This book examines the wartime controversies between Britain and America about the future of the colonial world, and considers the ethical, military, and economic forces behind imperialism during World War II. It concludes that, for Britain, there was a revival of the sense of colonial mission; the Americans, on the other hand, felt justified in creating a strategic fortress in the Pacific Islands while carrying the torch of “international trusteeship” throughout the rest of the world-a scheme that Churchill and others viewed as a cloak for American expansion.
Louis' book, as full of wit and insight as it is of information, will instruct every modern historian.
—American Historical Review
Looks very promising to use as an assigned reading
In this fascinating new interpretation of Cold War history, John Lewis Gaddis focuses on how the United States and the Soviet Union have managed to get through more than four decades of Cold War confrontation without going to war with one another.
Using recently-declassified American and British documents, Gaddis argues that the postwar international system has contained previously unsuspected elements of stability. This provocative reassessment of contemporary history—particularly as it relates to the current status of Soviet-American relations—will certainly generate discussion, controversy, and important new perspectives on both past and present aspects of the age in which we live.
In this collection of essays, Gaddis raises some interesting and timely questions. How is it that we have known four decades without a world war, when relations between the superpowers have been so tense? Gaddis believes that historians of the next century may look back upon our era as one of general peace and stability, despite the numerous conflicts . His explanations include nuclear deterrence and the fact that the United States and Russia studiously avoid direct confrontation, by constructing walls, using the troops of client states, or recognizing spheres of influence. This provocative and well-argued work is recommended.
—Jeff Northrup, Birmingham P.L. Ala.
Coherent, learned, well written—and a reminder of just how changeable are the passions kindled by nuclear deterrence….[Gaddis is] an intelligent historian, and he combines theoretical reflection with a deep knowledge of the massive American archives….[These essays] constitute a unified history of the Cold War.
When Strategies of Containment was first published, the Soviet Union was still a superpower, Ronald Reagan was president of the United States, and the Berlin Wall was still standing. This updated edition of Gaddis' classic carries the history of containment through the end of the Cold War. Beginning with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s postwar plans, Gaddis provides a thorough critical analysis of George F. Kennan’s original strategy of containment, NSC-68, The Eisenhower-Dulles “New Look,” the Kennedy-Johnson “flexible response” strategy, the Nixon-Kissinger strategy of detente, and now a comprehensive assessment of how Reagan — and Gorbechev — completed the process of containment, thereby bringing the Cold War to an end.
He concludes, provocatively, that Reagan more effectively than any other Cold War president drew upon the strengths of both approaches while avoiding their weaknesses. A must-read for anyone interested in Cold War history, grand strategy, and the origins of the post-Cold War world.
Excellently organized, a good focused survey of American foreign policy strategies during the cold war.
—Tanya Charwick, Ohio State University
A welcome contribution to the literature of the subject and should become a point of departure for scholars of modern American foreign policy.
—Review of Politics
Deserves the attention of every student of foreign affairs.
Walter Goodman’s “BOOKS OF THE TIMES” is a relatively positive review of Edward Tirvan’s “The Lobby: Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy”, a book which takes a look at the pro-Israel lobby and it’s strong political influence on American foreign policy.
An absolutely brilliant analysis of the ways in which individuals and organizations of the media are influenced to shape the social agendas of knowledge and, therefore, belief. Contrary to the popular conception of members of the press as hard-bitten realists doggedly pursuing unpopular truths, Herman and Chomsky prove conclusively that the free-market economics model of media leads inevitably to normative and narrow reporting. Whether or not you’ve seen the eye-opening movie, buy this book, and you will be a far more knowledgeable person and much less prone to having your beliefs manipulated as easily as the press.
Herman of Wharton and Chomsky of MIT lucidly document their argument that America’s government and its corporate giants exercise control over what we read, see and hear. The authors identify the forces that they contend make the national media propagandisticthe major three being the motivation for profit through ad revenue, the media’s close links to and often ownership by corporations, and their acceptance of information from biased sources. In five case studies, the writers show how TV, newspapers and radio distort world events. For example, the authors maintain that “it would have been very difficult for the Guatemalan government to murder tens of thousands over the past decade if the U.S. press had provided the kind of coverage they gave to the difficulties of Andrei Sakharov or the murder of Jerzy Popieluszko in Poland.” Such allegations would be routine were it not for the excellent research behind this book’s controversial charges. Extensive evidence is calmly presented, and in the end an indictment against the guardians of our freedoms is substantiated. A disturbing picture emerges of a news system that panders to the interests of America’s privileged and neglects its duties when the concerns of minority groups and the underclass are at stake. First serial to the Progressive.
An essential record of Chomsky’s political and social thought as it was sharpened during the upheavals in domestic and international affairs of the early 1970s, For Reasons of State includes articles on the war in Vietnam and the “wider war” in Laos and Cambodia, an extensive dissection of the Pentagon Papers, reflections on the role of force in international affairs, essays on civil disobedience and the use of the university, and a now-classic introduction to anarchism. These essays reveal very different facets of Chomsky’s power as a thinker, from his uncanny ability to join abstract philosophical considerations with the concrete political realities of his time, to his singular capacity to mount withering, fact-based critiques of American foreign policy. Following the recent release of American Power and the New Mandarins, For Reasons of State is a major addition to the intellectual history of the Vietnam era.
Walter LaFeber’s—for the most part—positive review of the Herman-Chomsky book “Manufacturing Consent” can be found here. He attempts to poke some holes in the model with two very weak points of his own; the reader can decide the effectiveness of his argument.
This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.
Chomsky, linguist and political essayist, continues his critique of President Reagan’s Central American policy begun in Turning the Tide ( LJ 4/1/86), in which he argued that the United States has opposed human rights and democratization in the region to advance our economic interests. Here the thesis is extended to the Iran-contra scandal. Chomsky’s documentation neatly supports his logic. Leftist adherents will applaud, while the majority depicted as perpetrators or dupes of military-based state capitalism will ignore the book or dismiss it as rhetoric. But Chomsky has a point of view not frequently encountered in the press. For larger public and academic libraries.
—Kenneth F. Kister, Pinellas Park P.L., Fla. (Library Journal)
Ronald Radosh’s “SURVIVING CASTRO’S TORTURES” is a review of Armando Valladares’s “Against All Hope: The Prison Memoirs of Armando Valladares”, a detailed account of Valladares' 22 years as a political prisoner within the Cuban penal system. However, the account was haphazardly accepted without verification of it’s claims, which turned out to be true, an indicative example of Chomsky’s argument about burdens of proof required for different narratives depending on their alignment with the power structures that be (owing to America’s historical interest in destroying Cuba for defying it for so long).