military

This very readable book depicts the leadership dimension of modern warfare. It argues, contrary to the dominant view in International Relations, that individual leaders rather than impersonal objective factors are the main cause that determines whether nations will go to war and whether they will continue to fight it to an irrationally prolonged and destructive extent.

The case studies are interesting. And I discovered a number of new and important facts, despite my Ph.D. in Poltical Science. The case of the former Yugoslavia is particularly well-presented and easy for any non-specialist to understand. As a narrative about events and personalities, the book is indeed outstanding.
At the same time I have to voice certain reservations. Although the book is well-reserched and portrays historical events accurately and vividly, it cannot "prove" its thesis, because... well, it is unprovable. History is not a lab experiment to be conducted at will. We cannot test would would happen without this or that particular leader, all other conditions being the same.

It seems to me (just as it seemed to Voltaire) that it is preposterous that everything in the universe should obey physical laws, while a five-foot-tall creature living on the surface of one tiny planet manipulates history through his perceptions and misperceptions. In fact, Stoessinger's book has a goal that is independent of facts and arguments pertaining to the subject matter--to reassert a moral world-order in international politics and, by extension, in politics in general. My seventh edition has seven case studies; Saddam Hussein is called "the war lover"; both Saddam Hussein and Hitler are "absolutely evil," while Stalin is NOT (ostensibly because Stalin "had a few decent traits, and he did not love war for its own sake," but in reality, because Stalin fought against and defeated Hitler, whose concentration camps Stoessinger had barely escaped). The book ends by emphasizing the importance of "moral courage," especially in "dark times" when "absolute evil" must be confronted. But it seems to me this outlook is precisely what has led the warring parties to misunderstand and dehumanize each other throughout history and to launch wars, whose objective was total annihilation of the enemy. If the other side represents the "absolute evil" to be confronted, there can be no talk of empathy and eagerness for accomodation. Only one thing follows: struggle by any means, victory at any cost. I am not sure that Stoessinger has come to terms with the implications of his own conclusion--in so far as people think about politics in unconditional moral terms, they will always define themselves as "good" and the opposing party as "evil." This is the way it has always been. I don't know if mankind will ever be able to rid itself of war, but as long as the solution is sought in the concepts "good," "evil," and "moral courage" ther will be no progress in internatinal politics, nor in the field of study called International Relations.

Why Nations Go To War is a fantastic book, and gives the reader remarkable insight into the precipitations of war. While analyzing both the interactions between national leaders and their thoughts in depth, this book is an excellent way to further your understanding of the causes of war. After reading this book, you will easily be able to understand many present-day conflicts, and where and why they began. Why Nations Go To War talks about the Persian Gulf War, Kosovo, the wars between India and Pakistan, and offers valuable background info on a question that has been in the news for some time: Why do the Muslims hate the Jews, and vice-versa? The book is thoroughly intriguing and wonderfully informative, I highly recommend this book to anyone who is big on war, and those of you who would simply like to know what's going on. Enjoy.

This book is certainly interesting and is good for all students in a "How to be incredibly well read.." type way. However, Historians no longer follow the cult of personality as while they are undoubtedly influential they are certainly not the whole story. Hitler's hubris is also Germany's. He did not work alone and there is no consideration of the socio-economic background which brought him to power in the first place though he does, admittedly say that such things are addressed elsewhere. However, my main concern with this book is the lack of objectivity. This is a book written by an American Jew and is seen almost exclusively through those eyes. Too little is made of allied efforts and too much of the US. It also shows a distinctly pro-Isreali slant, despite criticisms, that describes Arabs as terrorists yet tends to glorify Isreali military victories and sees no contradiction in this.
It is, as I have said, certainly interesting and I would recommend it as a read but, as has been previously stated, it would be an error to read it in a vacuum due to it's rather simplistic look at the issues involved. WWI, and as a result WWII were wars waiting to happen and it certainly provides an insight in more recent events and the lack of "intelligence" which leads to executive decisions. There tends to be little or no criticism of US errors, especially in respect of Korea and Vietnam, which is seen not in the light of McCarthyist Hysteria and the subsequent Militarism but more as some sort of Paternalistic error.
Still worth a read but at arms length.