ABSTRACT

The question how and why the First World War broke out has filled entire learned libraries, but its no less salient and consequential counterpart—how it got to be so protracted when so many of the illusions that contributed to the outbreak were already shattered by Christmas 1914—has received much less attention, though recent scholarship has begun to close the gap. The aims and anxieties of the respective parties certainly played a prime part on both sides, as did their continued hopes of winning and the complications of coalition warfare. But something more insidious counted for just as much: namely how the horrendous manner in which the war began—grievously disappointing expectations on all sides and producing a staggering five million casualties within only a few months—did not induce, as the standards of textbook rationality might suggest, a readiness to recognise where things were headed and a consequent willingness to change course. Instead of prompting the belligerents to heed the sunk cost principle and cut losses by a timely settlement, the opening months had just the opposite effect, hardening positions that should have been discredited, and leaving the belligerents all the more determined to keep fighting to the bitter end at practically any cost not only to their enemies but also to themselves. How this was possible will be explained, in part, by making connections with prospect and decision theory.

摘要

第一次世界大战如何以及为何爆发的问题充斥着整个学术图书馆，但它同样突出和重要的对应问题是，当许多导致爆发的幻想在 1914 年圣诞节之前就已经破灭时，它为何会如此旷日持久。 ——尽管最近的学术研究已经开始缩小这一差距，但受到的关注要少得多。双方的目标和焦虑无疑对双方都发挥着重要作用，他们对胜利的持续希望和联合战争的复杂性也是如此。但更阴险的事情也同样重要：即战争开始的可怕方式——严重辜负了各方的期望，在短短几个月内造成了令人震惊的 500 万人伤亡——并没有像教科书理性的标准那样引发战争。可能会建议，愿意认识到事情的发展方向并愿意改变方向。最初的几个月并没有促使交战方遵守沉没成本原则并通过及时解决来减少损失，反而产生了相反的效果，强化了本应名誉扫地的立场，并让交战方更加坚定了继续苦战的决心。实际上，不仅对他们的敌人而且对他们自己来说，不惜任何代价。这是如何成为可能的，将通过与前景理论和决策理论的联系来部分解释。使本应受到质疑的立场变得强硬，使交战各方更加决心不惜一切代价继续战斗到底，不仅让他们的敌人付出代价，也让他们自己付出代价。这是如何成为可能的，将通过与前景理论和决策理论的联系来部分解释。使本应受到质疑的立场变得强硬，使交战各方更加决心不惜一切代价继续战斗到底，不仅让他们的敌人付出代价，也让他们自己付出代价。这是如何成为可能的，将通过与前景理论和决策理论的联系来部分解释。