Sean McMeekin

In a major reinterpretation, Sean McMeekin rejects the standard notion of the war’s beginning as either a Germano-Austrian pre-emptive strike or a miscalculation. The key to the outbreak of violence, he argues, lies in St. Petersburg. Russian statesmen unleashed the war through policy decisions based on imperial ambitions in the Near East.

The Russian Origins of the First World War

Bryan Alexander

An engaging, provocative revision of WWI history, Russian Origins of the First World War assigns a great deal of agency to Russia's role in that conflict. It's a welcome change from the usual, hoary debate over Germany war guilt.

McMeekin wants us to consider WWI by focusing less on the Western front, and more on the Russo-Turkish conflict. The Russians wanted to conquer chunks of the declining Ottoman empire, most notably Constantinople, or a would-be "Tsargrad." A variety of problems and forces appear under this header, from the Armenians to naval politics to south Balkan ambitions and Persia. Russia's desire to conquer in this realm was more important than its war with Germany or Austria-Hungary. "For Russia, the war of 1914 was always, ultimately, about Turkey." (101) "Russia's war... was fought not for Serbia, but to achieve control of Constantinople and the Straits." (239) 

Russian participation in and exploitation of European alliances made sure this was a continental catastrophe, rather than a local one. Provocatively, McMeekin offers a new label for the Great War: "the War of the Ottoman Succession" (4). He also wants us to imagine that "[t]he war of 1914 was Russia's war even more than it was Germany's" (5).

The main protagonist is Russia's foreign minister Sergei Sazanov. He appears as a masterful, even Machiavellian manipulator, leading France and especially Britain into following Russia's schemes. London comes across as very clueless in the diplomatic world ("British leaders, for their own possibly misguided strategic purposes, one by one declared themselves willing to accept imaginary horses for real ones" (122). In contrast Russia's minister just keeps running the table, arranging things for his nation's maximum benefit, a "diplomatic revolution" (124).
Sasanov had brilliantly arranged the enemy coalition in what was arguably Russia's best war-fighting scenario since the eighteenth century. (77)

McMeekin goes on to argue that the 1916 Sykes-Picot pact owed a great deal to Sazanov (the author wants it known as the Sykes-Picot-Sazanov Pact instead, 210). "Out of Russian diplomatic blackmail was born the French end of the notorious Sykes-Picot blueprint" (131).

While masterful, Russian strategy is often terribly cruel and costly. McMeekin presents several cases whereby Petrograd delays helping allies with seeming deliberation, resulting in massive death tolls: Gallipoli and Armenia being the leading cases. Several times Allied forces made major plays and suffered from a lack of Russian assistance. Russia's focus on fighting Turkey and Austria-Hungary instead of Germany makes strategic sense, but obviously had awful effects on France and, to a lesser extent, Britain. (I'm reminded of Stalin's Warsaw uprising delay)

McMeekin is on difficult ground when he discusses the Armenian genocide. He makes a good case for the importance of Russian manipulation in supporting Armenians against the Ottomans, but plays to Turkish denialists too often. He plays the "both sides committed atrocities" card (ex: 169), puts genocide in quotes, and downplays Ottoman initiative. Perhaps the author's current posting in Bilkent has biased him.

The Russian Origins of the First World War offers many insights and details to gladden any WWI buff. Its description of Russia's conquest of most of Persia is important, given how underappreciated is that campaign (chapter 7). That makes for a useful addition to understanding Britain's Iraqi campaigns, as well as an essential component to Russian's successful invasion of Anatolia.

The book's focus on Russia's Turkish goals also offers useful context for the 1917 Kerensky offensive.

As a student of America's Progressive era, I was struck by the sense of national renewal with which some Russians anticipated war. If they conquered Tsargrad,
Such a crowning strategic triumph... might also "bring healing to our internal life, [and] would give the government and society those achievements and that enthusiasm which could unite them in the service of a matter of indisputable pan-national importance." (26)
I'm reminded of the hopes (rarely discussed since) many progressives had for American entry into WWI.

Like Norman Stone's essential book on WWI's eastern front (my review), this book ends with 1917 and those revolutions, nicely setting up the Soviet state's foreign policy. It also gives us a fine introduction to the Civil War's Whites, since so many of their leading generals and leaders participated in Russia's southern campaigns.

Overall, Russian Origins of the First World War is an intriguing, challenging, and stimulating book for WWI readers. It should also be useful to anyone reading on Russia in the 20th century.

The Russian Origins of the First World War

Reviews