Declaring Victory and Admitting Defeat
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Declaring Victory and Admitting Defeat Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy In the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Thomas Michael Dolan Jr. Graduate Program in Political Science The Ohio State University 2009 Dissertation Committee: Richard K. Herrmann, Advisor Daniel Verdier Theodore Hopf Copyright by Thomas Michael Dolan Jr. 2009 Abstract When do wartime events cause state leaders to change their political or military approach to a war, or try to end it? This study answers this question by focusing on leaders’ beliefs about how war advances their political aims and the changes those beliefs undergo, and the role of emotions in motivating or suppressing those changes. These key beliefs are conceptualized as Theories of Victory, and three key types of theory of victory—oriented toward demonstrating capability, wearying their opponent, or directly acquiring the aims—are identified. These types are used to explain how leaders interpret wartime events and, if they conclude their approach has failed, what further options (if any) will seem plausible. The motivation to learn associated with anxiety (produced by novel bad news) and the suppression of learning associated with anger and contentedness (produced by familiar bad news and good news) are used to explain when particular series of events lead to these key changes. Three cases are used to test the theory—the Winter War (Finland-USSR 1939-1940), the Pacific War (US-Japan 1941-1945) and the Battle of France (France-Germany 1940). ii Dedication For my Parents iii Acknowledgements It has been a long journey. My gratitude, therefore, goes out first and foremost to those who have helped me along the way. Professionally, that gratitude must first and foremost go to Richard K. Herrmann, who has truly been everything an advisor and chair could be: mentor, reader, critic, sounding board, advocate. Without his influence, this dissertation would not exist. I am similarly grateful to Daniel Verdier and Theodore Hopf, for their understanding, insights, and patience. At a personal level, my gratitude goes first to my family. My parents, Tom and Cyndy, never doubted that I could do it, and reminded me often of their faith in me. My sisters, Rachel and Annie, have always been there—on the phone, in person, and helping me move. I have also benefitted greatly from seven years at the Department of Political Science of the Ohio State University, as well as a year as a visiting instructor at the University of Rochester. I owe debts of gratitude to both departments, for their financial support and employment, for the resources made available, for the opportunities to be among such great communities of scholars. At Ohio State, beyond the members of my committee, I must make particular mention of Kathleen McGraw, Don Sylvan, Irfan Noorudin, Brian Pollins, Marilyn Brewer, Marcus Kurtz, Richard Ned Lebow, Randall Schweller, and John Mueller; Zach Mears, Nathan Toronto, Unisia Wszoleck, Michael Reese, Srdjan Vucetic, Chris Moore, Autumn Lockwood Payton, Paul Fritz, Austin Carson, Jon Myers, and the staff of the PRL, led by the inimitable Bill Miller. At the University of Rochester, I owe a particular debt of gratitude to Hein Goemans, who has read chapters, listened to talks, and provided encouragement. Richard Niemi, Daniel Epstein, Hye Jee Cho, and Jeremy Kedziora have also been particularly good colleagues. Participation in three workshops—the Summer Institute in Political Psychology (Ohio State), The Institute for Qualitative Research Methods (Arizona State), and the Summer Workshop iv on Military Operations and Strategy (Saltzman Institute)—has also shaped and improved this project. My gratitude goes to their organizers, faculty, funders, and my fellow participants. A University Fellowship helped me start my work at Ohio State. Part of the research in was funded through a grant from the Mershon Center at Ohio State. I am also grateful for an Aumman Research Award from the OSU Department of Political Science. I am grateful for the assistance of Archivists at the National Archives (II) in College Park Maryland and the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library. The maps included are courtesy of the Department of History, United States Military Academy. I am also grateful to Layla Meshkova for assistance with Russian translations of some texts. None of this would have happened but for a wonderful undergraduate education at Sewanee (the University of the South). Barclay Ward, Charles Perry, Gayle McKeen, Joan Ward, Robert Keele, and Samuel R. Williamson merit particular mention in this regard. The same goes for the other inspired and inspiring teachers and mentors I have encountered: Hal Graff, Dorothy Fisher, Frank Lennox, Ralph Karn, Vivian McManus, George Savarese, Michael Switala, Larry Flint, and John Heitz. During this season of my life I have had more and better friends than at any other time. Kirk Kerr, John Tanner, and Kevin Shafer deserve first mention, but there are many others, among them the Torontos, Caroline and Daniel Shaver, Carly Burton, Sarah Wegener, Curtis and Meredith Broadbent, Ben Marsh, Michael Anderson, the Conleys, the Marples, the Dinnings and Richard Christenson. v Vita 1996……………………………………………………………..Eagle Scout Award, Greater Pittsburgh Council 1997……………………………………………………………..Diploma, Keystone Oaks High School 2001……………………………………………………………..B.A. Political Science, History, Summa cum Laude, The University of the South 2001-2004……………………………………………………Student and Graduate Assistant, Department of Political Science, The Ohio State University 2004-2008…………………………………………………Graduate Teaching Associate and Instructor, Department of Political Science, The Ohio State University 2008-2009…………………………………………………….Visiting Instructor, Department of Political Science, University of Rochester Publication Kathleen McGraw and Thomas M. Dolan, (2007) “Personifying the State: Consequences for Attitude Formation,” Political Psychology, 28:3, pp. 299-327. Fields of Study Major Field: Political Science Field: International Relations Subfields: International Security and Foreign Policy Minor: Political Psychology vi Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ ii Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... iv Vita .................................................................................................................................................. vi List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. viii List of Illustrations ........................................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Theory .......................................................................................................................... 24 Chapter 3: The Winter War ............................................................................................................ 94 Chapter 4: The Battle of France ................................................................................................... 168 Chapter 5: Japan in the Pacific War ............................................................................................. 255 Chapter 7: The US in the Pacific War ........................................................................................... 367 Chapter 8: Summary Analysis and Conclusions ........................................................................... 415 References ................................................................................................................................... 430 Appendix A: Emotion Theory ....................................................................................................... 454 vii List of Charts Table 1: Theories of Victory ........................................................................................................... 11 Table 2: Emotion and Learning, Battle of France ......................................................................... 250 Table 3: Changes in Aims, Battle of France .................................................................................. 251 Table 4: Japan-Pacific War—Framing Effects .............................................................................. 297 Table 5: Summary of Framing Effects Cases ................................................................................ 418 Table 6: Affective Response and Reconsideration ....................................................................... 421 Table 7: Changes in Aims ............................................................................................................. 426 viii List of Illustrations Figure 1: Map 3.1: The Winter War ............................................................................................... 97 Figure 2: Map 4.1: The Battle of France....................................................................................... 170 Figure