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: 26 October 2009
In his lively essay on Hans Morgenthau Peter Gellman points out that the school of realism was essentially ‘an association based upon a common repudiation of unfounded hopes for a new world’. But he cautions that ‘beyond this shared purpose, the diversity of theoretical priorities among “Realists” … limits the utility of realism as a word that can either describe or enlighten’. Certainly, on the nature of power, the ends of politics, the role of morality, the national interest, the meaning of theory itself Morgenthau had his own views. On many of these matters Gellman sets us right. We have here, I believe, a fair account of Morgenthau's views and a profound analysis of his theoretical approach.
1. Gellman, Peter, ‘Hans J. Morgenthau and the Legacy of Political Realism’, Review of International Studies, xiv (10 1988), pp. 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Ibid., p. 248.
3. Ibid., p. 247.
4. Jaap Willem Nobel, De utopie van het realisme. De machtstheorie van Hans J. Morgenthau en de kritiek op het Amerikaanse heleid in de Koude Oorlog (The Utopia of Realism. Hans J. Morgenthau's Theory of Power Politics and his Critique of American Foreign Policy in the Cold War) (Amsterdam, 1985).
5. Morgenthau, Hans J., ‘Another “Great Debate”: The National Interest of the United States’, American Political Science Review, xlvi (12 1952), pp. 971 ff.Google Scholar
6. Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics among Nations. The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York, 2nd edn, 1954), pp. 5, 8.Google Scholar
7. With the notable exception of his ultimate deference to Dean Acheson's views on the nature of the Soviet challenge, which is quoted in Gellman, op. cit., pp. 257–8.
8. Morgenthau, Hans J., In Defense of the National Interest (New York, 1951), p. 62.Google Scholar
9. Ibid., p. 77.
10. Morgenthau, Hans J., A New Foreign Policy for the United States (New York, 1969), chapter 3.Google Scholar
11. Morgenthau, Hans J., ‘Fears and Spheres’, New Leader, 9 09 1968, p. 7.Google Scholar
12. Morgenthau, , A New Foreign Policy for the United States, op. cit., p. 163.Google Scholar
13. Gellman, op. cit., p. 253.
14. See e.g. Morgenthau, Hans J., ‘The Machiavellian Utopia’, Ethics, lv (01 1945), pp. 145–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Morgenthau, Hans J., ‘The Conquest of the United States by Germany’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vi (1950), p. 24.Google Scholar
16. Ibid., p. 22. 17.
17. Ibid., p. 25.
18. Ibid., p. 26.
19. Morgenthau, In Defense of the National Interest, op. cit., p. 140.
20. Morgenthau, Hans J., ‘Has Atomic War Really Become Impossible?’ Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, xii (1956), p. 9.Google Scholar
21. Morgenthau, Hans J., ‘The Revolution in U.S. Foreign Policy’, Commentary, xxiii (02 1957), p. 105.Google Scholar
22. Morgenthau, Hans J., ‘The Problem of the National Interest’, in Morgenthau, Politics in the Twentieth Century, vol. I; The Decline of Democratic Politics (Chicago, 1962), pp. 93, 94.Google Scholar
23. Morgenthau, , ‘Nationalism’, in Morgenthau, Politics in the Twentieth Century, vol. I, op. cit., pp. 189–190.Google Scholar
24. Morgenthau, Hans J., ‘The Four Paradoxes of Nuclear Strategy’, American Political Science Review, lviii (03 1964), p. 35.Google Scholar
25. Gellman, op. cit., p. 262.
26. Morgenthau, , Politics among Nations, op. cit., 2nd edn (1954), ‘Preface to the Second Edition’.Google Scholar
27. Morgenthau, , In Defense of the National Interest, op. cit., p. 201.Google Scholar
28. Ibid., p. 79.
29. Ibid., p. 205.
30. Ibid., p. 209.
31. Morgenthau, Hans J., The Purpose of American Politics (New York, 1960), pp. 136–138;Google ScholarMorgenthau, , Politics among Nations, op. cit., 2nd edn (1954), pp. 391–398.Google Scholar
32. Gellman, op. cit., p. 256.
33. Morgenthau, , In Defense of the National Interest, op. cit., p. 33.Google Scholar
34. Morgenthau, , Politics among Nations, op. cit., 2nd edn (1954), p. 10.Google Scholar
35. Morgenthau, , Politics among Nations, op. cit., 1st edn (1948), p. 196.Google Scholar
36. Morgenthau, , In Defense of the National Interest, op. cit., p. 63.Google Scholar
37. Morgenthau, , Politics among Nations, op. cit., 2nd edn (1954), p. 10.Google Scholar
38. Morgenthau, , In Defense of the National Interest, op. cit., pp. 155, 156.Google Scholar
39. Tannenbaum, Frank, ‘The Balance of Power versus the Co-ordinate State’, Political Science Quarterly, lxvii (03 1951), pp. 173–197.Google Scholar
40. Morgenthau, , ‘Another “Great Debate”,’ op. cit., p. 964.Google Scholar
41. Morgenthau, , The Purpose of American Politics, op. cit., p. 8.Google Scholar
42. Ibid., p. 20.
43. Ibid., p. 20.
44. Ibid., p. 19.
45. Ibid., p. 30.
46. Ibid., p. 16.
47. Ibid., p. 26.
48. Ibid., p. 36.
49. Ibid., p. 36.
50. Morgenthau, , Politics among Nations, op. cit., 2nd edn (1954), p. 3.Google Scholar
51. Morgenthau, , In Defense of the National Interest, op. cit., p. 209.Google Scholar
52. Morgenthau, , Politics among Nations, op. cit., 2nd edn (1954), p. 8.Google Scholar
53. Morgenthau, Hans J., ‘Love and Power’, Commentary, xxxiii (1962).Google Scholar
