No More Learning

Do our seven cases support this view? On the one hand, the evidence does support a limited version of the argument: in each case, the revolutionary elite saw the seizure of power as a decisive break with the past and adopted policies that departed sharply from those of the old regime. In this sense, therefore, one can say that the change in "identity" produced by the revolu- tion was associated with a change in behavior. But this is a very limited claim, roughly akin to arguing that actors with different preferences are likely to pursue different goals. One hardly needs critical theory to make that case.
On the other hand, the cases in this book offer little support for the more ambitious claim that shifts in discursive practices and collective under- standings could produce a far-reaching transformation in the international systemY Although each of these revolutions featured dramatic changes in discourse and each regime made idealistic claims about its own conduct, their utopian visions soon gave way to the familiar principles of realpolitik. Irrespective of their ideological pretensions, each of these states fought wars, formed alliances, made diplomatic compromises, signed treaties of commerce, and in general conformed to most (if not all) norms of interna- tional conduct, while continuing to espouse revolutionary doctrines of one sort or another. Indeed, it is striking how readily these states abandoned many of their initial objectives under pressure: the French repudiated the
11 Thus, Keith Michael Baker defines a revolution as a "transformation of the discursive practice of a community, a moment in which social relations are reconstituted and the dis- course defining the political relations between individuals and groups is radically recast. " In- venting the French Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 18.
12 Forexamplesofthissortofclaim,seeReyKoslowskiandFriedrichKratochwil,"Under- standing Changes in International Politics: The Soviet Empire's Demise and the International System," and Richard Ned Lebow, "The Long Peace, the End of the Cold War, and the Fail- ure of Realism," both in International Organization 48, no. 2 (1994).
? ? Revolution and War
Decree on Liberty, the Bolsheviks sought trade and investment from the in- ternational class enemy, and even revolutionary Iran was willing to deal with the "Great Satan" in order to wage war against Iraq. In short, these states were willing to do virtually anything that a "normal" state would do, which suggests that systemic pressures had at least as great an impact as their revolutionary identities or ideological underpinnings.
In response, critical theorists might argue that this book offers an unfair test of their perspective, because it focuses primarily on the short- to medium-term effects of a revolution and does not examine the indirect and! long-term impact of revolutions on attitudes, norms, and ideas. And if iso- lated revolutionary states are forced to adjust their behavior to the con- straints of the existing international system, it is still possible that a critical mass of like-minded states would have transformative effects resembling the Westphalian transition between the feudal period and the modem state system. One could also argue that even deradicalized revolutions affect pre- vailing notions of international legitimacy and gradually alter the ends tha? individuals and states deem worthy of pursuit and the means they regard as legitimate.
These are valid points, and this book should not be regarded as offering a definitive challenge to the critical theory approach to international politics. What it does show, however, is that such an approach does not tell us very much about relations between revolutionary states and other powers in the immediate aftermath of the seizure of power. If the question of the long- term transformation of the international systems remains open, these cases suggest that the modified realism of balance-of-threat theory offers a more useful way to think about the practical difficulties that ordinarily follow a revolution.
IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY
The evidence assembled here confirms that foreign leaders have ample reason to be worried when a revolution occurs, but it also suggests that the usual prescriptions for dealing with such an event are not very helpful. In particular, neither appeasement nor intervention is an especially promising approach. Appeasement is often recommended as a way to avoid spiraling and promote good relations over time, but this advice ignores the fact that revolutionary states do commit acts of aggression, and convincing them to stop may require the threat or use of force. The case for overt intervention is usually even weaker. Advocates of intervention believe that diplomatic, economic, or military pressure will exert a positive effect on the revolution- ary process, either by helping one faction consolidate its power or by con- vincing the revolutionary government to adopt policies that are consistent
? ? ? ? Conclusion
with foreign interests. But as we have seen, intervention is very often coun- terproductive. Emperor Leopold's attempts to manipulate French domestic politics in 1791? 2 further undermined Louis's position, and Woodrow Wil- son's efforts to shape the revolutionary process in Mexico alienated the var- ious revolutionary factions and reinforced the latent anti-Americanism of the Mexican government. Foreign attempts to guide the course of events in Russia, Iran, and China were equally unsuccessful: foreign powers lacked sufficient leverage or adequate information (or both), and their activities were regarded with suspicion in each case.
Advocates of intervention will usually argue that the revolutionary state is both extremely dangerous and highly vulnerable, justifying active efforts to overthrow it. But as we have seen, this combination of fear and optimism is usually misplacedY Revolutions are usually hard to export-reducing the need to remove the new regime-and intervention will reinforce the rev- olutionaries' own perceptions of threat and push the regime in a more radi- cal direction. Revolutions are also more difficult to reverse than outside p? wers generally expect, and because war is so unpredictable, intervention may actually facilitate the spread of revolution, thereby causing the very process it was intended to prevent. 14
A policy of containment is the best approach toward most revolutions, es- pecially for great powers facing a relatively weak revolutionary state. Such a strategy would aim to prevent the spread of revolution and deter expan- sionist policies by bolstering potential targets and punishing the revolution- ary state for overt acts of aggression, but its practitioners would otherwise eschew the use of force and would not attempt to overthrow the new regime. Foreign powers would also remain open to the idea of establishing normal relations when possible. Containment is not easy and may require patience, however,becauserevolutionarystatesusuallyinterpretthebehaviorofother states in an extremely biased fashion. For this reason, foreign powers should communicate the rationale behind their responses as clearly as possible, tak- ing pains to avoid appearing duplicitous or inconsistent They should also avoid premature or overly enthusiastic efforts to embrace a suspicious revo-
13 A possible exception to this stricture are cases-such as the U. S. invasion of Grenada in 1982-where the revolutionary state is so small and inconsequential that intervention is vir- tually certain to succeed. Under these conditions, however, the need to act will be even Jess compelling.
14 There is a paradox here: the greater the perceived danger from a revolution, the more likely other states are to take action to contain or eliminate the threat, thereby diminishing the chance that the danger will be realized. In other words, the fear of revolution is a self-defeat- ing prophecy: a revolution may fail to spread precisely because others are so worried that it will. But vigilance alone does not ensure success; indeed, efforts to overthrow a revolution- ary regime may unwittingly facilitate revolutionary expansion, as they did in the French case and (to a lesser extent) the Iran-Iraq war. As a result, potential victims should focus their ef- forts on containing the revolution instead of trying to overturn it.
? ? ? Revolution and War
lutionary state, as such well-intentioned efforts are likely to be seen as self- interested attempts to manipulate the new regime. A policy of ''benevolent neglect" may be most appropriate in such circumstances, allowing the new regime to set the pace for the resumption of more extensive relations.
How would such an approach have fared in the past? A policy of contain- ment would have prevented war in 1792 and averted the various interventions in Soviet Russia in 1918-21. Containment proved to be an effective long-term response to the Bolshevik Revolution, and Iraq would have been far better off had it refrained from attacking Iran in 19& and concentrated on building bar- riers to Iranian expansion in league with the other gulf states. Sino-American relations would almost certainly have been less acrimonious if the two states could have avoided a direct clash in Korea, and the absence of war after the American, Turkish, and Mexican revolutions undoubtedly facilitated their rapid reemergence as accepted members of international society.
Finally, the misperceptions found in virtually all of these cases highlight the importance of obtaining accurate information in postrevolutionary situ- ations, as well as the difficulty of doing so. For example, foreign powers need to know if they are dealing with a mass revolution from below, inspired and directed by a universalist ideology, or an elite revolution with more limited aims. Therefore, they should devote much effort to maintaining reliable channels of communication with the new regime, even in the face of consid- erable hostiRity or resistance. National leaders should also recognize that muCh of the information they obtain will be biased, especially when it comes from members of the old regime. Among other things, foreign governments should go to great lengths to avoid breaking relations so they retain some ca- pacity to monitor events and communicate with the new leaders.
THE REVOLUTIONS OF 1989-1992 AND THE PROSPECTS FOR PEACE
What does balance-of-threat theory tell us about the international impli- cations of the revolutionary transformation of the former Soviet empire?
Let us begin by making an obvious distinction: the rapid collapse of the Communist governments in Eastern Europe demonstrates that contagion can occur, under certain circumstances. This exception to our rule is not as damning as nt first appears, however, for two reasons. First, the regimes that were overturned by the "velvet revolutions" were artificial creations to begin with, and the catalyst for their overthrow was the recognition that Moscow was no longer willing to enforce orthodoxy within the Warsaw Pact. 15 Second, the contagion observed in Eastern Europe did not arise from
15 Gorbachev's reforms in effect lowered the expected cost of resistance to the existing Communist governments, thereby facilitating collective mobilization against them.
? ? ? Conclusion
a revolutionary state's efforts to export its own universalist principles; rather, the revolutions were essentially nationalist revolts against the uni- versalist hegemony of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Thus, where nationalism is ordinarily an obstacle to contagion, it facilitated the spread of revolution in this particular case. This nationalism, together with the unusual features of well-established social networks and relatively high levelsofcommunication, madepossiblearapidandnearlybloodlesstrans- formation. 16
As for its international implications, happily, the revolutions in the former Soviet empire are unlikely to spark intense security competition among the great powers, and certainly not to the degree observed after earlier revolu- tions. Like other revolutions, the collapse of the Soviet Union has caused a major shift in the global balance of power and led to the creation of a series of new regimes whose principles and objectives are dramatically different from those of their predecessors. Yet the other great powers have not tried to exploit or reverse these developments through the use of military power. The United States did take advantage of Russian weakness to obtain favor- able concessions on arms control and several other issues; Germany seized this opportunity to reunite; the various constituent republics took the occa- sion to obtain their independence; and a number of foreign powers have begun to compete for economic advantage in the former Soviet bloc. 17 In a sense, therefore, other states did see the Soviet collapse as a chance to en- hance their own positions. Unlike the other revolutions considered in this book, however, the collapse of Communism has not led to increased secu- rity competition either among the other great powers or between the new regimes and the outside world.
From the perspective of balance-of-threat theory, there are at least five reasons why the international consequences of the revolutions of 1989 have been comparatively benign. First, the collapse of the Soviet empire was not the result of a mass revolution. For the most part, it did not involve replac- ing the old elite with new leaders drawn from a different group or class. In- stead, the upheaval began with a "revolution" in the minds of key members of the Soviet elite, many of whom still (or again) hold influential positions in the new order. Like the Nationalistrevolution in Turkey, in short, the col- lapse of the Soviet Union began as an elite revolution intended to transform
16 For an intriguing theoretical analysis of these dynamics, see Susanne Lohmann, "The Dynamics of Informational Cascades: The Monday Demonstrations in East Leipzig, 1989-91," World Politics 47, no. 1 (1994). On the question whether these events were "true" revolutions, see Charles Tilly, European Revolutions, 1492-1992 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1993), 2JJ-35 ?
17 By linking economic concessions to nuclear weapons policy, the United States was able to persuade Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine to give up the weapons they had inherited when the Soviet Union broke up.
? [3451
? ? ? Revolution and War
both the internal workings of the state and its relations with the outside world. 18 As discussed in chapters 2 and 6, elite revolutions tend to be less dangerous than mass revolutions, in part becaus? the ideologies that inform them rarely pose a direct threat to other states.
The second reason, which follows from the first, is that the revolution in the former Soviet Union and its satellites was conducted by elites who sought to abandon the existing revolutionary legacy of Marxism-Leninism in favor of the political and economic models that had proven so successful in the West. In other words, the events of 198<r92 were a revolution against a revolutionary state. Instead of bringing to power a movement whose founding principles were at odds with political institutions prevailing in the
? other great powers, the revolutions of 198<r92 created a set of states whose principles and intentions are for the most part compatible with the existing order. Though specific conflicts of interest do exist, the potential for spiral- ing is significantly reduced by the absence of a Manichean ideology that portrays others as intrinsically evil or aggressive. It is hardly surprising, then, that the level of conflict is low between the new regimes and the out- side world.
Third, relations between Russia and the rest of the world continue to be governed by a strong condition of defense dominance, which further re- duces the level of security competition. In addition to the presence of nu- clear weajpons on each side (which creates a powerfuH defensive advantage through deterrence and dampens the impact of shifts in the balance of power), the absence of significant ideological conflict enhances security by eliminating the fear of contagion or counterrevolution. Unlike in previous revolutions, neither side need fear that its rule will be undermined by the
spread of potentially corrosive ideas.
Fourth, access to information about events in Eastern Europe has been much more extensive than in the cases examined in this book. Rapid . changes inevitably introduce greater uncertainty, but foreign powers have maintained their diplomatic connections, and the collapse of the secretive Soviet regime has actually facilitated the ability of other states to monitol! ' events there. Thus, the danger of miscalculation is probably lower than in past revolutions.
Finally, the dissolution of the Soviet empire occurred in extremely favor- able international circumstances. If competition among the other great pow- ers is especially intense when a revolution occurs (as it was in the 1790s and
18 The predominant role of former members of the Communist elite is documented in Karen Dawisha and Bruce Parrott, Russia and the New Nations of Eurasia: The Politics of Up- heaval (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), app. B. On the "new thinking" that inspired these reforms, see Thomas Risse? Kappen, "Ideas Do Not Float Freely: Transnational Coalitions, Domestic Structures, and the End of the Cold War," International Organization 48, no. 2 (1994).
? ? ? Conclusion
in 1917, for example), they will be strongly inclined to seek gains for them- selves and to deny potential gains to others. By the time the Soviet Union disintegrated, however, most of the other great powers had been close po- litical and military allies for nearly four decades. Because these states did not regard each other as potential security threats, the normal concern with relative position was muted. Instead of debating whether or not to inter- vene-as great powers did after every revolution we have examined-the Western powers have tried to support the new regimes by providing aid and advice. In addition, because the Cold War inhibited the development of extensive economic or political ties between East and West, foreign powers did not have major interests in the Soviet Union (unlike Britain and France in 1917 Russia or the United States in Iran, for example) and could take a more detached view of events there.
For all of these reasons, therefore, postrevolutionary relations between the former Soviet Union and the other major powers have been unusually tranquil. Circumsftances continue to evolve rapidly, however, and relations could easily deteriorate if Russian elites become convinced that the West ei- ther is responsible for their plight or is taking excessive advantage of it. 19 This danger suggests that Western diplomacy must strike a balance between acknowledging tlh. e legitimate interests of the new Eurasian states (espe- cially Russia) and turning a blind eye to internal abuses or resurgent expan- sionism. To date, ! however, the international consequences of the revolutions of 1989-92 have been uncharacteristically benign.
Unfortunately, relations within the former Soviet Union have been more conflictive, and for reasons that are consistent with balance-of-threat theory. First, the collapse of the USSR created an unstable and uncertain balance of power among the constituent republics (or between competing ethnic or na- tional groups within them). As illustrated by the recent wars-between Ar- menia and Azerbaijan and between Russia and the breakaway province of Chechnya-uncertainties about the true balance of power can encourage both sides in such a dispute to go to war confident of success. 20
19 AttheDecember1994summitoftheConferenceonSecurityandCooperationinEurope, for example, Russian president Boris Yeltsin charged the West with "sowing the seeds of mis- trust" and complained of excessive U. S. influence, saying that "it is a dangerous illusion to suppose that the destinies of continents . . . can somehow be managed from some single cap- ital. " "Yeltsin Says NATO Is Trying to Split Continent Again," New York Times, December 6, 1994- At, A4.
20 Although Azerbaijan had reason to believe it was stronger (its gross national product was roughly 6o percent bigger than Armenia's and its population and armed forces more than twice as large), the Armenians turned out to be far more capable on the battlefield. See The Military Balance 1 9 93-94 (London: International Institute of Strategic Studies, 1993). Sim- ilarly, the Chechens were extremely confident that they could defy Russian pressure despite the enormous odds against them, and their resistance was unexpectedly effective.
? ? [3471
? ? Revolution and War
Second, just as revolutionary states usually adopt policies that differ from those of the old regime, the newly independent republics of the former So- viet Union are now free to pursue interests that were forgotten, suppressed, or irrelevant under Soviet domination. Thus, Ukraine has sought to regain control of Crimea; Armenia and Azerbaijan have fought over ethnic en-
claves within their respective territories; and a number of ethnic and na- tional groups have advanced claims for independence from their respective republics. Disputes over how to divide the assets of the former USSR have been frequent as well, and the Soviet legacy of interdependence has compli- cated matters by making each government's situation dependent on policies adopted elsewhere. 21 In short, where Western perceptions of Russian inten- tions have improved since the collapse of Communism, a number of former Soviet republics now view each other with considerable suspicion.
Third, because the newly independent republics face the same problems of legitimacy and order that revolutionary states often confront, the tempta- tion to mobilize support by invoking nationalism has been difficult to resist. Unfortunately, such efforts often involve playing up both real and imagined grievances against others, and because different groups within the former Soviet Union are now free to teach their own versions of history, the danger has increas? d that past quarrels will fuel future conflicts. 22 Needless to say, these are ideal conditions for spiraling. When conflicts of interest arise, each side will be more likely to see its own actions as entirely justified while viewing the actions of others as unwarranted aggression.
These problems will be compounded by the intermingling of ethnic or na- tional groups within and across existing political boundaries, which creates the possibility that isolated ethnic minorities will see themselves as vulner- able to persecution by majorities who regard them as potentially disloyal "fifth columns. "23 When national or ethnic groups are scattered within dif- ferent political units, one community may worry that a nationalist resur- gence in another republic could trigger a sympathetic response from
conationals within its own borders. Thus, nationalist -Ideologies can create fears of contagion similar to those produced by a transnational revolution- ary ideology.
Afinal source of conflict is Russia's growing effort to reassert its influence within the "near abroad," either to protect ethnic Russian populationS, to re-
21 See Dawisha and Parrott, Russia and the New States ofEurasia, 197--98.
22 Onthisgeneralphenomenon,seeVanEvera,CausesofWar,vol. 2:NationalMisperceptions and the Roots oJWar (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, forthcoming), chap. 11; and E. H. Dance, History the Betrayer: A Study in Bias (London: Hutchinson, 1960).
23 See Barry Posen, "The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict," Survival 35, no. 1 (1993); and Stephen Van Evera, "Managing the Eastern Crisis: Preventing War in the Former Soviet Empire," Security Studies 1, no. 1 (1992); and "Hypotheses on Nationalism and War," Interna- tional Security 18, no. 4 (1994).
? ? ? Conclusion
tain access to valuable resources, or to stabilize the situation along its lengthy border. 24 Increased Russian influence might deter or dampen vio- lence in those areas in the long run, but its immediate impact has been to alarm its neighbors and to reawaken Western concerns. Relations within the former Soviet Union and relations with other powers are thus inextricably linked, and it will be much more difficult for Russia to maintain amicable re- lations with the rest of the world if the level of conflict within its former em- pire is on the rise.
In sum, relations among the newly independent states of Eurasia are characterized by uncertain balances of power, serious conflicts of interest, exaggerated perceptions of hostility, and fears of nationalist contagion. Not surprisingly, therefore, relations within the former Soviet Union have been (and are likely to remain) much less tranquil than relations between Russia and the other major powers.
Thus, balance-of-threat theory does shed light on the likely consquences of the Soviet collapse and helps identify where the probable axes of conflict will be found. These events also underscore the value of a systemic ap- proach, as the absence of great-power conflict in their aftermath is not due solely to the character of the new regimes: it is also due to the benign inter- national context in which the collapse of the Soviet empire took place and the fact the the "revolutions" of 1 989-92 brought these regimes into greater
ideological conformity with the West. Therefore, the events of 1989-92 rein- force a central contention of this entire book: one cannot understand the in- ternational implications of revolutionary change by looking solely at the revolutionary state; one must also consider the configurations of power and interest in the system as a whole.
THE FUTURE OF REVOLUTION
For some writers, the grand ideological struggles that have rent modern society for nearly four centuries are now fading away, to be replaced by more limited (and for the most part, peaceful) disputes over national inter- ests and an increasingly tranquil world order. This perspective sees mass revolution as inextricably linked to the process of modernization-to the spread of market forces and the transition from hierarchical forms of gov- ernment to political orders based m1 equality, mass participation, and indi- vidual rights. With the collapse of Communism and the apparent triumph of modem liberal capitalism, so the argument runs, the great ideological
24 See Alexei G. Arbatov, "Russian Foreign Policy Priorities for the 1990s," in Russian Secu- rity after the Cold War: Seven Views from Moscow, ed. Teresa Pelton Johnson and Steven E. Miller (Cambridge, Mass. : Center for Science and International Affairs, 1994), 13-20; and Vladimir P. Lukin, "Our Security Predicament," Foreign Policy 88 (fall 1992).
[3491
? Revolution and War
struggles of the past are behind us and humankind has reached the "end of histor. y"25 If this view is correct, then my theory explains a phenomenon that may not trouble us any longer. H might be correct but irrelevant, and the lessons drawn from this study of little enduring value.
Because revolutions are so dangerous and destructive, we might prefer a world in which Marx's "locomotive of history" no longer ran. Unfortu- nately, there are good reasons to question this optimistic expectation.
First, even if mass revolution were strictly a modern phenomenon, the process of modernization is not yet complete. A mass revolution may be un- likely in any of the advanced industrial powers, but it remains a possibility in many other parts of the world. The Iranian Revolution occurred less than two decades ago (a rather short period by historical standards), and it takes little imagination to see revolutionary potential in places such as Egypt, India, Pakistan, China, parts of Latin America, and much of sub-Saharan Africa. The collapse of Communism may have discredited Marxism, but other alternatives-ranging from liberalism to radical nationalism to reli- gious fundamentalism-are available to take its place.
Second, the belief that the current hegemony of liberal capitalism will bring an end to ideological conflicts and eliminate the allure of revolution- ary transformation overlooks several matters: the possibility of unintended consequences, the alienating effects of liberal capitalism itself, and the human capacity to create new and appealing visions of a preferable social order. As Kenneth Jowitt persuasively argues, all social orders alienate some of their members, and the amoral, acquisitive individualism of liberal capi- talist society will create space for new ideologies emphasizing transcendant moral values and communitarian ideals. Instead of ideological homogene- ity, therefore, Jowitt predicts that the end of the Cold War will foster a pe- riod of ideological ferment in which new ideologies arise to challenge the hegemony of liberal-capitalist individualism. 26
Thus, the liberal-capitalist order may not always be seen as universally or eternally preferable, and it is too soon to dismiss the possibility that pre- sent discontents will foster the emergence of new dissident ideologies. In- deed, these possibilities are already evident in the rise of religious fundamentalism (whose underlying principles challenge liberalism's no- tions of tolerance), the growing pressure for cultural diversity (where lib-
25 Exponents of this view include Francis Fukuyama, The End ofHistory and the Last Man (New York: Basic Books, 1992); Theodore S. Hamerow, From the Finland Station: The Grllying of Revolution in the Twentieth Century (New York: Basic Books, 1990); and John Mueller, Retreat
from Doomsdlly: The Obsolescence ofMajor War (New York: Basic Books, HJB9); and Quiet Cata- clysm: Reflections on the Recent Transformation of World Politics (New York: HarperCollins, 199. 5).
26 See Kenneth Jowitt, New World Disorder: The Leninist Extinction (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991).
? ? ? Conclusion
eralism's emphasis on individual rights confronts claims for the collective rights of particular groups}, and the emergence of the Greens, the militia movement in America, or neo-fascism in Europe. My point is not that any of these movements will spawn the next great revolutionary ideology, but simply that new challengers will emerge, maybe sooner than we think. If their adherents achieve political power in some existing state-especially if through violent means-the dynamics I have identified are likely to come into play. Indeed, the scope and speed of mass communications could make it easier for dissident social movements to spread their principles across existing borders and amplify the normal fear of contagion. Instead of a relatively stable world of well-ordered national states, in short, we may be entering a period of renewed ideological ferment and increased transna- tional turbulence. 27
If this argument is correct, then we are unlikely to enjoy the tranquility of a world in which violent revolution is a thing of the past. Armed with a bet- ter understanding of the connection between revolution and war, however, we may still avoid some of the tragic results of earlier revolutions. That hope is both the purpose and the paradox of social science: by gaining a bet- ter grasp of the causal forces that shape social phenomena, we may be able to manipulate them so as to render our own theories invalid. Given the re- grettable international consequences that accompany most revolutions, that would be a small price to pay.
27 See Sidney Tarrow, Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action, and Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 193--98. Tarrow also suggests that the impact of these movements may "first be ferocious, uncontrolled, and widely diffused, but later ephemeral. "
? ? ? Abadan, 241
Abercrombie, Ralph, n6n
accommodation, 2, 204, 342; American revolu-
tion and, 281; by England of Soviet Union, 176, 178; Iraruian revolution and, 256, 259; Mexican revolution and, 296; Russian civil vvar and, 158-60, 163-64, 20)-4, 207
Acheson, Dean, )5, )1), )15-18, )22 Adams, John, 2710, 276-77, 285n, 329 Adams, John Quincy, 285n Afghanistan. See Soviet Union Africa, sub-Saharan, 350
Aland Islands, 167
Albania, 300
Algeria, Islamic Salvation Front in, 247, 248n.
See also Iranian revolution Algiers accord, 238
Allende, Salvador, 336n Alsace, 56, 6o, 63, 69, 120 Amal, 249
Amanullah, Emir, 18o-81
American Independence, War of, 269--71, 280, 283; France and, 47, 53
American revolution, 13n, 16, 26g-87, 3 10, 327, 330, 33;m, 344; Barbary states and, 28o, 284; comparison vvith other revolutions, 283, 287; Continental Congress of, 270; England and, 27r>-'J2, 280, 31. 7-28, 332; Founding Fathers and, 270, 2710, 281-83, 285-86; France and, 27r>-'JI, 280, 327-28, 332; Indian tribes and, 271, 284; Latin America and, 281; Model Treaty and, 270, 283; Spain and, 27o-71, 280. See also American Independence, War of; United States
Amiens, n7
Amiens, Peace of, 278 al-Amin, Sayyid Ibrahim, 245
Amur, 152
Anatolia, 299-303, 307
[3531
Anglo-French convention, 150
Anglo-Persian treaty (1919), 179-Bo Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, 179 Anglo-Soviet trade agreement (1921), 175-79,
188, 195, 204
Angola, 336n
Ankara, 3o6
Antoinette, Marie; 58, 96
Arbe02, Jacobo, 35, 336n
Archangel, 134, 136-37, 141, 146 Armenia, 166, 182, 301, 304, 329, 347-48 Armstrong, David, 7
Articles of Confederation, 271-'72, 283
Artois, comte d', 54, 58, 6m, 64. See also Louis XVIII
ai-Assad, Hafez, 249
Auckland, Lord. See William Eden
Austria: mobilization of forces (1792), 72; for- mal convention vvith Prussia (1791), 63, 65;
and War of the First Coalition, 72, 74-75, 77-7? 8o, 82, 89-91, 96-g7, 101, 104-B; and War of the Second Coalition, no-n, 1 1 3-14,
Baath regime, 237-39, 261
Babeuf, Fram;ois-Noel (Gracchus), 109n Baden, 89
Bahonar, Muhammed, 217
Bahrain, 244, 261
n7
Austria-Hungary, 154, 300
Austrian Netherlands, 71, 74-75, Bo, 119 Austro-Prussian alliance, 70, 73, 120 Avignon, 56, 6o, 70
Azerbaijan, 166, 180, 182, 304, 347-48 Aziz, Tariq, 239
.
See also specific revolutions
Index
? Bakmetev, Boris, 145n
Bakhtiar, Shahpour, 212, 235-36, 240 al-Bakr, Ahmad, 238n
balance of power, 19, 21-22, 32, 38 43-44, 46,
327, 333-34, 337; American revolution and, 270, 271n, 275, 283-84, 286, 333-34, 337; Chi- nese revolution and, 312, 323, 325-26, 333-34; Eastern European revolutions and, 345; former Soviet Union and, 347, 349; French revolution and, 73, 1 1S-2o, 122, 128, 312, 333; Iranian revolution and, 210, 25o-54, 267, 312, 333; Mexican revolution and, 2? -97, 333-34, 337; Russian revolution and, 129, 143, 152-53, 17? 1, 173? 2o2-o5, 2o8, 312, 333; theory of, vii-viii, 3-4, 6, 19, 339-40; Turkish revolution and, 333-34, 337
balance of threat, viii, 18, 43, 46, 1o8, 331, 333-40, 342, 344; Chinese revolution and, 312-19, 323, 326; Eastern European revolu- tions and, 344-45; former Soviet Union and, 347, 349; French revolution and, 11S-28; Iranian revolution and, 210, 25o-68; Russian revolution and, 17? 5, 179, 182, 201-9
Balfour, Arthur, 13? , 135n, 143n, 145n, 153n Balkanwars (1912-1913), 300
Baltic states, 159, 167, 169, 173, 185-{)1, 195, 197 Bani-Sadr, Abolhassan, 216--17, 224-26, 23o-31,
235, 256-5- 7, 263-64
Barbary pirates, 271-72, 283
Barere, Bertramd de, 9?
Barras, Paul, Vicomte de, 107
Barrett, David, 315n
Barthelemy, Frran,. ois, 1o8
Basel, Treaty of, 104
Bastille, storming of, 53
Bavaria, 48; Soviet government in, 165, 167,
187, 205, 335 .
Bavarian-Belgian exchange, 118
Bay of Pigs, U. S. invasion of, 41
Bazargan, Mefndi, 216, 223-26, 230, 238, 254,
256-5- 7, 263
Beethoven, Ludwig von, 58
Beheshti, Ayatollah Muhammed, 216--17, 259n Belarus, 345n
Belgium, 41n, 48, 69, 71-72, 83, 89, 90n, 91, 95n,
97, 101, 104-Q7, 111 Berlin, Treaty of, 105 Blake, William, 58
? Blanning,T. C. W. ,71
Boissy d'Anglas, Fran? ois-Antoine, 101 Bolivia, 24, 38n
Bolshevik party, 22n, 26, 129-37, 139-40, 142,
144, 146-5- 0, 152, 154? 156-5- 7? t6o, t62-66, 168, 170, 173-'J5, 178, 186, 201-3, 2o6, 284, 297? 309-10, 329-30, 335? 338, 342; Four- teenth Party Congress of, 191; Fifteenth Party Congress of, 200; coup d'etat by, 130, 138, 141; Decree of Peace, 131; intentions of, 156-5- 7. See also Russia; Russian revolution; Soviet Union
Bolshevism, 152-55, 159, 167, 171, 179, 190-91, 204, 208. Seealsoideology: of Russian revo- lution
"Bolshevization," 19?
Bonapart? Lucien, 117
Bonaparte, Napoleon, toon, 103, 105-7, 112-13,
117, 120, 278-80, z86; and beginning of
Napoleonic era, 117
Borodin, Michael, 197-98
Bosnia-Herzegovina, 300
Brandler, Heinrich, 189
Brest-Litvosk, Treaty of, 11, 135, 142, 144, 158,
t8on, 203, 205, 300
Brezhne? Leonid, 230, 252
Briand, Aristide, 189
Brissot de Warville, Jean-Pierre, 65-67, 75, 76n,
78n, 8o, 8?
Brown, Harold, 225
Brumaire coup, 116-1- 7
Brunswick, duke of, 72, 77 Brunswick Manifesto, 76, 120 Bryan, William Jennings, 295 Brzezinski, Zbigniew, 216, 225, 25m Buchanan, George, 135
Buckler, William H. , 16o
Bukharin, Nikolai, 13m, 132, 189-91, 200 Bull, Hedley, 7
Bullitt, William, 161-63, 168n, 204 Bundy, William P. , 324n
Burgat, Fran? ois, 247
Burges, James, 59
Burke, Edmund, 8, 5S-59, 82, 117 Byelorussia, 173
Calvert, Peter, 7, 13
Cambaceres, Jean-Jacques, 101
Cambodia, Khmer Rouge in, 41n, 326
Campo Formio, Treaty of, 1o6, 109-11, 124, 128
Canton (Guangzhou), 197-98
Carden, Lionel (Sir), 292n
Cardenas, Lazaro, 292
Carnot, Lazar? 78n, 93n, 95, 101n, 1o8 Carranza, Venustiano, 288-{)8
Carrizal, 290, 296
Carter, Jimmy, 224-25, 228, 251, 254, 256
Carter doctrine, 251, 258n
Castro, Fidel, 9-10, 26-2- 7, 35 CatherineII,Empress(ofRussia),49,59,61-62,
71, 8? 11on, 119n, 121
Central Powers, 133-34, 137-38, 141, 143-47,
149, 153-54, 300, 310
Ceylon, 107, 117
Chanak, 305
Charles, Archduke, 115-16
Charles rv, King (of Spain), 121 Charles V, Emperor (of Austria), 105 Chauvelin, Bernard, 85-86, B9n Chechnya, 347
Chesapeake incident, 279
Index
? ? [3541
? ? Canada, 149, 271, 274-'J5, 28o
? Index
Chiang Kai-shek (Jiang Jieshi), 197? 9, 312-13, 316, 332
Chicherin, Gyorgy V. , 142, 157, 159, 162n, 164-65, 169, 1? ? n, 181, 183, 188, 196, 304
Chile, 41n, 336n
China, People's Republic of (PRC), 34-35, 37, 40, 350; civil war in, 313-14; Communist Party (CCP), 197--99, 31o-18, 32m, 322-23, 327; Cultural Revolution in, 324-25; detona- tion of nuclear weapons by, 324; Great Leap Forward in, 324; and India, war with, 326; and Japan, 325; neutrality of, 325; and Pak- istan, 326; populallion of, 329; Red Army of, 322; Socialist Youth Corps in, 198n; Soviet Union, alliance with, 318, 326; and the Third World, 325; and United States, rapproche- ment with, 326; and Vietnam, 326; and West- em Europe, 325. See also Chinese revolution; specific revolutions
China Hands, 37
China lobby, 322, 334
Chinese Eastern Railway, 140n, 141, 151-52,
183, 185
Chinese revolution, ? 4, 16, 269, 31o-3o; Cold War and, 310, 314, 318; compared with other revolutions, 310, 312, 327; deaths in, 2m; Great Britain and, 312, 31? n, 338; Japan and, 311-12, 316-17, 321; KoreanWarand, 310, 319-23, 325-29, 332, 344; Soviet Union and, 310, 312-15, 317-18, 326, 328-29; United States and, 2, 310, 312-26, 329, 336, 338, 344; Vietnam and, 324-25
Chongqing incident, 316
Christopher, Warren, 251n, 263
Churchill, Winston, 154-57, 179, 204, 2o6, 305
Cisalpine Republic, 112, 114, 117
Claviere, Etienne, 82n
Clay, Henry, 28on
revolution and, 262-63, 338; Korean War and, 322; Russian revolution and, 163, 204, 338; Turkish revolution and, 309
Communism, 35, 40, 193, 335; collapseof, 349-50 Conference on Security and Cooperation in
Europe, 347il
Congress of the Peoples of the East, 182 Congress of Toilers of the Far East, 182 Connolly, John, 251n
Constantine, King, 303
contagion, 30, 39-47, 269, 329, 333-36, 338-40, 343, 351; American revolution and, 281, 284--S5, 335n; Chinese revolution and, 318, 324-25, 334; Eastern European revolutions and, 344-46; former Soviet Union and, 348-49; French revolution and, 73--74, 81, 90, 94, 118, 121-27, 249, 334-35; French revolu- tionary, English fear of, 83, 85--S6, 8H9, 335; Iranian revolution and, 210, 240, 242-43, 246-49, 258-63, 265, 267-68, 334-35; Mexican revolution and, 297, 335n; Russian revolution and, 131-32, 144-45, 152, 154-55, 165, 174, 177, 183, 191, 205--S, 249, 334-35; Turkish revolution and, 309, 335n. See also export of revolution; offense-defense bal- ance; revolution: optimism of
containment, policy of, 343-44 contra war, 10, 336n Convention of Reichenbach, 59 Cordeliers club, 55
Cossacks, 133-34, 141, 14? 152, 184 Council of Action, 176-78 counterrevolution, 31-32, 42-47, 269, 334,
336-38, 340, 343; American revolution and, 270, 272, 27? 281, 285--S6; Chinese revolution and, 316-17, 334, 336; Eastern European revolutions and, 346; French revo- lution and, 55, 61-66, 68-69, 75, 78, 81, 9? 2, 94, 98-100, 104, 108, 115-16, 12o-21, 123-27, 333-34, 336, 338, 343n; Iranian revo- lution and, 210, 225, 255-56, 258, 261, 334, 336, 338, 343n; Mexican revolution and, 297; Russian revolution and, 166-67, 171, 197, 200, 2o6--S, 334, 336, 338. See also foreign in- tervention; offense-defense balance
Crimea, 348
critical theory, 4-5, 34o-42
Cuba, 9, 27, 35, 40, 250, 298
Cuban revolution, 14, 38n, 42, 336; deaths in,
2m; U. S. response to, 2, 42
Cuno, Wilhelm, 189
Curzon, Lord, 14? n, 149, 154, 179 Czechoslovakia, 155, 336n
Czechoslovak Legion, 137-42, 144-47, 15o-52
Danton, Georges, 76n, 79, 8? n, 93, 94n, 96, 9? 9
Dardanelles, 300
Al-Dawa al-Islamiya (Islamic Call), 238-39, 242, 200
Clemenceau, Georges, 137, 150, 155, 2o6 Clinton, George, 274ft
Clinton, William, 229
Cloots, Jean-Baptiste (Anacharsis), 57, 66, 94,
128
Clubb, Edmund, 315n
Cobenzl, Louis, 110
Cold War, vii, 2, 336, 350
collective action problems, in revolution, 23, 29 Collot d'Herbois, Jean Marie, 87il
Columbus, New Mexico, Mexican raid on, 290 Comintem, 164-65, 187, 191, 197, 208; First
Congress, 176n, 192; Second Congress, 170, 179, 192, 205; Third Congress, 188, 192, 194, 205; Fourth Congress, 193? 4; Fifth Con- gress, 193? 4; Executive Committee of (ECCI), 192? 4, 197, 199; transformation of, 192? 4, 201; Twenty-one Points of, 192? 3
communication 32, 45, 328, 344, 351; American revolution and, 270, 285; Chinese revolution and, 322; Eastern European revolutions and, 345-46; French revolution and, 338; Iranian
l355l
?
? Dawes plan, 195
Al-Dawlah, Vusuq, 179
Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen,
54, 56, 6o, 273n
Deforgues, FrM? ois, 96-9- 7 Delacroix, Charles, 107 Delessart, Antoine, 7f>-J? l Denikin, Anton, 148-49, 158, 166 Denmark, 96, 190
Desmoulins, Camille, 49n
Diaz, Porfirio, 287-88, 292
Dodecanese Islands, 300
domestic politics, of revolutionary states, 3,
! riO, to8, 122, 334, 339; American revolution and, 28o-82, 284, 286; Chinese revolution and, 323; French revolution and, 64, 72-73, 334; Iranian revolution and, 258-59, 266-67, 284, 334
Dorchester, LoKd, 274n
Ducos, Roger, u7
Dulles, John Foster, 324
Dumas, Roland, 236
Dumoriez, Charles-Fran? ois, 71-72, 76-'78, So,
83, 87, 90-91, 94n; and attempt to isolate
Austrians, 71--'72
Dundas, Henry. 84, 88
Eastern Europe: Communist governments in, 344-45; post-Cold War Western support of, 347
Eastern European revolutions (1989-1992), 344-49; Cold War and, 347; comparison with other revolutions, 345; former Soviet Union and, 344-47; Marxism-Leninism and, 346; nuclear weapons and, 346; Soviet Union, collapse of, and, 344-45, 347; and super- power competition, 346-47; United States and, 345; Warsaw Pact and, 344
East Germany, 336n
Eden, William (Lord Auckland), 59, 84, 88 Egypt, 223, 229n, 237, 246, 248, 350 Eisenhower, Dwight D. , 35
elite revolution, 12-13, 20, 21n, 2! r30, 43, 344;
American revolution and, 283; Eastern Eu- ropean revolutions and, 345-46; Turkish revolution and, 299, 309? See also mass revo- lution
emigres. See exiles
England: Conservatives in, 166, 176-S-'J ,
195? 6, 204; French West Indies, blockade on, 274; "Iranjan Purchasing Office" in, 234; Labour Party in, 190, 195; and the Russo- Polish war, 169, 203; Socialist Party in, 165; Soviet espionage in, 196; and War of the First Coalition, 82? 1, 95, 97? 8, 104-oS; and War of the Second Coalition, 110, 112-14, 117; and Whig Party, 86. Seealsospecific revo- lutions
English revolution, 14 Enzeli, 180
Estonia, 148, 150, 152-53, 166; Soviet treaty with, 167
Ethiopia, 8; revolution in, 14, 336n
exiles, 31, 36-37, 4<>-42, 45, 47, 334; Chinese revolution and, 322; French revolution and, 54-55. 57? 59, 61-62, 64-65, 68-69, 71, 73-'74? 82, 84, 871\, 88-,-89 91, 99? 104, 107-8, 112,
115, 12o-2- 1, 123-24, 126-28, 334; Iranian rev- olution and, 226, 235, 240, 256, 334, 336; Mexican revolution and, 289; Russian revo- lution and, 163, 195, 207, 334
export of revolution: American revolution and, 281, 284-85; Chinese revolution and, 324-25; French revolution and, 122-26; Iranian revo- lution and, 214, 223, 239, 243, 258, 262, 266; Russian revolution and, 195, 199? See also contagion; offense-defense balance; revolu- tion: optimism of
Fadlallah, Ayatollah Said Muhammed, 246n Fahd, Crown Prince (of Saudi Arabia), 253 Fallen Timbers, Battle of, 275n
Fao Peninsula, 242, 245
Ferdinand, King (of Naples), 114
Feuillants, 55, 64-65, 68-'Jt, 75--'76
Fichte, Johann, 58
Fifteenth I<hordad Foundation, 2671\
Finland, 155n, 167, 335
First Coalition, collapse of, 103-8. See also spe-
cific countries
First Coalition, War of the, 46, 74-88, 119, 335, 343; Austro-Prussian invasion and, 76, 77, 240; causes of, 62--'74; conduct of, B9-109
Flanders, 63
Fletcher, Henry, 291, 298
Florida, 271, 275, 278
Floridablanca, Count, 58n
Foch, Ferdinand, 154-55, 157, t? , 204 Foreign intervention, 336; Chinese revolution
and, 343; French revolution and, 64, 343; Iranian revolution and, 343; Russian civil war and, 149-58, 168; Russian revolution and, 343-44. See als11 counterrevolution; of- fense-defense balance
former Soviet Union, 344-49; interests of, 347; revolutions in, 347-49
Fox, Charles James, 58, 85
France: alliance with Austria, 48-49, 59; alliance with Spain (Family Compact of 1761), 48-49, 6o; Anti-Sedition and Alien acts, 88; and ar- mies revolutionnaires, 92; and Army of Italy, 105-6; and Army of the North, 75, So, 86, 90; and Brumaire coup, 1 16-17; and Caribbean possessions, 86, 98; and Committee on Gen- eral Security, 91; and Committee on Public Safety (CPS), 91? 9, 101, 1o8, 119, 121; and Conspiracy of the Equals, 109n; Constituent Assembly of, 56; and Constitution of 1791, 6on, 63n; and Constitution of the Year I (1793), 92n, too; and Constitution of the Year
Index
? ? ? ? ? Index
France (cont. )
III (1795), 99-100; and declaration of war (1792), 72; and Decree on Liberty, 81, 83, 84n, 86--87, 93, 12o-2. 2, 127, 341-42; and Directory, 10o-101, 104-11, . 114, 117, 128; and Directory, foreign policy of; 101-3, 276, 278; and Egypt, expedition to, 1 12-13, 1 17, 120; and first par- tition of Poland (1772), 47; and Florea) coup, 107? , 124; and founding of the First Repub- lic ("Second Revolution"), 75-77, 82; and Fructidor coup, no; and les grandes limites,
101-2, 1 1 1, 120; and levee en masse, 92, 99n, 126; and Great Terror, 99; and Law of 14 Frimaire, Year II, 92; and Law of the General Maximum, 92; and Law on Suspects, 92; Legislative Assembly of, 56; and Low Coun- tries, 47; military capabilities of, 67; National Assembly of, 53, 55, 6o-61, 63? 6, 68-76, 78, 94, 99, 1 19-20, 122, 124, 126-27, 333; National Convention of, 76, 79"-81, 83-87, 89-96, 98, 99n, 1oo-101, 104, 1o8, 121; National Guards ifed&es) of, 54, 56, 75; and Navigation Act, 95; and Ottoman Empire, 47; and Polish Succes- sion of 1764, 47; "sister republics" of, 1o6, 108, 111, 115, 124n, 125, 336n; and support of Iraq by, 235; and Sweden, 47; and Thermido- rian regime, 99-111; and threats to Austria, 71-72; and White Terror, 99, 115, 120, 284. See also French revolution; specific revolutions
Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor, 101, 1 18-19 Francis, David, 140, 146
Frederick William, 48-49, 57, 59, 61, 63, 70-71,
73, 77, 97, 104, 1 19, 121
French revolution, 7? , 14, 16, 46-128, 209, 210, 241, 243, 28o, 287, 298, 310, 327, 329; and an- cien regime, 54, 57, 120; Austria and, 46 48-49, 5? 2, 65-'J1, 7J, 332-33; Catholic Church and, 50, 54, 62, 120; cause of, 53; deaths in, 2m; England and, 8, 47-49, 52, 5? 2, 64, 67, 71, 73, 81, ? , 119, 121-22, 124, 127-28, 332, 336; and expansionism, 77-81,
1 1o-13; foreign response to, 2, 57? 2, 71, 2o6; Germany and, 56, 63, 70-71, 96, 101, 104-5, 115, 12o-21; and "Great Fear," 54; Holland and, 47, 49, 69, 71, 7J, 85, 87, 89-9o, 94? 5, 103-4, 1o8, 1n-12, 116, 119, 124-25, 336; Holy Roman Empire and, 69, 89, 101, 104, 127; Italy and, 41n, 96, 104? , 1o8, 11on, 111-1? 115, 125; Low CoUI! ltries and, 82, 87, 98, 110, 121-22; Netherlands and, 48, 6o, 62, 78, 88, n6n; Poland and, 49, 59, 61? 3, 70, 73-74, 77, 9? 7, 101, 104-5; Prussia and, 46-49, 5? 2, 65-'J? 86, 88n, 90, 118-1? 121-22, 124-2? 332-33; Rhenish princes and, 6o-62; Russia and, 49, 58-59, 61, 67, 69-'Jo, 73-74, 88n, 97, 105, 120, 124, 127, 332; Spain and, 58, 6o-62, 6? 71, 74, 89, 91, 9? 10+ 1o6-8, 124; Sweden and, 49, 58-59, 61? 2, 67, 69, 74, 96, 124; Switzerland and, 71, 96, 1 1 1-12, 115-16; United States and, 96. Seealso France
fundamentalism, 350. See also Islamic funda- mentalism
Furet, Fran? ois, 50n, 52n
Gallipoli, 305
Genet, Edward Charles, 273-75, 282
Geneva, 86, 88n
Genoa, 188, 204
Genscher, Hans-Dietrich 236
geography, 19n, 329; American revolution and,
286--87, 329; Mexican revolution and, 329 George III, King (of England), Sm, 83 George V, King (of England), 172
Georgia, 166, 182, 304, 329
Germany, 300; Communist groups in (German Communist Party [KPD)), 187, 189-90, 193, 335-36; KPD, "March action" by, 187-88; In- dependent Socialist Party in, 187; Reichs- wehr in, 335-36; Social Democratic Party in, 185, 196; Spartacist movement in, 159, 167, 187. See also Prussia; specific revolutions
Ghorbanifar, Manucher, 227, 264
Gilan, Republic of, 18o
Girondins, 64-71, 73-76, 78-So, 85n, 89-90,
92, 94n, 99, 112, 120, 122-23, 125, 333, 335,
340
Glen Springs, Texas, incident, 290 Gorbachev, Mikhail, 232111, 233 Gordji, Vahid, 235-36, 257 Gower, Lord, 61
Great Britain. See England
Greece, 41n, 155n, 182, 190, 3oo-301; and
Byzantine Empire, 301
Greenville, Treaty of, 275
Gregoire, Henri, 67, 79
Grenada: New Jewel Movement in, 2, 336n;
U. S. invasion of, 41n, 343n
Grenville, Lord, 59, 82-83, 84n, 86, 1 14-16, 1 19,
121
Groener, Wilhelm, 186
Gromyko, Andrei, 23m, 232
Guatemala, U. S. -sponsored coup in, 35-36,
41n, 336n
Guevara, Che, 24, 38
Gulf Cooperation Council, 244? See also Persian
Gulf states
Gulf War (1991), 229
Guomindang (GMD), 197? 9; Chinese revolu- tion and, 311-14, 316-17, 322-23, 332; Great Northern Campaign of, 198; Soviet friend- ship treaty with, 314
Gustav Adolphus, King (of Sweden), 121
hajj, 244-45
Hamilton, Alexander, 272-74, 277, 281, 283, 286 Hanover, 89
Hapsburgs, 48, 128
Harbin, 141, 152
Harington, Charles ("Tim"), 305
Hashemi, Mehdi, 219
[3571
? Hebert, Jacques-Rene, 93
Hebertists, 93, 96, 98, 99n
Helder Peninsula, 1 1 6
Herault de Sechelles, Marie-Joseph, 94Il Hesse-CastG! I, 89
Hesse-Darmstadt, 89
Hezbollah, 245-46, 249, 262
Hicks, W. L. , 146
Hoche, Louis-Lazare, 107
Holland: Dutch Patriot Party and, 83, 87. See
also French revolution
Holy Roman Empire. See French revolution Hoover-Nansen plan, 162-{;4, 166 Horvath, Dmitri, 141, 152
House, Edward, 138, 290n, 298
Howe, Geoffrey, 234
Huang Hua, 3 1 5 n
Huerta, Victoriano, 288, 292-93, 295 Hungary, 158, 190, 336n; Soviet republic in,
165, 175, 205, 335
Hussein, Saddarn, 219, 232, 238, 240, 258n, 263;
miscalculations by, 240, 253
identity, 34o-42. See also critical theory ideology, 3, 5-9, 14, 22-30, 33-34, 38-43, 45-46,
329, 334-35, 338-39, 341-42, 344, 35o; of American rrevolution, 29, 270, 276, 28o-86, 329; of Chinese revolution, 29, 31o-12, 314-16, 323, 325-27, 340; of Eastern Euro- pean revolutions, 345-46, 349; of former So- viet Union, 348-49; of French revolution, 28, 4! r53' 62, 72, 7! r8o, B! r90, 95, 1Q9, 122-23, 126-28, 284, 297; of Iranian revolution, 8, 28-29, 213-16, 220, 223, 237-38, 241-42, 245-47, 253-54, 259n, 261, 264-{i7, 284, 297' 335, 340; of Mexican revolution, 297, 299, 329; of Russian revolution, 28-29, 13o-33,
142, 145, 15? . -53, 158-6o, 164-{;6, 171-J2, 174-? 5, 178-J? 181-82, 184-94, 201-3, 205, 2o8-9, 284, 297, 340; of Turkish revolution, 299, )09, 329
India, 112-13, 136, 142, 149, 154, 178, 326, 350 indulgents, 93, 98
intentions, perceptions of, 4, 6, 19, 30, 32-35, 37,
41, 43, 46, 328, 333-34, 336, 33! r40, 343; American revolution and, 270, 279, 284-86, 334; Chinese revolution and, 314-20, 322, 324, 326-27; former Soviet Union and, 348-49; French revolution and, 62, 69, 7J, 79, 88,
12o-22, 128, 338; Iranian revolution and, 210, 226, 238, 243, 253-59, 267-{;8, 338; Mexican revolution and, 287, 2? , 298-99; Russian rev- olution and, 129, 143-44, 147, 155, 164, 170, 172, 175, 178-? 9, 19Q-91, 201-2, 204, 207-9, 338; Turkish revolution and, 29! r300, 307-10
Inter-Allied Railway Agreement, 151 International Workers of the World, 297 intervention, counterrevolutionary, 2, 41-42,
342-43
Ionian Islands, 1 1 3
Iran, 8, 1 1, 34, 41n, 344; 1953 coup in, 224, 336n; Arab allies and, 249; foreign policy of under shah 222-24; France and, normalization of re- lations, 235; Islamic Mujahedin in, 217-18, 235-36, 252, 256-57; Islamic Republic, aims of, 223-24; Islamic Republic, Constitution oi, 223, 25! r6o, 267; Islamic Republic Party in, 216-18, 259n; Majlis in, 217-18, 234; National Front Party in, 212; non-aligned status in, 223-24; Provisional Government in, 216; Rev- olutionary Courts in, 225, 254, 256; Revolu- tionary Guards in, 217-18, 241, 245, 200, 262, 265; Soviet Union, 1921 treaty of friendship with, 222, 231; Soviet Union, economic agree-
ments with, 232; Supreme Council of the Armed Forces in, 212; Tudeh Party in, 218, 23o-31, 252, 257? See also Iranian revolution
Iran-contra Affair, 219, 227-28, 242, 251, 256, 263-{;4
Iranian revolution, 14, 16, 37, 21o-{i8, 287, 310, 327, 329, 350; Algeria and, 229n, 246, 248-50; "Assembly of Experts" and, 216; China and, 237; deaths in, 2m; France and, 234-36, 257, 266; Great Britain and, 233-34, 236, 257, 266; Eastern Europe and, 237; eco- nomic sanctions and, 228, 233-34, 236-37; European Community and, 237; hajj and, 244-45, 26o-{i1, 266; Islamic fundamental- ism and, 210, 213-17, 219-24, 23o-31, 237, 239, 245, 247-49, 253, 200, 262, 266-{;8, 297; Japan and, 237; Kuwait and, 226, 228, 244-45, 258, 261, 265, 335; Libya and, 233,
230, 249, 254; oil and, 224, 228, 233, 237, 250, 253; Persian Gulf states and, 243-45, 250, 254, 256, 258, 261, 335, 344; pragmatists in,
2 1 8-22, 227-28, 2)4, 242, 255-56, 259, 266n, 267; radicals in, 2]8-22, 227, 229, 255-56; Revolutionary Council and, 216; Saudi Ara- bia and, 219, 223, 226, 228, 243-45, 253, 258, 265-{;6, 335; role of clerics in, 211-12, 216-18, 225-26, 230, 240, 246, 256, 263, 267, 284, 3Q! r10; Soviet Union and, 224, 227, 23o-34, 237, 243, 249-52, 254, 257, 263, 267; Sudan and, 229n, 246-47, 254, 26m; Syria and, 223, 230, 246, 249, 253-54, 262; United States and, 2, 21 1-12, 219, 221, 224-30, 233-34, 245, 24! r58, 265-67, 332, 336, 342, 347; and U. S. embassy, seizure of, 216-17, 225-26, 229n, 230, 233-34, 236-37, 249, 252, 255-56, 263; West Germany and, 236-37. See
also Iran
Iran-Iraq War, 8, 41, 219, 226, 228, 231-32, 234,
245n, 24! r50, 257, 26o-61, 265, 330, 332,
343n; ceasefire in, 243; counterinvasion of Iraq by Iran, 241-42, 262, 266; invasion of Iran by Iraq, 238-40, 253, 256, 258, 262, 333, 338, 344; United States in, 342, 355; as war of attrition, 242-43
Iraq, 226-27, 229, 231, 240, 245, 249, 253-55, 257-58, 335; Baath regime in, 237-39, 254,
Index
? ? Index
Iraq (cont. )
26o-61, 265; invasion of Kuwait and, 245, 249; Kurdish insurgency in, 223, 231, 238-39, 249, 257; oil pipelines of, 249; Shiites in, 238, 240,242,26o-63,336 .
Ireland, 85, 107-8, 113, 124n, 125, 128, 176 Islam, 210
Islamic Call. See AI-Dawa al-lslamiya Islamic fundamentalism, 11, 26, 245-50, 26o,
262, 335? See also Iranian revolution Islamic Jihad, 245-46
Islamic Mujahedin, 256
Islamic Republic of Iran. See Iran Ismit, 305
Isnard, Maximin, 6&-67
Israel, 219, 223, 226, 238, 249, 253-54, 262, 265-66; invasion of Lebanon by, 246; Iran- contra Affair and, 227
Istanbul, 305-6
Italy. See specific revolutions
Jacobins, 28, 40, 51, 55-56, 65-66, 72, 75-76, 7? , 102, 105, 1Q9-10, 115, 117, 124, 127, 276, 284, 309-10, 335; dictatorship of, 91r-99; resurgence of, 103, 111
Jagow, Gottlieb von, 293n
Japan. See specific revolutions
Jay, John, 275
Jay Treaty, 275-76, 283, 286
Jefferson, Thomas, 58, 272-74, 276-79, 281;
"Empire of Liberty" vision of, 281; and strat-
egy of "peaceable coercion," 279
Jemappes, French victory at, So, 83, 119
Joffe, Adolf, 131-32, 157
Jordan, 226
Jordan, Hamilton, 263n
Joseph II, Emperor (of Austria), 48, 58 Jourdan, Jean-Baptiste, 102
Jowitt, Kenneth, 350
Kalinin, Mikhail, 170 Kamenev, Lev, n77-78 Kant, Immanuel, 58
Kapp putsch, 174, 187, 205 Karelia, 142
Kars, Treaty of, 182, 306
Kaunitz, Prince Wenzel Anton von, 63n, 69-70,
73n, 74, 75n, 119
Kautsky, Karl, 26
Kazakhstan, 345n
Kemal, Mustaf& Pasha (Ataturk), 181-82, 299,
301-10, 329
Kennan, George F. , 8n, 146
Kennedy, John F. , 324
? Kerensky, Alexander, 130
Kerr, Philip, 16m
Khalkhali, Ayatollah Sadeq, 21? Khamenei, Said Ali, 218, 221, 232, 236n, 249,
265
Khan, Mirza Kuchik, 180
Khomeini, Ayatollah Ruhollah, 8, 24n, 217-19, 223-25, 228, 23D-33, 238-39, 241-43, 245, 248, 253-54, 256, 258-6o, 26fr. 68, 283, 297; death of, 221, 229, 236, 265; exile in Iraq, 212, 234,263;revolutionaryprogramof,212-16, 335; view of Soviet Union of, 214; view of Salman Rushdie of, 220-21, 229; view of United States of, 214, 216. See also Iran; Iran- ian revolution
Khorramshahr, 241
Khuzistan, 239-40, 243, 260, 262
Kim, Kyung-Won, 7
Kim II Sung, 319n
Kolchak, Alexander, 147-53, 158, 163, 173 Korea, . S, 320, 325
Korean War, 310, 319-23; China, intervention of in Korea, 8, 35, 320, 328; deaths in, 326n; North Korean attack in, 319; Soviet Union and, 321; U;N. armistice in, 323; U. S.