Richard H. Immerman
Gladfelter 923
Immerman@vm.temple.edu
office: (215) 204-7466
home: (610) 645-5436
For more than a decade the field of U.S. Diplomatic History, or what practitioners prefer to call the History of U.S. Foreign Relations, has undergone intense introspection and self-criticism. The objective has been to reinvigorate the discipline by reducing the "sterility" associated with the Rankean tradition. Progress toward this achieving this goal is manifestly apparent. Exploiting archives in many different lands and in many different languages, contemporary scholars are asking new questions and applying interdisciplinary methodologies and novel conceptual frameworks to their investigations. These efforts have generated great excitement while at the same time expanding the parameters of--some would argue transforming and even redefining--the field itself. The end of the Cold War and fluidity of today's international environment has provided further impetus to this phenomenon, as has the release of new archives, primarily but not exclusively from behind the previous Iron and Bamboo Curtains.
The intention of this course, accordingly, is to broaden your familiarity with the historiography as well as the history of "modern" U.S. foreign relations. To begin this process you will all become intimately acquainted with Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations (and the Hunt and Leffler articles I distributed), a recently published collection of essays on what the field is all about and how we might study it. It is neither a manual nor recipe book. It should, however, stimulate your own thinking about what has, should, and will be written. Each of you will select, or I will assign, one of these "think pieces," about which you will prepare a five-to-ten-minute oral presentation at our next--September 18--meeting. You should evaluate what you consider its pros and cons, and if possible, suggest what (if any) subject areas you believe might lend themselves to the type of approach recommended by the essay's author.
In the following class--September 25--we will encounter core readings and authors. Some represent prominent schools of interpretation and/or the output of prominent scholars. Others reflect recent historiographic trends and concerns. Today, each of you will select one book from those listed for the September 25 session and write a short (maximum two-page) review of it. For assistance you should also read the preface from a long out-of-date reader and Cummings essay I distributed. They will introduce you to what historians of U.S. foreign relations mean when they refer to the orthodox (nationalist), realist, revisionist, and postrevisionist schools of interpretation, and suggest reasons for the controversies between them. Drawing on the essays for context, you should prepare five-to-ten minute oral presentations of your book reviews.
October 2 will launch our chronological and topical tour of the history of twentieth century U.S. foreign policy. We will focus most of our attention on the Cold War era, but we will trace the evolution of the "Wilsonian paradigm" and touch on the implications of the end of the Cold War. Beginning with October 2 and extending to the semester's end, two or three of you will read, in addition to the book assigned to everyone, another one from the appropriate session's list (see the bibliography I have posted on the department web page at url: http://www.temple.edu/histdept/his461.html.). In other words, for that week the "chosen" will read two books. They will in 750 words review the selection (comparing it, when appropriate, to the one we all read and any other works that come to mind).
These reviews will be the basis for an approximately fifteen minute oral presentation during which each presenter will seize the opportunity to supplement his/her review by providing illustrations from the book or otherwise to clarify or expand upon arguments. The hand-out on writing a book review is a general guide--nothing more. Feel free to follow your own instincts, as long as you don't end up with a book report. The only other prohibition are do not use the passive voice and your review should be free of all typos. Copies of this and all other reviews should be made for each class member. I will arrange to open a file at the circulation desk at the TUCC library, where copies of the review should be deposited at least one hour (eg. by 4:15) before our class meets.
This distribution and deadline is particularly critical for those in the class who will be designated "commentators." What this means is that, similar to the convention at scholarly meetings, the commentators will take about 10 minutes to analyze critically the review, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses (of both the review and the book) and posing questions about the subject matter, arguments, methodolgy, etc.). Commentators will decide among themselves which book each will critique. Because s/he probably will not have read the works under review, I will, if necessary, inject points of clarification.
Further clarification will be provided during the
"audience participation" portion of the session that will follow
the presentations. The "audience" (class) will be well informed
because everyone will have read the generally assigned book and written a
one-
page review of it (those reviewing the week's supplementary books must
read but need not review the one assigned to everyone). I will
grade all reviews "excellent," "satisfactory" or
"unsatisfactory" ("check +", "check", or
"check -"). Needless to say, failure to submit reviews on time
will adversely affect the quality of the commentaries and general
discussion, and thus I will not take kindly to such behavior.
The final assignment will be a comparative review of four books from the bibliography (excluding those already reviewed in class). It should probably run eight to twelve pages. The selections should, of course, be related to one another in some manner, and I encourage you to premise your choices on a theme, topic, constituency, or even individual that interests you and/or is valuable for your area of research. For this reason let's agree that you will bounce your proposals off me. Because the papers will be due (and I mean it) Saturday, December 13 (I hope we can celebrate at my house), you should make an appointment with me, either here or at the Main Campus, no later than November 13. At this time we can also discuss your performance and progress.
As a general guideline I will base your course grade on an even division between your written and oral work. I may reward exceptional performance in one area by giving it extra weight in my computations, but don't count on it. Hence never rest on your laurels. And FYI, I am a fanatic when it comes to class participation. The success of any graduate course is a function of the collective contributions of everyone. If you are uncomfortable speaking out, or for that matter encounter any other problems, see me sooner rather than later. Under any circumstances, feel free to check with me whenever the spirit moves you.
Required Reading (available at TUCC Bookstore)
Hogan, Michael & Thomas Paterson, Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations
Ambrosius, Lloyd, Wilsonian Statecraft
Cohen, Warren, Empire Without Tears
Dallek, Robert, Franklin D. Roosevelt
Woods, Randall & Howard Jones, Dawning of the Cold War
Harper, John, American Visions of Europe
Chang, Gordon, Friends and Enemies
Stueck, William, The Korean War
Immerman, Richard, John Foster Dulles
Paterson, Thomas, Kennedy's Quest for Victory
Cohen, Warren & Nancy Tucker, Lyndon Johnson Confronts the World
Smith, Tony, America's Mission
*Sundry distributed articles and essays
Schedule of Sessions
September 8 Introduction
September 15
Class Reading: Hogan & Paterson (Hunt/Leffler)
Reviews: Selected Essays
Commentaries: Everyone
September 22
Class Reading: "Preface"/Cummings Article
Reviews: Dallek, American Style of Foreign Policy
DeConde, Ethnicity, Race, and American Foreign Policy
Gardner, Covenant with Power
Heald, Morrell and L. Kaplan, Culture and Diplomacy
LaFeber, Inevitable Revolutions
Jeffreys-Jones, Changing Differences
Khong, Analogies at War
Kennan, American Diplomacy
Kolko, Roots of American Foreign Policy
Kunz, Butter and Guns
Lundestad, The American "Empire"
McCormick, America's Half-Century
Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations
Perkins, Foreign Policy and the American Spirit
Rosenberg, Spreading the American Dream
Tannenbaum, The American Tradition in Foreign Policy
Trachtenberg, History and Strategy
Williams, Tragedy of American Diplomacy
Commentaries: Everyone
September 29
Class Reading: Ambrosius
Reviews: Fogelsong, America's Secret War
Knock, To End All Wars
Levin, Wilson and World Politics
Commentaries:
October 6
Class Reading: Cohen
Reviews: Castigliola, Awkward Dominion
Dingman, Power in the Pacific
Schuker, End of French Predominance
Commentaries:
October 13
Class Reading: Dallek
Reviews: Heinrichs, Threshold of War
Iriye, Power and Culture
Kolko, Politics of War
Commentaries:
October 20
Class Reading: Woods & Jones
Reviews: Gaddis, Now We Know
Hogan, Marshall Plan
Leffler, Preponderance of Power
Commentaries:
October 27
Class Reading: Harper
Reviews: Eisenberg, Drawing the Line
Schwartz, America's Germany
Wagnleitner, Coca-Colonization
Commentaries:
November 3
Class Reading: Chang
Reviews: Christensen, Useful Allies
Westad, Cold War and Revolution
Zhang, Deterrence and Strategic Culture
Commentaries:
November 10
Class Reading: Stueck
Reviews: Chen, China's Road to the Korean War
Foot, The Wrong War
Cumings, Origins of the Korean War, vol.1
Commentaries:
November 17
Class Reading: Immerman (Rabe article)
Reviews: Cobbs, The Rich Neighbor Policy
Freiberger, Suez Crisis
McMahon, Cold War on the Periphery
Commentaries:
November 24:
Class Reading: Paterson
Reviews: Beschloss, The Crisis Years
Nathan, Cuban Missile Crisis
Higgins, Perfect Failure
Commentaries:
December 1
Class Reading: Cohen & Tucker
Reviews: Buzzanco, Masters of War
Herring, LBJ and Vietnam
Kahin, Intervention
Commentaries:
December 8:
Class Reading: Smith
Reviews: Garthoff, Great Transition
McDougall, Promised Land, Crusader State
Ninkovich, Modernity and Power
Commentaries: