Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938

I first read Rise to Globalism in college, then again in grad school. It is worth revisiting every few years. The narrative is sweeping and reflects the conclusions and judgements of the author without appology. This is not a scholarly text in a rigorous, academic sense. It is well researched and the author is an authority, but the goal of the text is to tell the story of America's Rise to Globalism. The gentle narrative voice draws the rader into the experience, as interpreted by the author, in a way that uniquely conveys the ethos of the times. It's not Toynbee and it shouldn't be. It is worth reading and revisiting for what it is. Every American should be familiar with our country's Rise to Globalism.

Great book, but it lost a star because of distracting typos. Information was solid and historical context was spot on. I don't know if publishers are trying to save money by not using editors anymore or what, but they really need to check these before they print them. Extra punctuation, paragraph breaks in the middle of sentences, stuff like that.

I have found the book to be quite compelling and a good overview of the time period specified. The book is well written which makes it enjoyable to read. With the advantage of hindsight some of the author's opinions bleed through the pages (which is to be expected), but offer a fairly astute historical account. A must read for getting the general big picture of America's foreign policy post WWI. Have already recommended to friends and family.

This book is a real deal if you are a beginner. It explains things well. For each topic, this book will: 1. explain the background 2. introduce the backgroud/status of each player/countires 3. Set the big idea clear 4. explain the big idea. This is the first book I read about foreign policy and I now understand a lot about foreigh policies. This can be read as a history book too. It's very informative.

Ambrose has done little of worth apart from this book, but this book alone gives him a solid place in the canon of solid survey historians who paint with a broad brush, perhaps doesn't get all the details clear, but nonetheless does a great job laying a foundation for future learning. I read this in high school then again in college; a useful and thought-provoking survey (that I just bought again for somebody interested in brushing up on foreign policy matters for an exam).

Comprising a book on American foreign policy on the period between the conclusion of WWII, the end of the Cold War and Clintons and Bush's presidency is difficult to do within such a small book. One could publish numerous volumes to record this era in history. In this case this book was extremely succesfull drawing on the most relevant information available. It focuses largely (infact exclusively almost) on American foreign policy. One may see it at often times critical to the US, but it is not critical in the sense as it potrays America as the "bad guy" in the Cold War, but rather it is critical from an American or an insider perspective. A reformist perspective if you will. It gives the US, Credit where it is due and also criticism where it is due. Given that alot of the foreign policy conducted by American administrations has put American is a worse off position and has largely been a failure (i.e. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and Reagan)the book dishes out a fair bit of critical overview. However, it paints the presidency of Eisenhower, George H. Bush and even Clinton (at times, but largely being critical of Clinton) in a positive light. Which is more than fair. The book is worth the read, especially if one wishes to read this as an introduction to US foreign policy.

Interesting and informative. If you love U.S. military history this is the perfect compliment, it colors in everything that was happening outside the battle-picture. My only complaint is there were quite a few typos in this edition, but they never made the writing unclear. I guess it's to be expected for a 500 page volume that's constantly revised.

This book started out really well. Ambrose did a good job of laying out the history of America's global relations. Like a good historian he pointed out the facts of what happened. He gave credit where credit was due but also gave appropriate criticisms. Yes it is easy to look back and criticize but he did so evenhandedly so that students could learn. Somewhere in the book the tone changed decidedly. Instead of pointing out what was good and what was bad about the presidents and their policies the book started taking on a definent slant. Where one would have at least expected some criticism of Carter you got only defense. At one point the author's only justification for Carter not being all that bad was that Nixon was bad too. This sounds like playground logic if I ever heard it. I went through the book and found something out that I did not know when I purchased it. Rather than two authors collaborating on one piece the actually wrote separate parts of the book. Originally written by Ambrose the book was later revised by Brinkley who obviously is nowhere near the historian that Ambrose was. A good historian can turn their personal feelings aside and look at things objectively, Brinkley is not one of them. The book was five stars up to the Nixon years when Ambrose was clearly writing. 0 stars are attributed to the op-ed portion that marks Brinkley's contribution.

The book is a good read to understand the various faces and seasons of American globalism. Anyway, it has some defects too: aside from the typos that plague the book, in some parts it tends to just put dates and small events with a granularity that could appear unneeded in the grand scheme of things.

Book arrived fast

As an introduction to American foreign policy from Roosevelt through to Truman and Clinton and Bush Jnr this work is well worth a read. The section written by S.E Ambrose is admirably balanced, concise and full of narrative drive. We never feel overburdened by unnecessary detail or that this is history told as a kind of folk tale. Ambrose gives us background, analysis and a feel for events 'on the ground' as they must have appeared to the participants. Brinkley's work on Bush Snr onwards feels much more partisan and personal and for that reason I feel it has less value overall. What fascinates about this book is the speed at which the USA became a global power. Unlike the English, French and Dutch, indeed the Romans the Americans post -1919 had very little desire, experience or aptitude for playing significant role in World affairs. America post-1945 had to acclimatise itself to being filling the vacuum left by a defeated Japan in the East, a bankrupt and moribund Europe and the growing threat of Russia and her potential satellites in the West. China and South East Asia were yet to appear as issues, but as events in Korea demonstrated in the mid 1950's they wouldn't be long in making an impact on American policy. Suddenly America had to become part banker, policeman and administrator, often times to nations who though they needed help resented the fact that it was the American's giving it. The lessons of this book are many and worth noting. Firstly that democracies cannot abide long wars or sustain ideological warfare for extended periods. Casualties or other interests such as trade or access to materials makes the need for fluid, ambiguous policy in the fashion of Clinton a viable mode of operation rather than principled intransigence. Secondly that power is not the same as influence. The British for instance throughout their imperial relations with India had a very small standing army, but where able to able local pressure and build partnerships with local rulers (for better or worse) in order to keep order and some encourage sometimes feelings of loyalty towards the Crown. With America policy has often been influenced by massive technical arms superiority and ability to deploy sizeable forces quickly. This has meant as in Iraq, winning the war was not the same as 'winning' the peace. In other words, influence is about engaging in creating opportunity for institutions to be created and allowing economies to return to producing goods and services. A country without a civic 'life' will shortly become disordered. America could often win on the battlefield or as in the 'Cold War' patiently wait for its competitor to collapse, what it struggled to do though with few exceptions was to have a clear idea as to what the aftermath should look like. Defeated countries need to be rebuilt- a moral lesson that Truman understood but many succeeding presidents have ignored. Finally, that American policy was frequently reactive- towards Russia, China, Iran, South America and Korea for instance, lacking consistency or even the moral dimension that was said to be the underpinning of American international action. Programmes such as the Marshall plan, Bretton Woods, Camp David, WTO, NATO and Nixon and China, demonstrated that the USA could show principled and inclusive leadership, even if it events or other parties conspired to affect aspirations and outcomes on occasion. Ike and Truman even though they had the advantage of uncontested American right on their side at least tried or had the instinct to keep America out of costly side-shows. Vietnam demonstrated what could happen when a lack of understanding of political realities and an arrogant faith in the ability to will solutions through firepower predominates. So a very good and highly readable book. I would have liked a little more on Economics, the section on Clinton and his attempt to open up trade was a very interesting. A little on the influence of multinationals on policy and the role of American influenced institutions like the World Bank and the WTO on global events would have been welcome.

The authors - both professors - do themselves, their profession and their readers a disservice by not defining the word "policy" at the outset. So what we have is a very good, lively account of the various doings of various US presidents and their advisers in the field (minefield?) of foreign affairs - with all the ambiguity that phrase implies - from pre- WWII to the present. What comes out loud and clear is that the USA has never really had a consistent foreign policy but has merely reacted to events as they have arisen and with a close eye kept all the time on the political domestic scene. Politicians rule and foreign policy is constrained by the need to win the various domestic elections every 2 to 4 years. However, I enjoyed reading their survey and I intend to research more into the roles of the military-industrial complex and the influence of the American Jewish lobby in bringing this reviewer, born in innocence 1 year before this survey begins, safely through to today's current West - East confrontation over Ucraine.

A good, solid reference work on US foreign policy. A good piece of work.