and

How does warfare influence the political development of a state? The Garrison State school of thought (Hintze 1906; Lasswell 1941; Anderson 1974) argues that states which face a constant threat of invasion will develop autocratic institutions in order to ensure the security of the state. In contrast, the Resource Extraction school (Downing 1992), argues that state leaders are often compelled to extend economic or political rights in exchange for the mobilization of human and financial resources to meet the immediate threat. This papers uses cases studies of Imperial Russia (and the Soviet Union) and the Austrian Empire (and Dual Monarchy) to examine the relative strengths of these competing explanations. The paper describes the role of minority groups in the military, identifies the position of the minority groups in the political hierarchy, and traces the impact of warfare on minority groups. How does the level of violence in the external environment influence the political development of a state? Tilly (1975, 1990) has convincingly argued that warfare in Europe contributed to the development of the modern state.1 In response to external conflict, state leaders consciously expanded the power of the state in order to raise armies and defend borders. Th