Henry Kissinger’s diplomatic performance of more than nine hundred pages reflects the Germans’ tendencies to provide a broad, sometimes heavy background material as a framework for diplomacy to be regarded as essential. On the one hand, diplomacy is a speculative book looking into the 21st century. With an eye to assessing the United States’ international status in the new world order, Kissinger clearly pointed out in his first and last chapters that each chapter Is a kind of approximate reasoning and in-depth analysis that is usually brilliant. Diplomacy, on the other hand, is a compressed history. Although it is a fairly long history of international diplomacy, since Archbishop Armand Jean PĂ©rez-Richelieu and William of Orange, Kissinger Dedicate his third chapter to those mentioned.
In chapter two of the book, “Keynote: Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson,” Kissinger created the dichotomy of diplomacy that controlled most of the rest of the argument he proposed. He accurately portrayed Theodore Roosevelt as an actual political practitioner, and he also accurately presented Woodrow Wilson as an idealist whose vision of an international coalition was the predecessor of the vision of the United Nations winning him the Nobel Peace Prize, even though he did not receive enough internal support from his country to become a member of the coalition he has created.
Kissinger argues that here, U.S. diplomats and statesmen were forced into a tremendous dilemma of the world power enjoyed by most of the twentieth century during the rise of the nation. For the United States, great diplomatic tug-of-war has become one of its ideals and often puts the world situation in a dilemma. American ideals led to Vietnam’s participation (Kissinger uses three chapters to characterize the evolution of the conflict, from the Truman administration to Richard Nixon’s rescue), in Somalia, and Haiti. However, the specter of Viet Nam hindered the United States from further participating in activities in Cuba, Serbia, Croatia, Rwanda and other hot spots in the world.
Given the idealistic background of U.S. diplomacy in the mid-20th century, Kissinger did not criticize the military and diplomatic advisors of President John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. They suggested that the Vietnam conflict escalate. Even though such a review escalated, he revealed the catastrophic. Sad memories of Vietnam have had a profound impact on the involvement of the United States in regional conflicts in the last quarter of the twentieth century.
As early as his first chapter, Kissinger pointed out the inherent contradictions in the diplomatic practice of the United States. From the birth of the agrarian revolution against the monarchy and widely touted as a guarantee of freedom and an incredible opportunity, the United States has absolutely no doubt of its policy of self-determination. So I believe it is a form of citizenship and government, however, who spread this influence in every corner of the world, a missionary-like passion sometimes imposed on liberals by politicians who have never been accustomed to living in the people free society. The drawbacks of this approach are obvious, for example, in Haiti, President Jean Bertrand Aristide, who was vigorously encouraged through the democratic process and elected by the United States, has long been incapacitated, which is it Soon after being dissatisfied with the general election by the junta, the people’s will has been clearly grasped.
After Kissinger identified Roosevelt-Wilson’s dichotomy, it discusses international diplomacy (Chapter 3) of Cardinal Richelieu, Cardinal Orange and William Pitt in three chapters. Klemens von Metternich and Viennese Parliament (Vienna Parliament) (Chapter IV), Kissinger’s previous book, “Restoring the World: Metternich, Castlereagh and Peace” 1812-22 (1957). Napoleon III and Count Otto von Bismarck (Chapter V). In the first two chapters of these three chapters, Kissinger has proposed some methods of international diplomacy (European law) aimed at maintaining the balance of power in Western Europe, a geographical area comparable to Zaire, whose cultural and linguistic features are always clear As well as which countries have essentially the same power and influence.
The rest of the book by Kissinger from (chapter VI and VII) focuses on the German way of Diplomacy before world war one and how Germany did diplomacy through force which unfortunately led to World War I. The next few chapter till about (Chapter XVI) focuses on World War II and the different approaches each nation took to diplomacy to try and win the war but also not destroy the world. This went from the US Roosevelt and Stalin and the USSR and Churchill and Great Britain. After this we focus on the Cold War and the type of diplomacy each country was using to fight their proxy war of global idealism. The rest of the book freely focuses on the Cold War there are key moments in history that are highlighted in the such as the Korean War and the Vietnam War which for some Americans was a disaster politically and in the term of diplomacy.
Overall I enjoyed this book more than I had my original book which was the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin which just briefly talked about diplomacy compared to this book. This book broke up diplomacy throughout the years and showed what good and bad diplomacy has done. Another part I enjoyed is how this book spoke about the effects of diplomacy at home and not just abroad. The Book highlights many people from the past two centuries who have used diplomacy to bring the world to its current state be it for the better or the worse. The book did focus a lot with American involvement around the world which is understandable due to the role America has played in history, but I wish he would have spoken more of other countries diplomatic tactics not just when it was about war or trying to prevent war. For a person trying to be an American Diplomat I really enjoyed this because I am a student of history so I believe that knowing how things were will help usher the world into a new dawn or a New World Order. So on a scale from one to ten I would rate this book a eight because of the knowledge and insight it gave me into the past.