MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080572913 · doi:10.1353/his.2014.0069

The origins of the First World War: Diplomatic and military documents by Anika Mombauer (review)

2014· article· en· W2080572913 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Andrew Iarocci

Bibliographic record

VenueHistoire sociale · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeological Research and Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipFirst world warWorld War IIHistorySpanish Civil WarDiplomatic historyClassicsLawPolitical sciencePoliticsAncient historyInternational relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The origins of the First World War: Diplomatic and military documents by Anika Mombauer Andrew Iarocci Mombauer, Anika – The origins of the First World War: Diplomatic and military documents. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2013, Pp. 660. Anika Mombauer is an authority on the origins and opening phases of the First World War. She has authored Helmuth von Moltke and the Origins of the First World War (Cambridge University Press, 2001); The Origins of the First World War: Controversies and Consensus (Longman, 2002); and Die Julikrise. Europas Weg in den Ersten Weltkrieg (C.H. Beck Verlag, Munich, 2014). The origins of the First World War: Diplomatic and military documents complements Mombauer’s earlier scholarship on the path to war and the conflict’s outbreak. The collection is arranged in two sections. Part I includes source material from 1911-1914, the period of “avoided wars.” Part II covers the July Crisis of 1914 and the onset of war. In both parts, the documents are organized [End Page 829] chronologically into chapters. Each of the four chapters in Part I covers one calendar year (1911 through 1914), while the documents in Part II are organized in seven chapters that follow the complex decision-making threads leading from the first moments after Franz Ferdinand’s death to the first shots of the war. While there may have been other ways to organize the documents—by nation or region for example—Mombauer’s arrangement is most suitable, as it underscores the cumulative impact of decisions and reactions as the crisis evolved from the diplomatic realm to the battlefield. Mombauer’s selections come from official or archival collections, as well as published memoirs, diaries, and letters. Some of the documents in the selection are familiar, while others have only recently been rediscovered since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The documents give voice to a broad range of speakers. Many of them were prominent political or military leaders from the major powers; others came from smaller states, and will be lesser known to most English-speaking readers. Beyond her editing and translation work, Mombauer has added considerable value to the documents with a general introduction on the historiography of the First World War’s origins, as well as shorter introductory remarks at the beginning of Parts I and II. She opens each chapter with a brief contextual statement. And at the top of each document, Mombauer names the relevant historical actors (speaker, recipient, or audience, as applicable), and summarizes the essential content of the document in a few words. Understandably, in the interests of brevity, Mombauer does not attach biographical information to historical actors in each document. Instead, she has included a glossary of names that includes key information such as nationality, rank, appointment, and term of service. Readers will need to look elsewhere for further contextual information on the historical actors however. In sum this selection of documents illuminates a series of significant controversial issues. Among the most important of these, we see how decision-makers in Berlin and Vienna came to view Franz Ferdinand’s assassination as a timely pretext for war (178, 185, 192-193). Some of the documents help to clarify France’s ambiguous role in the July crisis. We find clear evidence, for example, that the French were determined to stand firm behind Russia as Nicholas II ordered general mobilization (pp. 463-465). From a transnational perspective, it also emerges that military staffs across Europe tended to push their civilian leaders toward mobilization, despite misgivings that it would provoke war (pp. 458-459, 483). This collection of documents will be useful to specialists in diplomatic and military history of the First World War period, as well as instructors and students who seek convenient access to a cross-section of primary material on the origins of First World War. [End Page 830] Andrew Iarocci University of Western Ontario Copyright © 2014 Histoire sociale / Social History

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistoire socialeSame topicArchaeological Research and ProtectionFrench-language works237,207