Historical Book Recomendation Thread

[SupremeClientele]

Not at all, it's a macro look at the world structure and how diplomacy is conducted with a strong lean on historic and cultural reasoning. Learned a lot from the book and since the world structure is based on treaties and gentlemen's agreements, it'll be a while before it's outdated. I had a general feeling about some general things in the book but it was speculation until someone 'in the field' gave the details. Most of the other topics were completely new to me.

It explains how the major powers divide sphere's of influence all over the world. For example, whatever decision France makes about it's former colonies, the rest of the major powers have to agree. The trade off is France will then acknowledged your sphere. The US is the western hemisphere and middle east (which explained the involvement to me), plus the reserve currency and military spread. The US enforces the world order as it's the primary benefactor, while countries that the US has tension with are ones that more or less want to 'reshuffle' the cards, or want to change their position within it. It also explain how civilizations 'think' and how it effects their policy. Goes in depth about civilization zones and how they're still relevant today (China, Islamic, Western etc.) How the west's primary interest is maintain peace among western nations and so forth.

After reading it, a lot of the world's affairs made more sense and become more predictable.

 

[SupremeClientele]

I think not really

geopolitics is very much a long term based positioning
typical much longer than the usual 4-8 year periods of governments

the only real complicating factor in that positioning is the erosion of the classic nation states since already the Arab Spring,
but as this does not involve the big powers themselves.....

Think hundreds of years. Every major European war for example has been a matter of violating the 'objective' of western geopolitics which is maintaining balance among western countries. So when one entity becomes stronger than everyone else, a coalition gang's up against it. The unification of Germany for example escalated the scale or potential for war because by default (population) Germany will always be the strongest country in Western Europe. So the rest of Europe has hundreds of years of trying to curtail or limit Germany's growth and capabilities. Another is Russia, which is by default always going to be the stronger country in Europe, so the rest of Europe takes particular care to make sure it's capabilities are blocked off (isolation, warm war ports etc).

If you keep that in mind and look at something like Brexit. It's a natural following of course by Britian that was becoming weary of how strong the EU was making Germany (plus the immigrant thing). The issue with Ukraine and the Crimea a few years ago was the US/EU trying to take Ukraine from the Russian sphere of influence under the guise that the soviet sphere isn't the Russian sphere, as well as trying to limit Russia capacity to actualize it's potential because that will inevitably break the 'order'.


Meanwhile in Asia, China's primary interest is having it's supremacy recognized but not enforcing it worldwide. So it's objective is to make the world dependent on China so that nobody can argue with it in it's own sphere. At the same time it takes particular precaution not to violate the spheres of other powers. This is how China has behaved for thousands of years, and when it didn't it was usually under foreign rule (Mongol, Manchu)

 

[JohannaK]

So basically the world works like a tabletop strategy game where the stakes are sometimes real.

 

[Hrothbern]

So basically the world works like a tabletop strategy game where the stakes are sometimes real.

In terms of ganging up, the board game RISK is a very nice way to get a feel for that.
The dynamics of the game BTW changing whether you play it with 3,4 or 5 players.
but ganging up against the strongest with an open eye to take out the weakest, if that decreases your total border lenght, is the same.
And all that does not need talking/negotiationg aloud on your strategy.
Everything is all the time selfevident, like geopolitics
The random factor of the dices comparable to the random factor in real life politics when freaks like Trump stretch the basic positions some more than normal balance.... for a while.

 

[Imaus]

I just finished China's Imperial Past: An Introduction to Chinese History and Culture by Charles O Hucker. While being pre-Pinyin, it still recognized the Shang dynasty and Chou, and divides China's history into three broad parts: Prehistoric to Chin, Chin/Han to Tang, and then Tang to Qing; with chapters on governance, art, culture, religion and thought for each of those periods. It doesn't focus on many 'big men' besides the founders of dynasties and even then is post-modern by explaining the situation that kindled their rise and situation to deal with than emphasizing them as agents who could change the whole of history.

Might not be much more than a primer these days but it was overall enjoyable.

Isn't that a little outdated by now?

It was published but three years ago, and Kissinger is still around and being used for advice so I think he mixed his experiences, the grand picture, and recent developments. I've marked it down for reading at least on a cursory note.

 

[Mouthwash]

Any book purporting to explain "how X works" is inherently suspect.

The book asserts no such thing; that was all SupremeClientele. World Order (I've read large portions of it but not the whole thing) seems to be a general report of the current international system, and briefly overviews different regions/cultures. A very light read and a good one.

But you're right, not all scholars are as respectable:

 

[Traitorfish]

I like Chomsky, but I'm going to have to suck it up and admit that is a deeply embarrassing title for your book.

 

[Mouthwash]

Looking for Marxist criticism of theories of human rights (that don't assume the reader is already well-versed in Marxism). Shorter pieces and articles are as welcome as books.

 

[sophie]

Not a Marxist work, but if you're interested in Human Rights, a book worth taking a look at is Lynn Hunt's Inventing Human Rights (2007)

 

[Mouthwash]

Not a Marxist work, but if you're interested in Human Rights, a book worth taking a look at is Lynn Hunt's Inventing Human Rights (2007)

I'm more interested in critiques of them, really.

 

[morgenstern1]

For anyone interested in World War I, including the some of the political intrigues of Europe leading into that conflict, as well as chapters covering numerous asides to ponder other information, people, or events that were peripheral to the war (e.g. the Armenian genocide), I really enjoyed G.J. Meyer's A World Undone: The Story of the Great War.

In a way, it's almost like reading Greek tragedy - the scope of the absolutely shameless waste of human life that occurred in this conflict is mind-boggling. I also enjoyed reading about all of the personalities involved, some of whom I felt I could almost root for, others whom I despised (both in the Allied and in the Central Powers).

Anyway, it really blew me away - I had a very difficult time putting the book down. I highly recommend it.

It has a 'sequel' of sorts: The World Remade: America in World War I, which goes into considerable detail regarding Woodrow Wilson's presidency and his famous 'fourteen points', the aftermath of the war, the establishment of the League of Nations, etc. -- which is probably a good lead-in to a World War II book (if anyone has any suggestions for a good one (broad view) on that, I would be interested). Thanks!

 

[Ajidica]

The Deluge: The Great War, America, and the Remaking of the Global Order by Adam Tooze is pretty good. It starts in the middle of WW1 and covers all the financial/economic and political dealings going on between the Great Powers. The book is a bit of a doorstop but quite good and well written.

 

[morgenstern1]

The Deluge: The Great War, America, and the Remaking of the Global Order by Adam Tooze is pretty good. It starts in the middle of WW1 and covers all the financial/economic and political dealings going on between the Great Powers. The book is a bit of a doorstop but quite good and well written.

Thanks Ajidica, I will check it out!

P.S. When I asked my father-in-law for a suggestion, he recommended Samuel Eliot Morison's
History of United States Naval Operations in World War II
(15 volumes?!? just about the Navy in WWII?!?! )

 

[Dachs]

Thanks Ajidica, I will check it out!

P.S. When I asked my father-in-law for a suggestion, he recommended Samuel Eliot Morison's
History of United States Naval Operations in World War II
(15 volumes?!? just about the Navy in WWII?!?! )

Morison lived it, as the US Navy's official historian during the war. He had flag rank and was present at several of the engagements described in his book. His descriptions were exhaustive and his sourcing impeccable. It's remarkable how much he got right.

There's also an abridged single-volume version, as I recall, if fifteen volumes is a bit overwhelming. Given the wealth of available material and the unusual length and scope of the naval war between 1941 and 1945, fifteen volumes is quite a reasonable length.

 

[sophie]

Morison lived it, as the US Navy's official historian during the war. He had flag rank and was present at several of the engagements described in his book. His descriptions were exhaustive and his sourcing impeccable. It's remarkable how much he got right.

There's also an abridged single-volume version, as I recall, if fifteen volumes is a bit overwhelming. Given the wealth of available material and the unusual length and scope of the naval war between 1941 and 1945, fifteen volumes is quite a reasonable length.

What are your thoughts on the Meyer book? I failed to find any academic reviews of the work, and his publication history gave me pause given the promises made in the synopsis.

 

[Dachs]

What are your thoughts on the Meyer book? I failed to find any academic reviews of the work, and his publication history gave me pause given the promises made in the synopsis.

I haven't read it. At first, I also thought the publication history would be a warning sign, but that's unfair.

 

[sophie]

At first, I also thought the publication history would be a warning sign, but that's unfair.

I agree, which is why I asked.

What do you recommend for WWI history these days? I would imagine there have been quite a few publications in the past 4 years.

 

[Dachs]

I agree, which is why I asked.

What do you recommend for WWI history these days? I would imagine there have been quite a few publications in the past 4 years.

Cambridge University Press rolled out a series on the Armies of the Great War, as institutional and social histories. They're all very useful. So far, they've only covered America, France, Britain, and Italy. The book on the British Army in particular is quite good, as one would expect when Ian Beckett is one of the co-authors. (There is a similar book on the Russian Army, but it's not in the same series.) Dennis Showalter produced a sound book on the German military in a similar vein for Osprey's new line of higher-end works. David Stone's The Kaiser's Army is also worth a read.

In 2016, Graydon Tunstall produced a book on the siege of Przemyśl that has a wealth of useful information but which is unfortunately kind of difficult to read. Geoff Wawro's A Mad Catastrophe on the outbreak of the war in the Habsburg Empire is written with his usual forcefulness and attention to detail, and highlights a few things about the opening campaigns in the East and Southeast that are often forgotten in the West. Alexander Watson's Ring of Steel, a general history of the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires during the war, is outstanding. Eugene Rogan and Sean McMeekin have both produced books on the final years of the Ottoman Empire that do not focus on the Ottoman aspect of the war, but touch on it in some detail and contain useful bibliographies for further research.

There are rumors that, now that Strachan is at St. Andrews instead of Poxbridge, he might start work on Volume 2 again. I'm not holding my breath. He's behind schedule on a book about the relationship between war and politics, which seems to be more interesting to him lately (a lot of his recent articles and lectures have focused on Clausewitz).

Since I'm basically out of the game, I'm not up on journal articles. As I understand it, there have been some decent papers out of conferences and articles in collected packages. I couldn't begin to tell you about them, though.

Hopefully that's all useful to you.

 

[sophie]

Looks good. Hopefully I can get around to it at some point once I'm done drowning in Early Reformation scholarship. And Nominalist theologians. And archival research. And these random extra reading assignments my Latin professor assigned me (and nobody else - that's the last time I volunteer the fact that I read German).

 

[Live trash can]

Is there a must read book on Science of Religion or History of Religion?