Goemans, Hein E. War and Punishment: The Causes of War Termination and the First World War. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. This is a research on the study of the reason that led to the termination of the First World War. Goemans’s theory is based on four of the main combatants of the war: France, Germany, Great Britain, and Russia. The study placed extensive stress on the role of domestic politics and tenure of the leader in escalation of the world war.
The study states that domestic politics had played a major role in the termination of the war so abruptly. It ultimately supports the convergence theory of war termination, with inclusion of domestic political condition as a moderating factor. The regime types and the situation of the domestic politics have a role to play in the termination of the war. Goemans believes that regimes are of three categories – dictatorship, mixed regimes, and democracies (39). The regime types influence the decision to end and the time to end the war (39). Goemans described domestic cost as the punishment the leader faces if they lose a war and they devise strategies that may minimize the punishment.
He postulates that the leaders in the moderately repressive regimes who face the maximum punishment as opposed to leaders from a nonrepressive and highly repressive regime (39-40). This book directly addresses the research question for the present study as it demonstrates the need the study the reason for termination of First World War from the international relations perspective as well as a plausible argument for the termination of the war.
Lieber, Keir A. “The New History of World War I and What It Means for International Relations Theory.” International Security Vol. 32, No. 2 (2007): 155–191. The article by Lieber shows that the traditionalist theory based on the defensive realism i.e. the concept based on security dilemma, spiral model, and offensive defensive balance (156) is not enough to answer the reason for the origin of the First World War in the face of new evidence. Lieber’s research points out that the Germans went to war with proper plan and strategy in place. Escalation for the German leaders was not a defensive strategy but a strategy that aimed at attainment of their futuristic aim of becoming the European hegemons.
This idea is a departure from the traditional belief of the origin of the conflict that dominated the international relations literature and therefore is important for this present research as it is necessary to understand the origin of the war to understand why it terminates. Therefore any research on First World War, be it on the origin of the war or termination of the war, need to undertake the study conducted by Lieber.
Reiter, Dan. How Wars End. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. The book by Reiter is a study of causes of termination of wars short of total victory. Reiter argues that two factors shape the war termination decisions – information regarding the balance of power and the distrust of the other side’s commitment to peace settlement. The book discusses many of the wars from the American civil war to the Second World War. In case of First World War Reiter argues that it was to regain power of control over Europe and due to the distrust towards the British and French commitment to peace settlement, did Germany continue its aggression in the west even after securing peace with Russia. This book is important for the present study as it points out to a different reason for the termination of First World War that was based on the mutual distrust theory based in the anarchist theory of international relations.
Slantchev, Branislav L. “How Initiators End Their Wars: The Duration of Warfare and the Terms of Peace.” American Journal of Political Science Vol. 48, No. 4 (2004): 813–829. This article is based on the new theory of endogenous war termination and shows that initiators of war will have a greater chance to lose a war if their duration in it is longer. This article is a quantitative analysis of the estimate of war duration and the chances of the initiator to terminate the war. The research is based on the data available on warfare from 1816 to 1991. According to the endogenous war termination theory, leaders who expect optimistic result out of a war will tend to initiate it (814).
Slantchev argues that at least two states are required to start a war, and one of them has to misjudge to get an outcome of the war. However, this cost benefit analysis goes wrong for the state who miscalculates the outcomes. The study based on endogenous war termination theory suggests that initiators will initiate a war when they are certain of high chances of victory, and will end the war, the longer the duration of the war (827). The study findings demonstrate that there is a great connection between the might of the initiator and that of the delaying of the escalation. Further, the study shows that the initiators will have a greater chance to lose if the duration of the war is longer. Given this understanding of the endogenous war termination theory, the present article uses the theory to determine the possible causes that may have moved Allied and the Central forces towards the termination of the First World War.
Stevenson, David. “1918 Revisited.” The Journal of Strategic Studies Vol. 28, No. 1 (2005): 107 – 139. Stevenson re-evaluates the reason for the termination of First World War by studying the origin of the armistice of 1918, by exploring the French, German, and British primary sources. Further, this article uses the previous theories developed by international relations scientists on war termination. Stevenson researched two potent questions – why Germany asks for the armistice and why the Allied powers grant it.
Stevenson argues that the reason for the termination of the First World War was the German campaigning in early 1918 on the western front and the diplomatic mistrust between the German opponents viz. the US, Britain, and France. This tension, Stevenson believes, brought about the convergence of the interests among the parties. This article provides the perceived convergence theory of the termination of the First World War and therefore is important for the present study.
Stevenson, David. “Britain, France and the Origins of German Disarmament, 1916–19.” The Journal of Strategic Studies Vol. 29, No. 2 (2006): 195 – 224. This article studies the disarmament of Germans in the First World War by the terms of Treaty of Versailles of 1919. In this article, Stevenson points out that the British and French policy during the first world war and the nature of American diplomacy and the reasons for the forced disarmament of Germany and a proposal for a larger disarmament.
In this article, Stevenson even more clearly shows that there was major mistrust among the Allied powers that destabilized the stability of the disarmament settlement. The article by Stevenson points out that the Allied powers were mistrustful of each other’s intentions and therefore led to an abrupt end of the First World War, even when they were sure that Germans would be defeated eventually. This article helps to establish the anarchist theory’s relevance behind the termination of the First World War.