in the East in order to have more control over Russian
policy.54
To do this Austria accepted the Polish partitions (as a diversion for Russia from
the weakened Ottoman Empire) and joined Russia in the 2nd
Russo- Turkish 1735-39, and
3rd
Russo – Turkish 1787-1791 wars. It also accepted Russian influence in the Ottoman
Empire.55
But by 1850 it was evident to foreign minister Buol and Emperor Francis-
Joseph, that ‘grouping’ had failed.56
Austria faced the future certainty of a war with the
more powerful Russia. French and British policy in 1852 permitted Austria to ‘buck pass’
a Russian war to Great Britain and France, only threatening to enter the war when Russia
was ready to capitulate in 1855.57
French policy in the crisis was driven by Napoleon the III’s wish to satisfy his
domestic Roman Catholic constituency and create a wedge in the Congress System
between Russia and England, in order to break it.58
The French role in the initiation of the
war was to link events in the Ottoman Empire with the threat of an end to the status quo
53
Norman Rich, Why the Crimean War: A Cautionary Tale, University Press of New England, Hanover and London 1985, pp
61-65, Vernon John Puryear,England, Russia, and the Straits Question 1844-1845, Archon Books, Hamden, Connecticut
1965, pp 4-6, 15-20, David Goldfrank,The Origins of the Crimean War ,Longman Publishing, Harlow, Essex 1994, pp167-168 54
Norman Rich, 1985, page 112, Vernon Puryear, 1965, pp 15-20,23-24, H.W.V. Temperley, Responsibilities for the Crimean
War, in OCW, 1969 page 56, Sorel, Albert, The Eastern Question in the 18th Century: The Partition of Poland and the Treaty
of Kainardji. Methuen & CO. London, UK 1898 page 76 and Roider, Karl, Austria's Eastern Question 1700-1790. Princeton
University Press. Princeton, New Jersey 1982 page 110, 113,114-115 55
Luard, Evan, The Balance of Power. St. Martin’s Press. New York, New York 1992 pp 201-203, Roider, Karl, Austria's
Eastern Question 1700-1790. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey 1982 chapters Five pages 71-90 and Ten
pages 169-188 56
Norman Rich, 1985, pp 13-17, 57
Norman Rich, 1985, pp 112,123, Andrew D. Lambert, The Crimean War British grand strategy, 1853-1856, Manchester
University Press, New York, NY 1990, pp 197, 296, Trevor Royle, Crimea : the Great Crimean War, 1854-1856
New York : St. Martin's Press, 2000, page 310, Vernon Puryear, 1965, pp 135, 338, David Goldfrank , 1994, pp 167-168, 237-
238, 257, L.C.B. Seaman, Causes of Crimean War, in OCW,1969 pp 2-4, On the concept of ‘buck-passing’ see John
Mearsheimer The Tragedy of Great Power Politics Norton 2001 58
See Norman Rich Why the Crimean War: A Cautionary Tale, University Press of New England, Hanover and London 1985
on Napoleon seeking to break the Congress pp 7-10, Andrew D. Lambert, The Crimean War British grand strategy, 1853-
1856, Manchester University Press, New York, NY 1990, page 65, C.E Vulliamy, Crimea The Campaign of 1854-1856,
Jonothan Cape Thirty Beford Square London Great Britain 1939, page 31, Vernon John Puryear,England, Russia, and the
Straits Question 1844-1845, Archon Books, Hamden, Connecticut 1965, page 319, Alexis Troubetzkoy,A Brief History of the
Crimean War: The causes and consequences of a medieval conflict fought in a modern age. Carroll & Graf Publishers, New
York, NY 2006 pp 97-98, F.A. Simpson, Louis Napoleon and the Recovery of France: Crimean War Origins , in OCW, 1969
pp 81-82, on Napoleon seeking internal goals see Vernon Puryear, 1965, page 242,Alexis Troubetzkoy, 2006, pp 89-90,
Alexander W. Kinglake, Transactions Which Brought on the War pp 19-20, H.W.V. Temperley, Responsibilities for the
Crimean War, page 64, A.J.P. Taylor ,End of the Holy Alliance, 1852-1853 page 97, in OCW, 1969.
Konstantinos Travlos 34
in Belgium and Italy, hence linking Austria, Great Britain and France in opposing
Russia59
. Once the war started French war aims were limited to keeping the British
alliance and gaining martial glory.60
Napoleon’s more grandiose aims of redrawing the
European map were never made official.61
The fall of Sevastopol to the allies fulfilled
French war aims fulfilled. France facilitated lenient peace terms for Russia, ending the
war and rendering the fall and disarmament of Sebastopol null against British
objections.62
Great Britain, Austria, and France stymied Russia’s attempt at diplomatic
coercion. When Russia reacted by occupying the Danubian Principalities, it was their
support that led the Ottomans into declaring war. Britain and France joined the Ottomans
in the war while Austria coerced Russia out of the Danubian Principalities and tied down
Russian armies with the threat of intervention.63
Once war began, the war aims of Russia
and Great Britain were defined by their spheres of influence. Austria’s behavior in the
war as well was tied to the character of the Russian sphere of influence in the Black Sea.
Russia’s initial war aims were to solidify its influence in the Balkans and Danube
by ending the Sultan’s sovereignty over the Danubian Principalities and giving
independence to Serbia.64
Austria coerced Russia out of these goals by forcing it to
59
Vernon Puryear, 1965, pp 190, 242, 244, 253, Alexis Troubetzkoy, 2006, pp 119-121, David Goldfrank, 1004, pp 101-104 60
Andrew Lambert, 1990, pp 65, 214, 228,314, Vernon Puryear, 1965, page 319, Alexis Troubetzkoy, 2006, page 137,
David Goldfrank, 1994, page 262 61
Alexis Troubetzkoy, 2006, pp 97-98, 147, Temperely believes that the Russians believed that Napoleon wanted a Crisis but
not war, see H.W.V. Temperley, Responsibilities for the Crimean War, page 64 in OCW, 1969 so does Simpson in F.A.
Simpson, Louis Napoleon and the Recovery of France: Crimean War Origins pp 81-82, in OCW,1969 62
Norman Rich, 1985, pp 140-145,155-160,185-188, Andrew Lambert, 1990, pp 214,228,236-238,329,332-333, Trevor
Royle, Crimea : the Great Crimean War, 1854-1856 New York : St. Martin's Press, 2000. pp 434-435,480, Vernon Puryear,
1965, pp 394,419,422, 424, David Goldfrank , 1994, page 251 63
David Goldfrank, 1994, pp 123-124. 212-214 On Britain and the decision to join France see Norman Rich, 1985, pp 85,99,
Vernon Puryear, 1965, pp 187-188,190,196,203,2167,242,244,253, Alexis Troubetzkoy, 2006, pp 119-121 , on Austria and
the fear for Italy see Norman Rich, 1985, pp 102,112, Alexis Troubetzkoy, 2006, pp 138-139, David Goldfrank, 1994, pp
237-238, on the Austrian Ultimatum about the Danubian Principalities see Norman Rich, 1985, pp 61-65, 123, 140-145,
Andrew Lambert, 1990, pp 88,197,208, Trevor Royale 116,170, Vernon Puryear, 1965, pp 15-20,135,136-137,342, Alexis
Troubetzkoy, 2006, pp 118,132,138-140,158,257, 64
Norman Rich, Why the Crimean War: A Cautionary Tale, University Press of New England, Hanover and London 1985, pp
35-40,108-111, Andrew D. Lambert, The Crimean War British grand strategy, 1853-1856, Manchester University Press, New
York, NY 1990, pp 11-12, Vernon John Puryear,England, Russia, and the Straits Question 1844-1845, Archon Books,
Hamden, Connecticut 1965, pp 346, 379, Alexis Troubetzkoy,A Brief History of the Crimean War: The causes and
consequences of a medieval conflict fought in a modern age. Carroll & Graf Publishers, New York, NY 2006, pp 103-
106,132,134, David Goldfrank,The Origins of the Crimean War ,Longman Publishing, Harlow, Essex 1994 page 234.
Konstantinos Travlos 35
evacuate the Principalities. Russian war aims then changed to avoiding a great anti-
Russian coalition war by keeping Prussia and Austria out of the war, preserving its army,
and guarding its territorial integrity.65
Russia quickly placed territorial integrity above its
spheres of influence. Accordingly, it concentrated most of its army on the borders with
Sweden, Prussia and Austria, rather then on the war zone in the Crimean and Caucasus.
Military gains, like Kars in Armenia, were seen as means to block allied territorial
demands.66
Russia tried to accommodate Austria to keep it out of the war, and was
willing to negotiate away any part of its spheres of influence that did not directly affect
its military land power, even Sebastopol’s military significance.
Russia accepted defeat after (i) British successes in the Baltic opened the way for
an allied threat to Saint Petersburg, (ii) Sebastopol fell, and (iii) Sweden and Austria
threatened to enter the war on the allied side. As long as the war remained centered in the
Black Sea, Russia did not face an existential threat as the allies could not strike at the
center of the Russian government, or destroy the Russian field army. But the threatened
widening of the war to encompass all of Russia’s European borders could lead to military
defeat and territorial losses of such magnitude that the Russian empire would be unable to
guarantee its existence. Russia sought a peace that would leave its territory and army
safe, sacrificing its sphere of influence.67
Also Russia prepared for a total war if the allies
decided to pursue maximalist goals.68
Fortunately for Russia, neither France nor Austria
wanted a total war, and pressured Britain to accept negotiations that led to the Peace of
Paris.
65
Andrew Lambert, 1990, pp xix,231-233,, 251-252,, 298-299, Trevor Royle, Crimea : the Great Crimean War, 1854-1856
New York : St. Martin's Press, 2000, pp 116, 146, 309,336, 406-407, Vernon Puryear, 1965, pp 345, Alexis Troubetzkoy,
2006, pp 140, 191-193,253,271,299, David Goldfrank, 1994, page 257 66
Norman Rich, 1985, page 139, Trevor Royle, 2000, page 479, Alexis Troubetzkoy, 2006, pp 293-294 67
Norman Rich, 1985, pp 123, 140-145,176-181, Andrew Lambert, 1990, pp xix, 73,181,204,293, Lambert dissents on
Austrian influence, see pp 297-299,316,318, Trevor Royle, 2000, pp 116,309,336,384,406-407,462, Vernon Puryear, 1965,
pp 338,341,364,408,Alexis Troubetzkoy, 2006, page 299, David Goldfrank, 1994, pp 257,262,265,286 68
Norman Rich, 1965, pp 145-150, Andrew Lambert, 1990, pp 181,298-299, Trevor Royle, 2000, pp 406-407,434-
435,459,461, Alexis Troubetzkoy, 2006, pp 293-294
Konstantinos Travlos 36
Britain entered the war with the most ambitious war aims. Those were centered on
nullifying Russia’s influence in the Black Sea, Ottoman Empire and Baltic Sea.69
They
were tied to English goals in the Great Game over the East. Britain aimed to destroy
Sebastopol, the Russian Baltic Forts of Cronstadt and Seaborg, eradicate special Russian
rights in the Danubian Principalities, and regain for the Ottoman Empire the eastern
Black Sea coast.70
The unwillingness of Austria and Sweden to enter the war early, and
Russian successes in Asia Minor shelved the British military plans for the Baltic and East
Coast of the Black Sea. As a result, British war aims were centered on Sebastopol. Once
the city fell, Britain under Prime Minister Palmerston tried to seek more ambitious war
aims in the Baltic and Asia Minor. France and Austria, however, were unwilling to fight
the major war that British war aims required. Britain also was unwilling to incur the costs
of such a war. In consequence it sat at the negotiating table as the most dissatisfied of
winners.71
Still, the basic goal of breaking Russian influence in the Ottoman Empire and
Black Sea was fulfilled by the Paris Treaty.
Austria had two main aims during the war. The first was to avoid getting
militarily entangled in it.72
Secondly Austria wanted to see Russia’s exclusive sphere of
influence in the Black Sea broken.73
In order to meet the first goal, Austria repeatedly
offered its diplomatic services and ultimately used the threat of intervention to force
Russia to seek peace. To meet the second war aim, Austria used Russia’s bad strategic
position to coerce it into evacuating the Danubian Principalities, and formulated with
69
Norman Rich, 1985, pp 108-11, 155-160, Andrew Lambert, 1990, pp 44,83-85,86,87,88, Trevor Royle,2000, pp 44-
45,88,207,Vernon Puryear, 1965, pp 315,341,343,347,356,370-371, H.C.F. Bell, The Home Secretary in Foreign Affairs pp
35-37 in OCW,1969, David Goldfrank, 1994, pp 196,226-228,251 70
Norman Rich, 1985, pp 155-160, Andrew Lambert, 1990, pp xxi,73,161,181,208,230,287,293,316,318,C.E.Vulliamy,
1939, pp 77,262, Trevor Royale 110,207, 384, Vernon Puryear, 1965, page 360, Alexis Troubetzkoy, 2006, pp 191,193 71
Norman Rich, 1985, pp 155-160,176-181,185-188,199-202, Andrew Lambert, 1990, pp xvi-
xxi,25,87,183,230,251,287,299,341-342, Vernon Puryear, 1965, page 372, Alexis Troubetzkoy, 2006, page 299, David
Goldfrank, 1994, pp 251,262-263 72
Norman Rich, Why the Crimean War: A Cautionary Tale, University Press of New England, Hanover and London 1985, pp
13-17,102,112,123,140-145, Vernon John Puryear,England, Russia, and the Straits Question 1844-1845, Archon Books,
Hamden, Connecticut 1965, pp 326-327, David Goldfrank,The Origins of the Crimean War ,Longman Publishing, Harlow,
Essex 1994, pp 237-238 73
Norman Rich, 1985, page 112, Trevor Royle,2002, page 310,Vernon Puryear, 1965, pp 132, 135-137,338,341, Alexis
Troubetzkoy, 2006, pp 138-139,158,David Goldfrank, 1994, page 257
Konstantinos Travlos 37
France the Four Points which were peace terms aimed at ending Russian control on the
Danube and Black Sea.74
Also Austria made it clear to Russia that territorial changes in
the Ottoman Empire would mean war. 75
Once it became evident that Russia was willing
to accommodate Austria, the Austrians joined France in pushing Britain to accept a peace
based on the minimalist Four points.
The Crimean War was a conflict over the Russian spheres of influence in the
Black Sea and Ottoman Empire. For Great Britain and Austria the exclusive nature of
those spheres of influence, and their consequences for their national interests meant that
they had to erode those spheres. Initially, with Russian compliance, they tired to mitigate
the exclusive character of the Russian sphere of influence. But when Russia tried to
upgrade its Ottoman sphere of influence to a highly exclusive one, they joined France in
opposing Russia. Initially they did so diplomatically. But Russia willingness to use
military coercion led Great Britain to join France in a limited war, while Austria
‘buckpassed’. Russia was not willing to intensify the war to protect its spheres of
influence, fearing the consequences of a major war. The same fear guided France,
Austria, and to an extent Great Britain in keeping the war limited. Once it was clear that
Russia’s spheres of influence were destroyed, the allies had no reason to extend the war.
Austria’s threat of intervention led Russia to the negotiating table. The Peace of Paris and
the Four Points it was based on, ended the Russian spheres of influence by replacing
them by a balance of power.76
Russia, while losing influence, did not lose its ability to
wage existential war, and thus accepted the peace.
74
Norman Rich, 1985, pp 123,140-145, Andrew D. Lambert, The Crimean War British grand strategy, 1853-1856,
Manchester University Press, New York, NY 1990, pp 88, 197,204, 296,Trevor Royle, 2000, pp 170,312,452,
AlexisTroubetzkoy, 2006, pp 138-139,158, David Goldfrank, 1994, page 286 75
Vernon Puryear, 1965, page 338, David Goldfrank, 1994, pp 257, 265,286 76
The Four Points were 1) replacing the Russian guarantee of the Danubian Principalities with a European guarantee, 2)
freeing trade on the Danube river from Russian domination, 3) Revising the treaty of 1841 is such a way that it would preclude
Russian influence in the Porte and Russian naval supremacy in the Black Sea, and 4) European Protection of Ottoman
Christians, Norman Rich, 1985, pp 140-145,Andrew Lambert, 1990, pp 86, 88,197, 204, Trevor Royle, 2000, pp 312, 452-
455, David Goldfrank , 1994, pp 262-263
Konstantinos Travlos 38
The Pacific War
The Pacific War between Japan and the United States was initiated by Japan with
the express objective of securing and expanding its sphere of influence in East Asia.
While it started as an influence war, it quickly escalated into an existential war. It did so
because the United States saw a secure Japanese sphere of influence as a precondition for
Japan to attack the Soviet Union and assist Germany in becoming the regional hegemon
in Europe, an eventuality that U.S leaders saw as posing an existential threat to the
United States.
Since the 19th
century, Japan had equated security with the creation and
maintenance of a large and exclusive sphere of influence in East Asia.77
The model for
the Japanese was the British Empire in India. In pursuit of this policy, Japan waged and
won the Sino-Japanese War of 1895-6, and the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. By
the 1930s Japan had created a highly exclusive sphere of influence over Korea,
Manchuria, and Northern China.78
It was a sphere of influence based on territoriality,
market control, and internal mobilization. Japan had the strongest navy and army in the
area, and the controlled territories augmented it by providing military staging grounds
and manpower. Japan also imposed a colonial commercial system on the areas it
controlled.79
Finally, not only did Japan have the most industrialized economy in the area,
but Manchuria’s own industrialization was tied to strengthening Japanese industrial
capacity.80
Japan from 1931 on began trying to expand its sphere of influence into Soviet
East Asia, and China. While it was defeated in her challenge of the Soviet Union (battles
77
Saburo Ienaga, The Pacific War 1931-1945, Pantheon Books, New York 1978, pp 3-12, John J. Mearsheimer The Tragedy
of Great Power Politics, Norton, 2003 New York, NY pp 172-176, Stephen Van Evera Causes of War, Cornell University
Press, 1999 , pp 126,188 78
Saburo Ienaga, 1978, pp 4,8,9-10,63,67, 129 ,John Mearsheimer, 2003, pp 176-180, Scott D. Sagan, The Origin and
Prevention of Major Wars, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 18, No. 4.,(Spring, 1988) page 896, Robert Pape,
Bombing to Win, Cornell University Press, 1996, page 110 79
Saburo Ienaga, The Pacific War 1931-1945, Pantheon Books, New York 1978, pp 7-10,67,85, 153-171 80
Saburo Ienaga, 1978, pp 9-12,59-60,67, 160-165, John J. Mearsheimer The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, Norton, 2003
New York, NY , pp 178-180
Konstantinos Travlos 39
of Lake Khashan in 1938 and Khalkhin Gol in 1939), Japan’s attack on China,
culminating in open war in 1937, initially achieved great results. But the war later bogged
down.81
As the Chinese quagmire began eroding Japan’s self-help capabilities, the
country faced the negative reaction of the Western Powers and the United States.
The United States possessed a latent territorial sphere of influence in the Pacific
centered on control of Hawaii and the Philippines. While not greatly adding to U.S self-
help capabilities, the two areas provided the United States with an extended power
projection capability into the heart of the Sea of China. The United States, since the
Russo-Japanese war, was worried about Japan’s expansion, but did not feel threatened.82
As long as Japan turned towards China, the U.S was content to ‘pass the buck’ of
stopping Japanese aggression to the Chinese.83
But as the clouds of war started to cover
Europe, the United States became increasingly worried of Japan’s ability to adversely
affect the situation in Europe.84
Therefore it joined Great Britain and the Netherlands in
imposing embargoes on Japan from 1938 onwards. While these were toothless in the
beginning, they became increasingly stringent when war erupted in Europe and Japan
joined the Axis.
The embargoes started affecting Japan’s military capability, eroding its self-help
capabilities, and decreasing the chances of winning the war in China. Faced with the
prospect of a deteriorating military situation in China, Japan decided that the only way to
guarantee its sphere of influence and save her self-help capabilities was to extend it
southwards towards French Indochina, and Dutch Indonesia.85
The Japanese believed,
correctly, that the Western powers and the U.S wanted it to be tied down and expend its
81
Saburo Ienaga , 1978, pp 79-80, John Mearsheimer, 2001, page 221 82
John Mearsheimer , 2001, pp 179-181,221, Robert Pape, 1996, pp 89-91 83 Saburo Ienaga , 1978, pp 79-80, Richard B.Frank, Downfall; The end of the imperial Japanese Empire, Penguin Books,
New York, 1999 page 22,John Mearsheimer , 2003, pp 221-224,257-261 84
Saburo Ienaga , 1978, pp 80,131,132-133, Richard B.Frank, 1999, pp 22-23, John Mearsheimer, 2003, pp 181, 221-223,
Scott, D.Sagan, Journal of Interdisciplinary History , 1988, pp 901-903 85
Saburo Ienaga, The Pacific War 1931-1945, Pantheon Books, New York 1978, pp 129-133, John Mearsheimer, 2003, pp
221-222, Stephen Van Evera, 1999, page 126, Scott D. Sagan 895, 904, 907-910, 912
Konstantinos Travlos 40
power in China in order to be unable to affect the war in Europe.86
This perception was
reinforced when Germany attacked the Soviet Union and the United States tightened its
embargo to the point that Japanese ability to supply and maintain its navy and armies was
put at risk.
While Great Britain and the Dutch had strong security interests in the area, in the
form of their colonies and therefore wanted to weaken Japan, the United States was
driven primarily by long-term security reasons. It feared that Japan would attack the
Soviet Union, and so putting the latter in a two-front war, and leading to its defeat. Soviet
defeat would lead to a Europe dominated by Germany, which potentially could be an
existential threat to the United States.87
Thus Washington wanted Japan bogged down in
China, and if possible her sphere of influence wrecked. It initially tried to pass the buck
to Great Britain and the Dutch. But German victories in Europe in 1940-41 made the
position of those powers in the Far East tenuous.
A Japanese invasion of the territories of Great Britain and the Netherlands in the
Pacific could only happen if the United States was either persuaded to remain natural or
militarily constrained. The threat of a U.S. oil embargo was the main reason that the
Japanese sought to control the resources of Indochina and Indonesia. But an attempt to
control those resources would be nullified by a U.S military action or threat of action.88
Without finding resources, Japan would be hard pressed to keep its overextended army
supplied. Japanese leaders became increasingly persuaded that their only choice was to
fight a war with the U.S which would permit them to take control of the Eastern Pacific,
averting the degradation of their self-help capabilities.89
Fearing a future war with the
86
Saburo Ienaga, 1978, pp 132-135, John Mearsheimer, 2003, pp 221-225, 257-260 87 Saburo Ienega , 1978, pp 80-81, Richard B.Frank, Downfall; The end of the imperial Japanese Empire, Penguin Books,
New York, 1999, pp 22-24, Mearsheimer 219-224,251,257-261, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 1988, pp 901-903 88
Scott D. Sagan Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 18, No. 4, The Origin and Prevention of Major Wars. (Spring,
1988), pp 897,912-914 89
Saburo Ienaga, The Pacific War 1931-1945, Pantheon Books, New York 1978, pp 131-136, John Mearsheimer, 2003, pp
219-224, Stephen Van Evera, 1999, pp 89-94, Scott D. Sagan, Journal of Interdisciplinary History,1998, pp 895, 904,907-
910, 912, 920-922
Konstantinos Travlos 41
U.S under worse conditions, they decided to take advantage of the decision to keep the
bulk of its Pacific fleet in Hawaii, and launched the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The Japanese sought a limited war of influence. The wished to destroy U.S power
projection capabilities by destroying the U.S Pacific navy and taking the Philippines and
Hawaii.90
They also wished to cut off U.S aid to China, and to the British Commonwealth
forces fighting in India and Indonesia.91
Japan did not seek to pose an existential threat to
the United States. Its strategy was based on the belief that the United States would
become embroiled in the European war in order to save the tottering Soviet Union, and in
consequence would be unable to mount for a long time a serious offensive in the
Pacific.92
That time would be enough for Japan to complete the subjugation of China,
Indonesia and Indochina and hence be better prepared to either assist Germany against
the Soviet Union or face a U.S attack. The most optimistic scenario was that the United
States would be so bogged down in Europe, that it would acquiesce to Japan’s new
sphere of influence.
The Japanese misread not only the U.S ability to fight a two front war, but also
how linked in Washington’s view, was Japans sphere of influence in the Pacific with the
existential threat posed by Germany in Europe.93
The United States quickly escalated its
efforts on both fronts. U.S war aims quickly became unlimited. Not only must Japan’s
sphere of influence come to an end, but Japan’s military capabilities had to be
dramatically reduced. For Japan these aims, which U.S war strategy sought to attain,
posed an existential threat.94
The Japanese navy was eradicated, Japan mercilessly
bombed and blockaded and Japanese control over the Philippines and Indonesia nullified.
90
Saburo Ienaga, 1978, pp 139-140, 143, Stephen Van Evera, 1999, pp 89,91-94 91
Saburo Ienaga , 1978, pp 139, 142-43, Stephen Van Evera, 1999, pp 156-157 92
Saburo Ienaga, 1978, pp 139-140, John Mearsheimer, 2003, pp 223-224, Stepehn Van Evera, 1999, pp 89-94, Scott D.
Sagan, 1988, pp 914-917, Robert Pape, 1996, pp 110-111 93
John J. Mearsheimer The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, Norton, 2003 New York, NY pp 172-176219-224, 257-261,
Stephen Van Evera Causes of War, Cornell University Press, 1999 , pp 21-22,28-29,49, 94 Richard B.Frank, Downfall; The end of the imperial Japanese Empire, Penguin Books, New York, 1999 pp 24-37, Stephen
Van Evera, 1999, page 156, Robert Pape, Bombing to Win, Cornell University Press, 1996, pp 91-98
Konstantinos Travlos 42
For Japan the main aim during the war, was to preserve the armies fighting in
China, Indochina, and Indonesia. As the war progressed, Japan became isolated form
those armies, but the leadership would not surrender as long as they were active. At the
very basic, it was these armies on which the Japanese sphere of influence had been built,
and as long as they existed, Japan could get a negotiated peace. This situation created a
problem for the United States. In order to end the war, it would have to either eliminate
the imperial center or those armies. But the bulk of the U.S army by 1945 was fighting in
Europe and there were insufficient forces for either of those options. Washington wanted
to end the war quickly, and preferably without moving the U.S forces from Europe to the
Pacific. The reason for this was that the U.S needed its army in Europe in order to
counterbalance Soviet power.95
Also, the projected losses of an invasion of the home
islands quickly made the U.S leadership unenthusiastic about the Home Islands invasion
plans.96
The United States used the atomic bombs in an attempt to force a Japanese
surrender. While the historical record is still contested, it seems that the atomic bombs
did not persuade the military figures of the government to surrender, although the civilian
figures and the Emperor did lose their trust in the military’s ability to win the war.97
Also
in August 8th
1945, the Soviet Union entered the war, quickly overrunning the Kwantung
army. These events led to the end of the last vestiges of resistance in the government
towards the one point conditional surrender. Japan surrendered because the atomic bombs
nullified any chance of gaining a negotiated peace as a result of a military victory against
95
Richard B.Frank, 1999, pp 122,129,249-251 96
Richard B. Frank , pp 117-130, 139-148,193-196 ,337-343, Robert Pape, 1996, pp 106-108 97 Richard B.Frank, Downfall; The end of the imperial Japanese Empire, Penguin Books, New York, 1999 pp99, 270-
272,288-290, 295-296, 314, 344-345, Robert Pape, Bombing to Win, Cornell University Press, 1996, pp 119-123
Konstantinos Travlos 43
the U.S invasion of the home islands. The bombs presented a cheaper option of ruining
the imperial base.98
Japan also surrendered because the Soviet entry into the war made it impossible
for the Japanese to hold their empire even in the case of a negotiated peace with the
U.S.99
There was no way to reinforce the armies in the Pacific and China, and they had no
possibility of defeating the Soviet Army. Finally, fear of internal unrest due to the effects
of the blockade played a role in the mind of the Emperor and some members of
government.100
Japan thus surrendered when it became evident that its sphere of
influence had been lost, and that the continuation of the war would lead to the destruction
of the Imperial institution and Japanese social order. The war had been launched to save
and extend the sphere of influence that would augment Japan’s self help capabilities.
Since this could not happen anymore, there was no point in sacrificing the state and
nation to preserve self-help capabilities that were fatally degraded.
The U.S escalation drove Japanese escalation, since the Japanese saw the United
States as posing an existential threat. As a result a war that started as an influence war,
escalated to an existential war. While it ended in conditional surrender, the reality was
that Japan ceased to be a sovereign state. U.S victory was total. This war would have
been unlikely if Japan did not see its sphere of influence as tied to its self-help
capabilities. But the dual nature of territoriality, and internal mobilization did not permit
a different view. And it was this dual nature that made the Japanese spheres of influence
dangerous for the United States.
The two case studies provide an insight on how the theory works. States consider
the costs and benefits of war and peace, factoring in the importance of the NSoP tied to
the contested sphere of influence. Both Russia and Japan did this. Also challengers factor
98
Saburo Ienaga, The Pacific War 1931-1945, Pantheon Books, New York 1978, page 150, Richard B.Frank, 1999, pp 194,
196, 337-340, 347 99
Saburo Ienaga, 1978, page 150, Richard B. Frank,1999 ,pp 82, 94, 345, Robert Pape, 1996, pp 115-117, 123-125 100
Saburo Ienaga, 1978, page 230-231,Richard B. Frank, 1999, pp 97,310, 344-346, Robert Pape, 1996, pp 121-123
Konstantinos Travlos 44
the exclusivity of the sphere of influence into their decision to challenge it. In both case
studies the challengers, Great Britain and Austria in the Crimean War and the United
States in the Pacific War, saw the exclusive character of the spheres of influence as a
danger.
Additionally in both case studies the challengers tried to avoid war, first trying
through diplomacy to mitigate the exclusivity of the sphere of influence. This worked
only to a point for the Crimean case since the stratified sphere of influence had clear
geographical areas corresponding to the dominant NSoP. Russia quickly gave up its
sphere of influence in the Ottoman Empire without a fight. It fought though for the Black
Sea. In the Japanese case, where stratification was not geographically separable, no
possibility of negotiation could work. This seems to indicate that a stratified sphere of
influence where the different NSoP correspond to distinct geographical zones provides
more bargaining space than a sphere of influence where stratification is not
geographically distinct.
Once challengers’ demands started affecting the dual-nature NSoP in the stratified
mix both Russia and Japan fought hard. Both gave up though when the costs of trying to
maintain the sphere of influence became such that the states self-help capabilities were in
mortal danger. Russia did this a lot more painlessly than Japan because the loss of her
sphere of influence did not adversely affect her ability to fight an existential war. For
Japan were the sphere of influence was crucial to its self-help capabilities, the war ended
only when those self-help capabilities were already destroyed. Also the Crimean war was
less intense then the Pacific War. This satisfies predictions two and three.
Finally Austria’s policy in the Crimean wars provides as with an alternative to
negotiation and fighting for challengers. This is ‘buck passing’. This strategy will be
preferred by weak states that still see a threat from a sphere of influence.
Konstantinos Travlos 45
How the Nuclear Revolution affects the argument
The argument I developed thus far does not make space for a nuclear world. But
since 1945 the great powers of the world have been operating under the effects of the
nuclear revolution. In this section I summarize how the nuclear revolution impacts my
argument. I argue that while the nuclear revolution changes some of the outcomes
predicted, it does not change the causal logic.
The basic, overarching effect of the nuclear revolution on my argument is that
existential wars among great powers become extremely rare, and extremely deadly.
Nuclear weapons essentially deter great powers from trying to exterminate each other,
while giving them the ultimate tool to do such a thing. This means that attacks against the
dual-nature NSoP are prohibitively costly, as any state that suffers such an attack will see
an existential threat which will raise the specter of nuclear war.
Moreover the Nuclear Revolution means that Great Powers will be hesitant to
launch influence wars over spheres of influence that are tied to dual-nature NSoP. They
will do this because they would fear the escalation spiral inherent in such a war. Indeed,
Great Powers will probably be less willing to create spheres of influence tied to dual-
nature NSoP. This is so because a nuclear deterrent is the supreme form of self-help
capabilities, and the security risks associated with spheres of influence tied to dual-nature
NSoP are not worth the benefits they provide in self-help capabilities.
We should consequently see a reduction in great power competition over dual-
nature NSoP. Great Powers with nuclear deterrents will turn to competing over more or
less open spheres of influence tied to non-dual NSoP. The threat of war arising from
these is smaller, and the likelihood of escalation to the nuclear level is lower, because
loss of such spheres of influence does not pose an existential threat to a great power. This
Konstantinos Travlos 46
is a trend reinforced by the rise of the information economy and the global commercial
system.
But the system is not fully safe. Even if war over spheres of influence tied to dual-
nature NSoP is less likely, there is a higher likelihood of crises erupting over them. This
happens because nuclear armed states will believe that their nuclear arsenal protects them
from an attack over competition over such spheres of influence. States will use
brinkmanship to try and gain what they used to gain by war. And these crises will still
create the threat of escalation. Thus, while the likelihood of war over spheres of influence
tied to the dual nature sources of power will go down, the possibility of crises takes its
place. Finally states might still be willing to use war over spheres of influence tied to
non-dual nature NSoP. While not a highly likely possibility, it does exist, and escalation
dynamics may lead to high intensity.
My argument can still explain the nuclear world. The part pertaining to spheres of
influence tied to non-dual nature NSoP still remains as is. The parts that refer to spheres
of influence tied to dual-nature NSoP change as following. Wars over such spheres of
influence should be rare. States will prefer to use crises rather then overt war in order to
erode them. They will also try to limit the possibility of escalation that such crises entail.
Should escalation happen, though, the argument’s main theory that such a war will be
characterized by high intensity still holds. Indeed this is one of the few ways that a
nuclear war might erupt.
Conclusion and Future Research
In order to answer the question of what causes the variation in intensity among
Great Power wars, I laid forth an argument that the level in intensity results from the
varying importance that spheres of influence have for Great Powers. Since existential
Konstantinos Travlos 47
wars are by definition highly intensive wars, any variation in intensity among Great
Power wars resides in the variation in intensity among Great Power influence wars. This
in turn is defined by whether the sphere of influence affects the dual-nature NSoP, like
territoriality and internal mobilization, or the non-dual nature NSoP, like market control
and ideological hegemony. While all of them can increase a state’s influence, only the
first two are crucial to a states self-help capabilities and thus ability to fight and win an
existential war. Since any attempt to erode spheres of influence affecting the dual-nature
NSoP will undermine the self-help capabilities of a state, the incentives to go to war and
intensify the effort to win the war will be high. This is not the case with non-dual nature
NSoP.
How exclusive a sphere of influence is will also affect the likelihood of states
going to war over it. The more exclusive a sphere is the more likely a war is. Spheres of
influence affecting dual-nature NSoP will by nature be highly exclusive, while this is not
necessarily the case with non-dual nature NSoP. Therefore Great Power wars over
spheres of influence affecting the dual-nature NSoP will be more likely than war over
those spheres affecting non-dual nature NSoP. And wars over the former will be more
intense then wars over the latter.
The argument presented here lends some support to the liberal-institutionalist
school of thought and its claim that an open international economic system reinforces
peace, since high exclusivity is one of the factors that may lead states to fight over non-
dual NSoP. It also, however reinforces the realist claim that issue indivisibilities are
common in the world, and will lead to war. Furthermore it brings to question the
rationalist claim that states wage war because of an inability to find a bargaining space. It
seems that states are quite capable of fully understanding the possibility of a bargaining
space, and will avoid war if such a space exists. But if the issues are by their nature
Konstantinos Travlos 48
indivisible then war is likely. Indivisibility is not the result of private information, or
misrepresentation. It is the result of the dual-nature or non-dual nature of NSoP.
My argument as made in this paper is still incomplete. First, there is a need for
further research on the impact that a dynamic balance of power will have on the cost/
benefit analysis of states when contemplating war initiation or escalation. My hunch is
that it will play a crucial role, especially in a state’s decision to fight over non-dual nature
NSoP. Indeed further research is needed to explain why states would fight over non-dual
nature NSoP, and how these wars can escalate to high intensity. Also, there is a need for
fleshing out how spheres of influence and national sources of power interact, and how
national sources of power can be operationalized and quantified. This in turn will permit
the running of large-n tests that can further reinforce the theory as well as make it more
capable of generating predictions. Additionally the escalation dynamics need further
research. This in turn necessitates a more extensive analysis of the impact of the nuclear
revolution on the theory. Finally, there is a need for more case studies, especially of wars
over spheres of influence tied to non-dual nature NSoP that escalated to high levels of
intensity, wars over dual-nature NSoP that did not, and crises over spheres of influence
that did not lead to war.
Konstantinos Travlos 49
Bibliography
Karl von Clausewitz ,On War, Princeton University Press, 1989
Dale Copeland ,The Origins of Major War, Cornell University Press 2001
Stephen Van Evera ,Causes of War, Cornell University Press 1999
Παναγίωτης Κονδύλης, Θεωρία του Πολέμου, Θεμέλιο 1999(Panayotis
Kondylis,Theory of War, Themelio 1999)
James D. Fearon ,Rationalist Explanations of War, International Organization Vol.49,
No 3 Summer 1995
Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics, Princeton
University Press, 1976 and ,Hypotheses on Misperception, World Politics Vol. 20, No.
3, April 1968
Robert Gilpin ,War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge 1981
A.F.K. Orgamski ,World Politics, Alfred A. Knopf 1958
Paul Keal ,Unspoken Rules and Superpower Dominance, St. Martin's Press New York
1983
Morton H. Halperin, Limited War in the Nuclear Age, John Wiley&Sons, Inc. 1963
Matthew Melko ,General War Among Great Powers in World History, The Edwin
Mellen Press. Wales,UK 2001
Jack Levy ,War in the Modern Great Power System, 1495 – 1975, The University Press
of Kentucky 1983
Robert E.Osgood ,Limited War Revisited ,Westview Press/ Boulder Colorado 1979
Nordal Akerman ,On the Doctrine of Limited War, Berlingska Boktryckeriet 1972
Robert Jervis ,The Illogic American Nuclear Strategy, Cornell University Press 1984
Martin Van Creveld ,Nuclear Proliferation and the Future of Conflict, The Free Press
1993
Robert Pastor ,A Century's Journey, Basic Books 1999
Andrew D. Lambert,The Crimean War British grand strategy, 1853-1856,Manchester
University Press, New York, NY 1990
Alexis Troubetzkoy, A Brief History of the Crimean War: The causes and
consequences of a medieval conflict fought in a modern age.,Carroll & Graf Publishers,
New York, NY 2006
Vernon John Puryear, England, Russia, and the Straits Question 1844-1845
Archon Books, Hamden, Connecticut 1965
David Goldfrank, The Origins of the Crimean War ,Longman Publishing, Harlow,
Essex 1994
Norman Rich, Why the Crimean War: A Cautionary Tale ,University Press of New
England, Hanover and London 1985
Vulliamy, C. E. ,Crimea; the campaign of 1854-56, with an outline of politics and a
study of the royal quartet, London, J. Cape, 1939
Royle, Trevor. Crimea : the Great Crimean War, 1854-1856 ,New York, St. Martin's
Press, 2000.
The Origins of the Crimean War, Brison D. Gooch ed. D.C. Heath and Company,
Lexington ,Massachusetts, 1969
Robert Powell, War as a Commitment Problem, International Organization 60, Winter
2006
Antonio Gramsci, Letters from Prison, University Press, New York ,1994
Robert Pape, Bombing to Win, Cornell University Press
Konstantinos Travlos 50
John J. Mearsheimer The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, Norton, 2003 New York,
NY
Frank Monaghan World War II An Illustrated History , J.G.Ferguson and Associates,
Chicago, Illinois 1943
Saburo Ienaga The Pacific War 1931-1945, Pantheon Books, New York 1978
Richard B.Frank, Downfall; The end of the imperial Japanese Empire, Penguin Books,
New York, 1999
Charles Galser, Realists as Optimists: Cooperation as Self Help, International Security,
Vol. 19, No. 3 (Winter 1994/95), pp. 50-90.
The Security Dilemma Revisited, World Politics, Fiftieth Anniversary Special Issue,
Vol. 50, No. 1 (October 1997), pp.171-201.
John Sweetman, The Crimean War, Essential Histories, Osprey Publishing, Oxford,
Great Britain, 2001