Scan barcode
forever_amber's review against another edition
5.0
Никога нищо няма да промени твърдото ми убеждение, че познаването на историята и политическите процеси води до натрупването на огромен интелектуален капитал, с помощта на който може да се твори много добро. С други думи - подобен тип литература учи на много полезни неща (с изключение на типично Кисинджъровото припяване за безкористното величие на Америка, в което ми е трудно да повярвам). Книгата е страхотна.
nwhyte's review against another edition
4.0
http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/1312207.html
This is a somewhat frustrating book. The opening chapters, based apparently on the author's PhD thesis about diplomacy in the nineteenth century, are pretty dull, even soporific. But once Kissinger gets to the twentieth century, it all gets rather exciting - particularly as regards the foreign policy of Germany in the period between the two world wars and between 1945 and 1961; I don't think I have read a better analysis. But then, rather surprisingly, as Kissinger himself becomes an actor the book becomes less interesting; his fascination with the characters of Nixon and Reagan robs him of any ability to judge their efforts objectively, and even his account of ending the Vietnam War is repetitious and oddly unenlightening.
The book fails to establish its main intellectual theses which are that a) America is unique in bringing its own moral values to international diplomacy and b) that this is only successful when these are consciously married to a realist perception of what is possible. The first proposition is easily falsified by the large number of other countries which have attempted to export their own ideologies to the rest of the world. America has been more successful, admittedly (though the jury must surely still be out on the Chinese), but that's not the same as being unique.
The second proposition is trickier. Kissinger's bête noire is John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower's Secretary of State, who he blames for Suez, Hungary and the initial and irreversible commitment to Vietnam. But on Kissinger's evidence, the problem with Dulles was not faulty ideology but poor personal management skills; Dulles made speeches without reference to his own officials' painstakingly compiled research, containing commitments on which he was utterly unable to deliver (or, worse, from which it was impossible for him to disengage). It was, on Kissinger's account, fortunate for Dulles that for most of his term of office the Soviet Union was led by Khrushchev, whose own personal management skills were even worse.
Kissinger's praise for Ronald Reagan, despite his total lack of intellectual depth (which Kissinger describes in a couple of devastating phrases), is further evidence for my view that knowing a lot about international relations in theory is not a good qualification for actually being involved in practice. I'm dubious anyway about the genuine value of Reagan's legacy - again, on Kissinger's own evidence, Gorbachev and Shevardnadze first discussed how to change the Soviet Union years before Reagan came to power, thanks to the CSCE process started by Nixon and ended by Ford; SDI had little to do with it. But if you think Reagan was in any way successful, that in itself is a serious strike against the idea that studying IR is any use at all (other than for potentially generating literature to be read by other IR scholars, rather than practitioners). Kissinger damns Carter by barely mentioning him.
I also found fault with Kissinger's analysis of American discourse. He singles out the Vietnam war as having been a uniquely divisive and horrible event in the American psyche. But the more I read about American history, the more it seems to me that the nasty, viscerally horrible debate that was happening 40 years ago about Vietnam, the brutal debate happening now about health care, the question of slavery which sparked armed conflict in the 1860s, the division between John Adams and Alexander Hamilton in the 1790s, that this style is all fairly characteristic of the standard mode of American discourse. It's not for the faint-hearted, and it's not for me, but it's a recurrent phenomenon through history. I'm sure that for Kissinger and for many of his colleagues, Vietnam was a uniquely searing experience. But in the context of American history, it seems less so (at least to me).
Cyprus conspiracy theorists will be (and already have been) disappointed that the island is not mentioned even once in the book.
This is a somewhat frustrating book. The opening chapters, based apparently on the author's PhD thesis about diplomacy in the nineteenth century, are pretty dull, even soporific. But once Kissinger gets to the twentieth century, it all gets rather exciting - particularly as regards the foreign policy of Germany in the period between the two world wars and between 1945 and 1961; I don't think I have read a better analysis. But then, rather surprisingly, as Kissinger himself becomes an actor the book becomes less interesting; his fascination with the characters of Nixon and Reagan robs him of any ability to judge their efforts objectively, and even his account of ending the Vietnam War is repetitious and oddly unenlightening.
The book fails to establish its main intellectual theses which are that a) America is unique in bringing its own moral values to international diplomacy and b) that this is only successful when these are consciously married to a realist perception of what is possible. The first proposition is easily falsified by the large number of other countries which have attempted to export their own ideologies to the rest of the world. America has been more successful, admittedly (though the jury must surely still be out on the Chinese), but that's not the same as being unique.
The second proposition is trickier. Kissinger's bête noire is John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower's Secretary of State, who he blames for Suez, Hungary and the initial and irreversible commitment to Vietnam. But on Kissinger's evidence, the problem with Dulles was not faulty ideology but poor personal management skills; Dulles made speeches without reference to his own officials' painstakingly compiled research, containing commitments on which he was utterly unable to deliver (or, worse, from which it was impossible for him to disengage). It was, on Kissinger's account, fortunate for Dulles that for most of his term of office the Soviet Union was led by Khrushchev, whose own personal management skills were even worse.
Kissinger's praise for Ronald Reagan, despite his total lack of intellectual depth (which Kissinger describes in a couple of devastating phrases), is further evidence for my view that knowing a lot about international relations in theory is not a good qualification for actually being involved in practice. I'm dubious anyway about the genuine value of Reagan's legacy - again, on Kissinger's own evidence, Gorbachev and Shevardnadze first discussed how to change the Soviet Union years before Reagan came to power, thanks to the CSCE process started by Nixon and ended by Ford; SDI had little to do with it. But if you think Reagan was in any way successful, that in itself is a serious strike against the idea that studying IR is any use at all (other than for potentially generating literature to be read by other IR scholars, rather than practitioners). Kissinger damns Carter by barely mentioning him.
I also found fault with Kissinger's analysis of American discourse. He singles out the Vietnam war as having been a uniquely divisive and horrible event in the American psyche. But the more I read about American history, the more it seems to me that the nasty, viscerally horrible debate that was happening 40 years ago about Vietnam, the brutal debate happening now about health care, the question of slavery which sparked armed conflict in the 1860s, the division between John Adams and Alexander Hamilton in the 1790s, that this style is all fairly characteristic of the standard mode of American discourse. It's not for the faint-hearted, and it's not for me, but it's a recurrent phenomenon through history. I'm sure that for Kissinger and for many of his colleagues, Vietnam was a uniquely searing experience. But in the context of American history, it seems less so (at least to me).
Cyprus conspiracy theorists will be (and already have been) disappointed that the island is not mentioned even once in the book.
jahangeer's review against another edition
5.0
A great book, a very dense, meticulous, vast and foresighted book, worth giving long hours to it..
This is my first book of Henry Kissinger, after reading this I will surely be reading his other books specially The world order which is published very recently.
Diplomacy is written with great wit, there is intellectual clarity in the author, as himself being the Diplomat of USA, worked as a secret of state, and also as a National security advisor, therefore the author thinks and approach the politics with great vision and analysis things in depth rather then a mare looking at the events.
The Diplomacy is meticulous in its contents, the books covers almost everything from the 17th century up until the very end of the cold war in 20th century, the book tell us how the world that now we live in is forged this way by the political events and the Diplomacy of the statesman, how the formation of Political orders and then the world orders in recently been shaken by different expansionists and imperialist leaders. It is a sweeping history of political events and the role of the statesman in forming the next order to replace the previous one in the event of its expulsion.
The book start with the Time of Richelieu's France in the middle 17th century, it talks about how the medieval European dream of Universalism have never succeeded, hitherto the European wanted to have a universal empire and universal church, but the arrival of Richelieu in the French command led the Europe from Universalism to the equilibrium, he brought the Raison de'tat ( National interest) politics in France first, and this policy if pursuing national interest would justify whatever means to pursue it, then the book talk about the French revolution the Napoleon Bonaparte, French h dominance under him, British policy was of mainly from the principle of Palmerson/Disraeli.
European Diplomacy is mainly controlled and drvied by three actors historically the French(Richelieu, Napoleon), Prussia which is now Germany (Otto wan Bismarck, it was he who unified the different German Confederates, and formed a mighty strong unified German in the 19th century), lastly British ( Palmerson/Disraeli), beside this the role of the Russian and Austrian isn't negligible either, they have also contributed vastly in various European diplomatic events.
The politics in Europe from the times of Richelieu was that of National interest, and then Bismarck introduced Realpolitik (Which means the same thing as Raison de'tat), in this tussle of dominance grew the concept of balance of power, which was vital to the survival of the weaker as well as, so the British policy in those days was to wait for anyone to disturb the balance so then they act against the agrresor, complying always with the weaker against the strong so the balance of power maintains and no single country dominate the Europe, and hence threatened everyone, whereas the Bismarck, the German statesman, his policy was more of partnership to join with as many as partners and stop the danger from arising by overlapping policies and partnership with the rivals, it was the brilliance of Bismarck that he led Germans to great power, his capabilities as a leaders were matchless, after he was dismissed from the office in 1890s it was certain that no one can handle the Germany with his great power he will look for adventures under others leaders and so was happened as seen in the 2 world wars.
In the policies of Richelieu, and in the treaty of Westphalia Europe seen the peace for the longest Duration in its entire history, for about 150 years from 1648 to Napoleon times in the late 18th century, After the defeat of Napoleon in Waterloo, European nation's sits together again in 1814 and established a treaty of Vienna, which saw the peace for almost a century except few battles such as Crimean war, then in 1914 we all know about the great casualties of the first world war which again destroyed the peace of Europe, the war ended in 1918, and the treaties of Versailles was signed, and the league of nations formed. German were sanctioned, there powers were curbed, they were heavily fined and were in complete disaster and economic collapse, so then in 1930s it was the Streseman, the German Diplomat who worked very hard to revive Germany, and open the way for American aids and loans to German to revive the country, then the rise of Hitler and his coming in the power in 1933 first as a chancellor then as a dictator, then the book covers the second world war, and the events afterwards, the order of the world after the second world war, it talks about the rise of Russia from the WW2, and then the start of the cold war with Russian, and American containment policies for the spread of communism, it also talks about the Vietnam war, Cuban missile threats, the building up of the Berlin Wall in 1961 by the Russian, Chinese civil war, the Russian leaders post Lenin, Stalin, Khurseavic, and then the reformist Mikhail Gorbachev, the end of the cold war, and the collapse of Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and in last it talk about the post cold war world.
A great knowledgeable book, full with lots of historical events, facts and stories
This is my first book of Henry Kissinger, after reading this I will surely be reading his other books specially The world order which is published very recently.
Diplomacy is written with great wit, there is intellectual clarity in the author, as himself being the Diplomat of USA, worked as a secret of state, and also as a National security advisor, therefore the author thinks and approach the politics with great vision and analysis things in depth rather then a mare looking at the events.
The Diplomacy is meticulous in its contents, the books covers almost everything from the 17th century up until the very end of the cold war in 20th century, the book tell us how the world that now we live in is forged this way by the political events and the Diplomacy of the statesman, how the formation of Political orders and then the world orders in recently been shaken by different expansionists and imperialist leaders. It is a sweeping history of political events and the role of the statesman in forming the next order to replace the previous one in the event of its expulsion.
The book start with the Time of Richelieu's France in the middle 17th century, it talks about how the medieval European dream of Universalism have never succeeded, hitherto the European wanted to have a universal empire and universal church, but the arrival of Richelieu in the French command led the Europe from Universalism to the equilibrium, he brought the Raison de'tat ( National interest) politics in France first, and this policy if pursuing national interest would justify whatever means to pursue it, then the book talk about the French revolution the Napoleon Bonaparte, French h dominance under him, British policy was of mainly from the principle of Palmerson/Disraeli.
European Diplomacy is mainly controlled and drvied by three actors historically the French(Richelieu, Napoleon), Prussia which is now Germany (Otto wan Bismarck, it was he who unified the different German Confederates, and formed a mighty strong unified German in the 19th century), lastly British ( Palmerson/Disraeli), beside this the role of the Russian and Austrian isn't negligible either, they have also contributed vastly in various European diplomatic events.
The politics in Europe from the times of Richelieu was that of National interest, and then Bismarck introduced Realpolitik (Which means the same thing as Raison de'tat), in this tussle of dominance grew the concept of balance of power, which was vital to the survival of the weaker as well as, so the British policy in those days was to wait for anyone to disturb the balance so then they act against the agrresor, complying always with the weaker against the strong so the balance of power maintains and no single country dominate the Europe, and hence threatened everyone, whereas the Bismarck, the German statesman, his policy was more of partnership to join with as many as partners and stop the danger from arising by overlapping policies and partnership with the rivals, it was the brilliance of Bismarck that he led Germans to great power, his capabilities as a leaders were matchless, after he was dismissed from the office in 1890s it was certain that no one can handle the Germany with his great power he will look for adventures under others leaders and so was happened as seen in the 2 world wars.
In the policies of Richelieu, and in the treaty of Westphalia Europe seen the peace for the longest Duration in its entire history, for about 150 years from 1648 to Napoleon times in the late 18th century, After the defeat of Napoleon in Waterloo, European nation's sits together again in 1814 and established a treaty of Vienna, which saw the peace for almost a century except few battles such as Crimean war, then in 1914 we all know about the great casualties of the first world war which again destroyed the peace of Europe, the war ended in 1918, and the treaties of Versailles was signed, and the league of nations formed. German were sanctioned, there powers were curbed, they were heavily fined and were in complete disaster and economic collapse, so then in 1930s it was the Streseman, the German Diplomat who worked very hard to revive Germany, and open the way for American aids and loans to German to revive the country, then the rise of Hitler and his coming in the power in 1933 first as a chancellor then as a dictator, then the book covers the second world war, and the events afterwards, the order of the world after the second world war, it talks about the rise of Russia from the WW2, and then the start of the cold war with Russian, and American containment policies for the spread of communism, it also talks about the Vietnam war, Cuban missile threats, the building up of the Berlin Wall in 1961 by the Russian, Chinese civil war, the Russian leaders post Lenin, Stalin, Khurseavic, and then the reformist Mikhail Gorbachev, the end of the cold war, and the collapse of Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and in last it talk about the post cold war world.
A great knowledgeable book, full with lots of historical events, facts and stories
swagavad_gita's review against another edition
3.0
There is Kissinger the statesman and Kissinger the intellectual. And while I maintain bottomless contempt for the former, whose policy workings stirred chaos instead of order and killed innocent people, I am surprised by the latter. This book surveys just what exactly diplomacy is. It’s a masterclass genealogy of diplomatic relations beginning with Cardinal Richelieu and ending with the fall of the Berlin Wall. He gets a star for the sheer amount of research that went into this thing. His sources comprise 50 pages of single-spaced size 10 font.
On top of that, it’s funny to read his descriptions of various world leaders. He swoons for Nixon the same way he swoons for Bismarck. He describes Stalin’s foreign policy with such reverence that one can only extrapolate admiration from Kissinger. He will call Wilsonian idealism misguided and feckless while spending 100 pages blaming everyone else for our failures in Vietnam. This tome has everything a student of foreign policy, international relations, or history could want. It’s just a shame a war criminal wrote it.
On top of that, it’s funny to read his descriptions of various world leaders. He swoons for Nixon the same way he swoons for Bismarck. He describes Stalin’s foreign policy with such reverence that one can only extrapolate admiration from Kissinger. He will call Wilsonian idealism misguided and feckless while spending 100 pages blaming everyone else for our failures in Vietnam. This tome has everything a student of foreign policy, international relations, or history could want. It’s just a shame a war criminal wrote it.
skitch41's review against another edition
4.0
I picked this book up because of who the author is and I am happy that I did. This relatively breezy narrative takes the reader from the formations of Western-style diplomacy after the Peace of Westphalia to the end of the Cold War over three hundred years later. Through it all, Mr. Kissinger gives his very sharp analysis of nearly every event that shaped the Western world during that period. Surprisingly, though this book does support Kissinger's love of Big Power politics, he actually gives a spot-on analysis of what separates American diplomacy from European diplomacy. And during the chapters dealing with the Nixon Administration, Mr. Kissinger stays rather objective even when talking about his own views and accomplishments during that time. And even though this was written in 1994, the final chapter looking ahead at future U.S. diplomacy still remains quite prescient. Of course, this book is also susceptible to the weaknesses that Kissinger's diplomacy has. Practically no mention is given about U.S.-South American relations until the end, and even then it's only a page or two. And Africa only comes up in passing whenever it has something to do with U.S.-Soviet relations during the Cold War. In closing, this is a good book for those who want a general overview of the history of Western diplomacy, but don't expect to read too much about diplomatic history beyond the Western world.