Diplomacy

Rating:
Summary: Detailed and enjoyable
Review: Diplomacy conveys the history of international relations from the 1600s to the 1990s. Concepts of Reason d'etat, Realpolitik, Containment and the reasoning of nations' behaviour with one another are introduced and their implementations are clearly illustrated.

Historical lessons are provided from French Expansion, German unification, the World Wars, and the Cold War. The American policies of the 20th Century are the focus of this book. The personalities involved are very detailed I enjoyed the sharing of Dr. Kissinger's personal stories with the likes of Truman, Nixon, Ford and Reagan.

I did however notice the basic omission of Jimmy Carter's term and Carter's work towards peace between Israel and Egypt. Some may be disappointed because this book only covers up the the early 1990s(written in 1994) but other books like Huntington's "Clash of the Civilizations" should fill that gap.

Rating:
Summary: At times engrossing, at times burdensome, and ever masterly
Review: When reading "Diplomacy", one cannot help but be awestruck by Dr. Kissinger's grasp and passion for history. The wealth of raw knowledge; the depth of understanding of major players' motivations and goals; the discipline of thought necessary analyze over three hundred years worth of Western political history -- these abilities are, simply put, impressive.

In this tome, Kissinger details the history of Western diplomacy since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 that ended the Thirty Years' War, albiet from an American point of view. Interestingly, he starts the book by comparing the foreign policy philosophies of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, i.e. foreign policy by way of Realpolitick (or raison d'etat, depending on the era) or of pure morals and international law, respectively. The battles between these two schools of thought is the focus of the book. Frustratingly, the book takes no real position on this central point. No wonder Michiko Kakutami described the book as "often vexing."

The majority of this book is quite enjoyable to read. Dr. Kissinger's writing is elegant and skillful, and he often writes an engrossing narrative. Occasionally, however, the book can become a burden to read, especially when it describes a time period that the reader does not find particularily interesting. In these sections the rich detail can become overly-rich. This is almost unavoidable given its massive scope.

Kissinger also glazes over some events that I thought would receive more detailed coverage, especially the peace between Israel and Egypt during the Carter administration. He seemed to have made a very concrete decision not to touch Middle Eastern diplomatic history, which now, more than ever, seems central to American foreign policy.

This is not a book that should be tackled by everyone. It assumes that the reader has a firm grasp on modern Western history, not stopping to define terms or provide a narrative of the events; it instead jumps right into events and begins to explain the nuanced positions of key nations. The book can also become bogged down in detail. That being said, for a student of history, this book provides the reader of the insight of a true master. It also provides unique insight into American foreign policy, which seems destined to be hypocritical because of the inherent contradiction between Realpolitick and Wilsonian ideals, both of which American trys, in vain, to implement.

****

Rating:
Summary: A Work of Genius
Review: I'm a history buff and this is one of the most brilliant books I've ever read in terms of its insight and breadth and depth of learning. The main reason it's so good is because of the dazzlingly brilliant light it sheds on the crucial events and phenomena of the modern historical era. Kissinger doesn't just tell you what happened, he tells you why it happened in such a way to open up your eyes to new dimensions for appreciating what James Joyce called the "nightmare" of history. In short, DIPLOMACY isn't just a book; it's an education. It's not often that I've felt so intellectually rewarded after reading a book (though Richard Rhodes' THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB, which I'm reading right now, is undoubtedly going to be another one).

From a publishing standpoint, DIPLOMACY has had a rather paradoxical time of it. On one hand, if it was written by an anonymous academic rather than Kissinger, it wouldn't have had anywhere close to the audience it's had, but would then have been treated more fairly by the critics. On the other hand, because it was written by a massively controversial public figure, it's often been panned for political reasons rather than objective critical ones. However, I would implore the common reader that however he or she may happen to feel about Kissinger as a man, don't make the same mistake some of his misguided critics have made. Read the thing with an open mind, and you might just realize you've discovered a true political classic.

Rating:
Summary: In America's Self-Interest
Review: Kissinger's Diplomacy sets two themes. First Kissinger describes how the modern nation state emerged from the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, where nations (at the time only European) agreed to stay out of each other's internal affairs; he continues with an excellent, though obviously partisan, history of Europe's great diplomats, from Richelieu to Bismark. He segues from 19th century European to 20th century American diplomacy, concentrating on Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and of course Richard Nixon and himself. Following through, he brings to center stage his second theme: motives. Why do countries do what they do, and in particular why America does what it does.

The treaty of Westphalia set the stage for all modern history, up to an including what goes on today. When Russia tells other nations to stay out of Chechnya, it invokes the principles of domestic sovereignty as laid out by Westphalia. When China claims other nations have no say in how it treats dissidents, it again implicitly invokes Westphalia.

Kissinger takes his history of diplomacy from Richelieu to Bismarck, always stressing how practical these men were, and how successful diplomats always put necessity ahead of principles. Realpolitk rules. But what of America? Kissinger presents 20th century foreign policy as a conflict. On one side we find European style diplomacy ruled by principles of geopolitical self-interest; on the other side we find democracy and idealism. Kissinger himself is at a loss.

He obviously follows the European school, and doesnft really understand the American school, but he understands this limitation. Among American presidents, he admires Theodore Roosevelt and Nixon most for their grasp of European-style foreign policy, but strangely it is Ronald Reagan whom he lionizes as some sort of diplomatic genius. Kissinger does not consider Reagan intelligent, but he sees that Reagan won the cold war against the Soviets by diplomatic means, with no direct confrontation. And he doesnft really understand how it was done. Nevertheless, Kissinger still makes a strong case for adopting geopolitical interests as the central value in establish American foreign policy.

For this reason, it remains a topical and important book. Americans are very uncomfortable with going to war for national interests. Now, at the start of the Iraq war, even its supporters squirm when they hear opposing slogans like "No Blood for Oil". Americans prefer standing on principles such as bringing democracy and foiling dictatorships. Kissinger argues this view is misguided, usually, and that it is right for nations to fight simply for their own interests, especially where security is concerned.

Rating:
Summary: I expected much more from him
Review: When I read Mr. Kissinger had published this book I could not wait to buy it. Well, I bought it and read it. But although, as many reviwers had marked his style is plain and direct I have two main objections.
First. The chapters From the Peace of Westphalia to the First World War are not very good. I am sorry to say that he has no idea of Eurpean Foreign Policy in Modern History. Not to mention that the importance given to the American Revolution is completely naive. Like trying to explain the begining of the French revolution because of the famous Affair of the necklace. I suggest to Mr. Kissinger to read again , or for the first time Renouvin, Hobswann or La nouvelle Clio.

The second part has more interest specially because he is honest enough to say that any power has the right to try to impose its policy. Curious that he critics that same thing about Richelieu. But anyway is the best part. And definitively the book must be read because at the end of the book he is giving the point of view of a witness. And that is always very interesting. You can be agree with him or not but that Mr. Kissinger is one of the most relevants polititians of the last century is a fact and nobody can deny that. Another thing is if you share his thoughts or political behaviour. But I recomend it as a source for a History profesional. And , of course , we all know how a direct source must be considered when we are talking about History.

Rating:
Summary: U! S! A! U! S! A!
Review: This book is an excellent counterweight to so many Chomsky-esque views taught in college. I majored in Government and consistently heard Profs' philosophical umbrellas: "The Soviets never had territorial ambitions"; "The Soviets merely built up for protection from us, and for buffer zones"; "They were never a threat to anyone or our way of life." If you've heard similar views (that typically shut out debate on tangibles), this is the book for you! Starting at the WWII era (about 300 pages in:-), Kissinger makes the case for the U.S. as accidental superpower setting new standards for diplomacy -- based on concepts like democracy, self-determination, and anti-Euro-imperialism. Kissinger's stories seem straight, real, and from the center of things (often first hand). This book is an excellent source for a sweeping view of the growing US role/perspective in 20th Century affairs. It can be your source for debate points, diplomatic concepts and plays, and political history. Also try Ambrose's "Rise to Globalism."

Rating:
Summary: A keeper !!!
Review: "Diplomacy" is a very interesting book, that should be read by all those who are interested in either International Relations, History, or even merely in good books.

It covers the period that goes from the Peace of Westphalia, in 1648, to the early 1990's. Somehow, this books manages to give us a very good idea of what happened in that time span, without boring us to death at the same time, and that is not a small merit.

"Diplomacy" was written from the point of view of Henry Kissinger, a controversial man who was secretary of State of USA. Whatever might be said about him, something cannot be dennied: he knows his craft. And in "Diplomacy" he makes that evident, exactly as he had done previously in other books, for example in "The World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh, and the Problems of Peace".

His prose is quite elegant, but at the same time easy to read. Kissinger mixtures historical facts with his personal opinions, dissecting what happened and trying to draw conclusions that allow the reader to discern long term trends in history, thus enabling him/her to really understand what happened.

I bought this book a long time ago, but I still consider it a keeper. It isn't exhaustive, but it doesn't pretend to be so... On the whole, a book worth buying and having. Recommended :)

Rating:
Summary: You know.....
Review: This is a wonderful book. I especially love his winning descriptions on the William of Orange. Brilliant stuff. Too bad Kissenger is a liar and a war criminal. How can you reconcile the blood upon his hands and his obvious erudition, his wit, his intelligence? God knows.

Rating:
Summary: An absorbing look at Western history...
Review: In his book "Diplomacy", Henry Kissinger makes a valiant effort to study the history of international relations. This in-depth and voluminous book delves into the past, giving a chronological account of the major events that shaped Western diplomacy. Kissinger covers Richelieu, William of Orange, and follows the exploits of revolutionaries Napoleon III and Bismark. An entire chapter is devoted to Realpolitik.

The downfall of this book is its weak conclusion. Kissinger only gives a brief overview of the future threats facing America, and for a pre-September 11th book (1996), it offers little in regard to militant Islam and its dangers. However, the book is valuable in its descriptions of modern diplomacy, especially World War II and the Cold War. For students of the international realm, this is essential reading. For lovers of history, this book is a gem. Do yourself a favor and give it a read.

Britt Gillette
Author of "Conquest of Paradise: An End-Times Nano-Thriller"

Rating:
Summary: Good book, another review
Review: I refer the hono[u]rable reader to the review I gave to Does America Need A Foreign Policy, by Dr. Kissinger, awhile ago.