Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.17 AVERAGE
4.17 AVERAGE
informative
reflective
medium-paced
There's a lot of interesting history in this book! I basically buy their thesis that there is less interstate war after WWII, and I also buy the idea that the outlawing of war as a norm of international law through Kellogg-Briand made some impact on that change. However, I found their list of other possible reasons for that change, which they say don't line up to the end of wars as well as Kellogg-Briand, more convincing. I can't find the quote at the moment, but here's my list, some of which are probably theirs: nuclear weapons, free trade, multinational corporations, new visual technology to publicize atrocities. I would add on the general lack of interest in war from European countries and the U.S., who were the ones who did 95% of the wars before WWII.
This is ultimately a book where they say "the internationalists" and "the world" really often when they actually mean "Europe," and to some degree "Russia and the U.S." When kings or any leaders in general could never be punished for warring, when peasants were utterly dispensable, when weapons were good at maiming but not that great at killing, when capitalism was basically a local matter, then Europeans as represented by Grotius thought war was a legitimate way to conduct foreign policy. After WWII, none of those conditions seemed particularly true any more.
Even before WWII, consider the instance of Native Americans. When guns were ineffective and the U.S. national government was weak, the best it could often do is banish Native Americans west of the Mississippi. Once they got there, Native Americans were fairly good at resisting further conquest. After the Civil War (and during the epocal 2nd Industrial Revolution in Europe and the U.S.), machine guns and railroads and a much larger and better-organized national government that was basically entirely subservient to big corporations absolutely destroyed that resistance. And when they did it, many Americans argued that doing it was evil. There were pictures. There was evidence that it was horrible. There were progressives who went west and tried to redeem the U.S. by teaching Native Americans how to be civilized and integrated into our culture (this was not a great look). However, the old paradigm that wars were just because there wasn't any other way of resolving disputes between nations still held a kind of nostalgic sway. Ultimately the U.S. got away with it, just like Plenty Horses got away with killing a general who was actually sympathetic to Native Americans. War is hell.
I do think that norms matter, that international coalitions are critical to avoiding nuclear war, that the Russian invasion of Crimea and China's encroachments on the South China Sea are a big deal, and that Grotius' system, which accommodated both liberal ideas of the individual and the justness of wars for conquest, still has a lot of appeal to some people (namely, the current dangerous supreme idiot of the U.S.). I also think that the internationalists kind of misses the boat on alternatives to both Grotius and Kellogg-Briand, namely, most of the people outside of Europe who thought all of the conquest in the 16th-20th centuries was illegitimate and crazy and part of a system (mercantilist or "free-trade" capitalist liberal humanism) that made no sense to them and would ultimately burn itself out. This is what the Japanese were saying before the U.S. forced them to open up: we don't want to be a part of this. Then the U.S. opened them up, and millions of people in the Pacific died because of a nationalist, racist cult of personality. This whole multinational corporate capitalist extractive political and economic hasn't burned out yet, but it's on its way.
This is ultimately a book where they say "the internationalists" and "the world" really often when they actually mean "Europe," and to some degree "Russia and the U.S." When kings or any leaders in general could never be punished for warring, when peasants were utterly dispensable, when weapons were good at maiming but not that great at killing, when capitalism was basically a local matter, then Europeans as represented by Grotius thought war was a legitimate way to conduct foreign policy. After WWII, none of those conditions seemed particularly true any more.
Even before WWII, consider the instance of Native Americans. When guns were ineffective and the U.S. national government was weak, the best it could often do is banish Native Americans west of the Mississippi. Once they got there, Native Americans were fairly good at resisting further conquest. After the Civil War (and during the epocal 2nd Industrial Revolution in Europe and the U.S.), machine guns and railroads and a much larger and better-organized national government that was basically entirely subservient to big corporations absolutely destroyed that resistance. And when they did it, many Americans argued that doing it was evil. There were pictures. There was evidence that it was horrible. There were progressives who went west and tried to redeem the U.S. by teaching Native Americans how to be civilized and integrated into our culture (this was not a great look). However, the old paradigm that wars were just because there wasn't any other way of resolving disputes between nations still held a kind of nostalgic sway. Ultimately the U.S. got away with it, just like Plenty Horses got away with killing a general who was actually sympathetic to Native Americans. War is hell.
I do think that norms matter, that international coalitions are critical to avoiding nuclear war, that the Russian invasion of Crimea and China's encroachments on the South China Sea are a big deal, and that Grotius' system, which accommodated both liberal ideas of the individual and the justness of wars for conquest, still has a lot of appeal to some people (namely, the current dangerous supreme idiot of the U.S.). I also think that the internationalists kind of misses the boat on alternatives to both Grotius and Kellogg-Briand, namely, most of the people outside of Europe who thought all of the conquest in the 16th-20th centuries was illegitimate and crazy and part of a system (mercantilist or "free-trade" capitalist liberal humanism) that made no sense to them and would ultimately burn itself out. This is what the Japanese were saying before the U.S. forced them to open up: we don't want to be a part of this. Then the U.S. opened them up, and millions of people in the Pacific died because of a nationalist, racist cult of personality. This whole multinational corporate capitalist extractive political and economic hasn't burned out yet, but it's on its way.
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Great overview of International law and its development, from Grotius onwards. Provides a good frame of reference of why people talk about war in different ways now, and also builds upon the historical narrative with data based evidence in the 3rd part of the book. I also loved the prose - definitely made me laugh in a couple places, which is not what I was expecting from a serious nonfiction book.
Първата световна война тогава са я наричали Великата война и "войната, която ще приключи всички войни". До тогава човечеството не е виждало толкова агресивен и кървав конфликт и повечето хора са смятали, че това е достатъчно да сложи край на стремежите за завоевания и шовинизъм както на управляващата класа, така и на населението.
Дори през 1928 г. бива подписан от основните участници в ПСВ и други големи държави т.н. Парижки пакт, който цели да премахне войната като метод за преследване на държавни цели. Доколко този пакт има успех виждаме от последвалата малко след това Втора световна война, в която подписалите го успешно надминават рекорда от Първата по жертви, кръвопролития и издевателства.
Все пак, авторът на настоящата книга се опитва да ни убеди, че този пакт именно има решаващо значение за рязкото намаляване на военните конфликти в последния век, както и по-важно: промяна на философията и обществените нагласи спрямо идеята за война. Дотогава войната е била нещо нормално, метод за изясняване на международните отношения, а сега вече е нещо уникално зло, което трябва всячески да се избягва.
Имам своите резерви по отношения на тия твърдения, предвид факта, че насилието и войната така или иначе си намаляват от неолита насам и двете световни войни са може би нещо като грешка на растежа. Toeст не Парижкия пакт е променил нещо сериозно, то си е тенденция отдавна.
Въпреки това, The Internationalists е любопитна книга, описваща живота и делото на активистите, които стоят начело на усилията за подписване на пакта и като цяло за поставянето на войната извън закона доста години преди самото събитие.
Дори през 1928 г. бива подписан от основните участници в ПСВ и други големи държави т.н. Парижки пакт, който цели да премахне войната като метод за преследване на държавни цели. Доколко този пакт има успех виждаме от последвалата малко след това Втора световна война, в която подписалите го успешно надминават рекорда от Първата по жертви, кръвопролития и издевателства.
Все пак, авторът на настоящата книга се опитва да ни убеди, че този пакт именно има решаващо значение за рязкото намаляване на военните конфликти в последния век, както и по-важно: промяна на философията и обществените нагласи спрямо идеята за война. Дотогава войната е била нещо нормално, метод за изясняване на международните отношения, а сега вече е нещо уникално зло, което трябва всячески да се избягва.
Имам своите резерви по отношения на тия твърдения, предвид факта, че насилието и войната така или иначе си намаляват от неолита насам и двете световни войни са може би нещо като грешка на растежа. Toeст не Парижкия пакт е променил нещо сериозно, то си е тенденция отдавна.
Въпреки това, The Internationalists е любопитна книга, описваща живота и делото на активистите, които стоят начело на усилията за подписване на пакта и като цяло за поставянето на войната извън закона доста години преди самото събитие.
Amazing observations made by the author about the world becoming a more peaceful place. A tough argument to prove for sure. I found myself learning a ton about countries around the world and their ideas of war and how they have changed over years. Also learned a lot about japans reasoning behind their conquests during ww2. Absolutely recommend this enlightening read
Avoid audiobook!!! This book is fantastic but the voice reading it is god awful.
Avoid audiobook!!! This book is fantastic but the voice reading it is god awful.
Very very interesting, with the occassional dozen or so pages of incredible dullness (esp the beginning on pt III) - which is why I’m docking off one star.
Made me think about the paris peace pact, and modern history, in a new light, and it reflects the huge amounts of research that went into the book.
Also, I love me some Hersch Lauterpacht. I thought “East West Street” mentioned all of his achievements but clearly not.
Bonus pts - book has pictures!!
Made me think about the paris peace pact, and modern history, in a new light, and it reflects the huge amounts of research that went into the book.
Also, I love me some Hersch Lauterpacht. I thought “East West Street” mentioned all of his achievements but clearly not.
Bonus pts - book has pictures!!
Excellent and eye opening. An entirely new perspective on modern world history from anything I've encountered before.