 |
| |
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:37
|
|
|
 14-09-2005 15:59
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
|  |
|
Recommend and discuss books on history and international relations!
|
Got spare money?
|
|
Alright, we had the last cool thread on this about a year ago, and it was deleted  If you can find some, dig out soem threads from the archives.
I've been through Roberts' History of the World long ago, and had a go at GGS, but Diamond ended up being a bit too repetitive in his arguments for me to stay interested in it.
Rise and Fall of the Great Powers was a fun read, finally a man with sense  who doesn't go into soft talk but rather puts some hard facts on the table, his arguments concerning resources and industrial strength are a bit wishy-washy though. Like he compares the energy a country averagely needs to produce so much GNP and draws conclusions about industrialization. And yet, a low energy yield for the same amount of GNP can mean the country is more agrarian OR it might just be more efficient in its energy consumption. and stuff.
My last enjoyment in this field was Mearsheimer's Tragedy of Great Power Politics, now THIS one had me addicted. Where Kennedy simply put facts on the table, Mearsheimer makes a whole theory about it, well, expands theroies thathave been there before.
Now where should I go next? Have a try at some older realist theoretics like Waltz? I've been considering Kissinger too, his Diplomacy is already on my Amazon list.
I'd get them all at one time but being a student (of exactly thsi field, though ) I cannot afford it all at once. So what should I get next?
No leftist crap, please. Let's try and treat thuis like a science not a pacfifst playground. My favourites are the ones with an emphasis on national economics, so if we can go a bit deeper into that one...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
DO NOT PURCHASE AND READ KISSINGER'S DIPLOMACY! DO NOT!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mao
|
|
Apolyton
Jun 1999
time: 00:37
|
|
I found Kissinger's argument in Diplomacy to be...less than satisfactory. I read it two years ago, but I remember there being some inherent contradictions in it, namely that he couldn't explain the rise of those such as Hitler and Stalin IIRC. However, I may be thinking of another work, but I'm sure it was Kissinger.
In regards to Waltz and such, would you consider yourself a neorealist?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
Sorry for yelling, just seeing it mentioned gets me worked up. Now, to elaborate. It is simply the worst printed thing I have ever read, bad porn included. I only finished it because I don't like leaving stuff unfinished. But it was a torment. It made me formulate a rule for publishers:
"All books should be made into short Powerpoint presentations. A book should be published if, and only if, after the presentation, it needs further elaborating."
"Diplomacy" can be condensed into ONE obvious slide, so obvious that I can't even remember it any more. Balance of power brings peace? Something like that. Goes back to congress of Vienna to elaborate and then expands to Cold War and on.
The book has no meat, makes no sense, isn't enjoyable to read and is a total waste of time. I like history and don't mind theories and various philosophy extracted from history, but this book is just crap, and I am insulting crap by saying that. Serously. Skip it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
Echty, most of the people writing about the entire world, be it history or economy, bite more than they can chew. When you are familiar with some locale or period or economy in depth, you will always find such theoreticians of "the big picture" missing a point here, misusing an example there, or such. For example, I have found Samuel Huntington's book (I read the book first) "Clash of Civilizations" somewhat interesting until he described the Yugoslavian conflicts (local to me) within the clash of civilizations framework, where they don't belong. It made his other fault lines and conflict areas suspect to me, as well as the theory itself (that in the future conflict is going to be along civilizations' fault lines).
So, I am always suspect about the megalomaniacs and generalizations.
Another good guideline I have is: "if a book is based on an article, read the article first". These articles are usually longer than Powerpoint presentations  , but still, they save time.
For example, both Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" and Francis Fukuyama's "End of History" have originally been published as articles (in the Foreign Affairs magazine I think) and after getting much attention and sparking controversy, they were made into voluminous books.
The question is, "do you really need to read the book too?", and for me the answer is "no". Since this is your chosen subject of research, your answer may be different. In any case, read the article first.
The two articles I have mentioned are online for those interested. They are interesting and for that reason influential and much quoted, but in my opinion don't deserve books.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:37
|
|
Vet, I also want to read into Fukuyama. Where can I find those articles?
Rufus, are you in the SD or what does DD refer to?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:37
|
|
thx
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
What is an "academic" think-tank?
All of them are private institutions that exist to influence policy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
I believe you (and thanks for the explanation).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:37
|
|
Anyone familiar with Mark Mazower?
Also, what would be a good (overview, not theoretical) book on the US civil war?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
|