No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2011
The history of international relations has lent itself to many uses. Its narrators have employed the tangled web of intention, maneuver, alliance, and war to vindicate or besmirch men's reputations, prove the guilt or innocence of nations in conflict, enrich traditions, furnish precepts for the present, and provide guides to the future. Their activity has gone on for a very long time and the product of their research has grown enormous. Presumably such a vast and varied output reflects a number of needs and interests. But is its perusal a useful way of gaining insight into the varied problems of international politics? More, as diplomatic history customarily is written, does it constitute an effective training ground for statesmen?
1 It should be noted, so soon after a presidential election, that this characteristic was not confined to Democrats. There is no evidence to indicate that the Republican leaders of the day were any better versed in world affairs than Mr. Roosevelt1 and his advisers. Therefore, these and other remarks should not be taken to indicate criticism or endorsement of either political party.
2 Roosevelt, Elliott, ed., assisted by Lash, Joseph. P., F. D. R.: His Personal Letters, 1928–1945, New York, 1950, 1, p. 649.Google Scholar
3 Alsop, Joseph and Kintner, Robert, American White Paper, New York, 1940, p. 18.Google Scholar
4 The Memoirs of Cordell Hull, New York, 1948, 1, p. 525.