Diplomacy (Touchstone Book) Illustrated Edition, Kindle Edition

I purchased this book to educate myself with regard to navigating complex relationships between folks with directly opposing viewpoints. I figured managing foreign relations would require a person with a knack for negotiating rough waters. Singling out Henry Kissinger was pretty easy at that point. This book is exactly what I'd hoped for.I'm not a well-read person. I've spent months, maybe more than a year with this book and am only 3/4 through it. The vocabulary is it's own mountain to climb. But I've thoroughly enjoyed the time I've spent. Reading Kissinger's analysis of the difficulties France faced in the 60's regarding its relations with the United States was truly moving. He simplified the nature of two extremely complex opposing positions without diminishing eithers' legitimacy, down to such a fine point and without any discernable bias.That's the value of this book for me, but I've also enjoyed the history. I'm seeing it now as essential to understanding folks. It's helping me to expand my perception of others, rather than imposing a different perception onto my old feelings.

Diplomacy by Henry KissingerSimon and Schuster, 1994912 pages. In his capacity as both the National Security Advisor and as the Secretary of State for two different presidents Henry Kissinger redefined the nature and scope of American diplomacy. He served in the most tumultuous administration of the twentieth century yet managed to invigorate foreign policy in what was also the nadir of executive prestige. With Richard Nixon he formulated a grand strategy based on the twin principles of Wilsonian idealism and European realpolitik that led to a period of geopolitical stability in the midst of America's extrication from the Vietnam quagmire. The Nixon-Kissinger team reshaped the nature of Soviet-American relations and introduced a period of détente using triangular diplomacy and the concept of linkage. As both an academic and as a practitioner of the art, Kissinger describes in his book the evolution and philosophical heritage of American diplomacy and its impact on global and regional stability during its rapid ascendancy as a superpower in the twentieth century. Kissinger provides both the casual reader and the foreign policy maven a refreshing history of American foreign policy as a reflection of its uniquely benign belief in its own exceptionalism. In Diplomacy Kissinger lists two primary schools of thought that govern the conduct and define the characteristics of foreign policy. European diplomacy in its current form traces its roots to Cardinal Richelieu and the primacy of the state. Raison d'etat radically altered international relations because it provided the philosophical justification towards the secularization of national interest. No longer under the suffocating aegis of the church, nations shrugged off idealistic endeavors in favor of policies that provided tangible benefits. The Treaty of Westphalia introduced the modern state system and ushered in a tumultuous period due to the lack of a confluence of common interests and a shared system of values in the concert of nations. Following the chaos of the Napoleonic Wars Metternich presided over a period of relative stability in Europe by positioning the decaying Austrian Empire as the fulcrum of the European balance of power. In his relentless pursuit towards the creation of a unified Germany, Bismarck dispensed with incremental gains and boldly asserted Prussian hegemony with a series of wars buttressed by peace settlements that consolidated his gains. Bismarck unhinged the Vienna settlement and dealt the existing balance a mortal blow. The cold calculus of raw power supplanted the Metternich consensus of legitimacy and in the wake of the entangling system of alliances that ensued, a European conflagration became almost inevitable. Indeed the singular practice of realpolitik, Kissinger asserts, "turned on itself" . Whereas realpolitik was distilled from the crucible of armed conflict, Wilsonian idealism reflected the triumphs of democracy and manifest destiny, together with the unshakeable belief in the exportability of the uniquely American system of values. While Kissinger lauds the style and substance of American diplomacy he nonetheless insists on the exercise of restraint governed by the realization of American national interest. According to Kissinger the most successful American statesmen were those capable of blending Wilsonian idealism with realpolitik. While Wilson provided the conceptual basis for American foreign policy in its ascendancy as a great power, he was unable to realize his objectives. A generation later, Roosevelt, borrowing heavily from Wilson's Fourteen Points, co-authored the Atlantic Charter and provided the framework for the United Nations. Roosevelt was successful because he possessed a surer grasp of the tenor of national consensus. He advanced Wilson's idealism and accepted the responsibilities of great power status yet accepted the territorial aggrandizement of the Soviet Union. The nation that implemented the Marshall Plan and sponsored the economic recovery of its former enemies was the same nation that unleashed weapons of unprecedented destructiveness on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Kissinger's analysis of American diplomacy during the Cold War is particularly noteworthy. From the prescient George Kennan to the equally remarkable Ronald Reagan, Kissinger chronicles the evolution of American strategies of containment. As a statesman he refrains from the insensitive criticism of an academic, and as an academic he bases his analysis on research rather than a political or personal agenda. Kissinger traces the theoretical origins of Cold War diplomacy in the Truman administration through its first tests in Greece and Turkey and armed intervention in Korea. He clarifies the persisting debate on Vietnam and rather than vilifying a single administration as is the popular pastime of many historians, he traces the efforts of four separate presidents and nearly twenty years of American involvement. It is remarkable, however, that Kissinger merely brushes over an event as significant as the Cuban missile crisis. Although Kissinger devotes the majority of his book to American diplomacy, he evaluates the actions of both allies and adversaries and their respective impact on the geopolitical environment. He supports Kennan's thesis that the collapse of the Soviet Union was inevitable but credits American diplomacy with limiting Soviet aggression and containing communist infiltration in regions vital to American interests. American diplomacy, Kissinger asserts, is the product of American exceptionalism and democratic necessity. Lacking the unifying force of an opposing superpower, the United States may again fall victim to the siren song of isolationism. Kissinger devotes the final pages of his book to a call for the development of a national interest. National interest will undoubtedly combine elements of realpolitik and Wilsonian idealism and define limits in order to prevent the exhaustion of American will and an overextension of American capabilities. National interest will also provide the requisites for unilateral action in a world increasingly suspicious of the military, economic, and cultural domination of the sole superpower. The current outlook is not auspicious. Western Europe, for the most part a steadfast ally during the Cold War, is breaking ranks and currently one of the most vociferous critics of American foreign policy. Future administrations face new challenges in an increasingly complicated new world order where simple geopolitical calculations are rendered useless and threats to American security span continents in the form of decentralized terrorist cells. However, America has answered challenges to the Wilsonian goals of peace, stability, progress, and freedom for mankind with resolve and moral conviction in the twentieth century. And though it may be a "journey that has no end," Kissinger's faith in the purpose and goals of American diplomacy remains unshakable.

The amazing thing about Kissinger is that he's still around and still writing, with a new book plannedfor May. I recommend his books On China, World Order, and A World Restored (?). Here in Diplomacyhe makes a sweeping study of history, going back to the Holy Roman Empire. He goes through majorturning points like the Peace of Westphalia (1648), the Congress of Vienna (after 1815), and the Treatyof Versailles (1918-19). These key moments helped to forge the balance of power and the world orderof the modern nation state. There are many figures like Cardinal Richelieu, Napoleon, Metternichand Bismarck.Being from the Old World, Kissinger has more of an instinctive knowledge of obscure events from longago, and how they have parallels in contemporary current events. Europeans tended to have more ofa realist view of the need for the balance of power to maintain peace, while Americans have an idealisticsense of encouraging democracy and human rights around the world. Kissinger contrasts the idealisticWilsonianism with the more realist views of Teddy Roosevelt. Although Nixon became less popular thanTR, he had a similar brilliance in understanding the balance of power. But for most of the 20th century,idealism clearly won out over realism, with figures like JFK and Reagan. Once again, I don't understandwhy Kissinger is viewed as an amoral strategist. He clearly is seeking peace, but comes from an OldEurope view of the balance of power, based on deep knowledge of history.Kissinger gives an insightful psychoanalysis of Stalin and Hitler, along with laudatory studies of FDRand Churchill. Then there's a lengthy discussion of the diplomacy of the Cold War. As an intellectual,Kissinger tends to underestimate Reagan, but there's little doubt that his diplomacy worked. Thehistory continues right to the New World Order of Bush 41 and the beginning of the Clintonadministration. Many disagree with Kissinger, but the breadth and scope of his knowledge of thesubject almost requires that one go through his book learning and life experience, if you want tolearn about diplomacy.

I ve read the entire book for college. this is way more of a "history" book, rather than a "diplomacy" book.ABOUT THE WRITINGKissinger writes in a beautiful language, but tends to get repetitive and too wordy. This is a hard book to read, not because it's complicated, but because it can get a real drag.ABOUT THE CONTENT - SMALL PICTUREThis book progressively becomes extremely (conservative) USA biased. Certain 21st century morals are completely absent from Kissinger's mind (this is obviously excusable, let's not get anachronistic, just saying). One may only look at Kissinger's implied opinion about the cause of Castlereagh's suicide; then go find out, through modern sources, the real cause.The most important problem is (though I may be pro-usa in all the cold-war shenanigans) the book is extremely USA biased. I have to repeat this. You need another book to read in parallel, to have a more complete picture. USSR always looks evil and moronic, while USA idealistic and, though flawed, heroic. For example, in the Reagan chapter, one may easily notice how Kissinger praises all rhetoric of Reagan as being visionary and genuine; and a couple of pages later, all USSR rhetoric is considered ruthless propaganda.ABOUT CONTENT - BIG PICTUREyou thought diplomacy was about friendship and compromise? THINK AGAIN. see how Kissinger clearly, though implicitly, is an avid fan of all historically ruthless politicians, starting from Richelieu. See how diplomacy is used for manipulation of others with a completely Machiavellian mentality. See how Metternich is praised for creating a Holy Alliance between blue-blooded monarchs, to quell liberal and nationalistic uprisings during the 19th century (the monarchs found commonality in wanting to keep their power from the peasants, and Kissinger thinks that's good because there was peace)! see how Reagan is praised for being completely two-faced, apparently completely friendly in private with USSR leadership, and vehemently hostile when addressing the USA public. See, as I ve said, apparently the entire USSR leadership was always a bunch of sinister buffoons; whereas USA was all about defending democracy.See how the entire international-political world is filled with snakes.but be careful not to forget who wrote this book.CONCLUSIONgood history lesson, that teaches you in-depth some important historicopolitical concepts (such as realpolitik). Don't expect to read any practical methodologies of diplomacy.but again NEVER FORGET who wrote this book. Thus, read it with your USA-conservative-POV goggles on.

Regardless of Kissinger's politics during the Nixon administration this book is a must read when it comes to global (though mostly Western and Russian) international politics.The dynamics of the Europe's powers before World War 1, America's neutrality and the end thereof is well written. Kissinger brings us through the Paris 1919 Peace Conference, WW II and the Cold War with such clarity and insight that the reader can extrapolate what can happen with regards to Trump's foreign policies and the Brexit as well as Putin's Яussia

Still haven't finished this, Kissinger writes with such weight - but his writing style is inimitable. I would recommend this for anyone who wants to know about the history of Europe in particular. If you want a lighter read (this book is enormous), I suggest you read kissiingers 'World Order' book. It bascially goes over the same things but with lighter analysis.

I read this book and it was quite a slow read but, at least (for me) reading such good quality text always takes its time - it's a very serious book and covers everything from the Old World Order and the Concert of Europe moving on through to WWI and WWII and then the cold war. This book is one of Kissinger's best, if not, best. This inspired me to study IR and become a diplomat.

A master piece from master Henry Kissinger, anyone who want to know and learn about history and diplomacy, this is the right book.