Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T13:47:04.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morgenthau's struggle with power: the theory of power politics and the Cold War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Jaap W. Nobel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘What one can say in an original way about foreign policy is extremely limited. You can apply the basic principles to new situations, but essentially one says the same thing all over again in a different geographic, political, and military context.’ These are the words of Hans J. Morgenthau, spoken towards the end of a life devoted to the study of international politics. Yet was it that simple? And did Morgenthau really say the same things all over again in different geographic, political, and military contexts?

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , January 1995 , pp. 61 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Bernard Johnson's Interview with Morgenthau, Hans J., in Truth and Tragedy: A Tribute to Hans J. Morgenthau, ed. Thompson, K. and Myers, R. J. (New Brunswick, 1984), pp. 381–2Google Scholar.

2 Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 2nd edn (New York, 1954)Google Scholar. The second edition is the first to contain the introductory chapter on the theoretical principles of the work. Thus, unless otherwise stated, reference is made to that edition.

3 Politics among Nations, p. 3.

4 Politics among Nations, p. 4.

5 ‘The Nature and Limits of a Theory of International Relations’ in Fox, W. T. R. (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of International Relations (Notre Dame, 1959), p. 19Google Scholar; see also: ‘Reflections on the State of Political Science’, Review of Politics (1955), pp. 431–60Google Scholar.

6 Politics among Nations, p. 8.

7 Politics among Nations, pp. 3–7.

8 Politics among Nations, pp. 3 and 4.

9 Scientific Man Vs. Power Politics (Chicago, 1946), p. 155Google Scholar.

10 Die Internationale Rechtspflege ihr Wesen und ihre Grenzen, Frankfurter Abhandlungen zum Kriegsverhütungsrecht, Heft 12 (Leipzig, 1929)Google Scholar.

11 ‘An Intellectual Autobiography’, Transaction; Social Science and Modern Society (January/February 1978), p. 65Google Scholar.

12 Thompson, Kenneth and Myers, Robert J. (eds.), Truth and Tragedy. A Tribute to Hans J. Morgenthau. (New Brunswick, 1984), pp. 333ffGoogle Scholar.

13 ‘National Socialist Doctrine of World Organization’, in Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of Teachers of International Law and Related Subjects (Washington, 1941)Google Scholar.

14 ‘The Escape from Power in the Western World’ in Bryson, Lyman (ed.), Conflicts of Power in Modern Culture, (New York, 1947), pp. 1–12Google Scholar.

15 Politics among Nations, p. 25.

16 Politics among Nations, p. 5.

17 ‘The Escape from Power in the Western World’.

18 ‘Another “Great Debate”: The National Interest of the United States’, The American Political Science Review (December 1952), pp. 961–88Google Scholar.

19 Politics among Nations, p. 25.

20 ‘The Surrender to the Immanence of Power: E. H. Carr’, World Politics (October 1948)Google Scholar.

21 Politics among Nations, p. 10.

22 ‘About Cynicism, Perfectionism, and Realism in International Affairs’ in Morgenthau, Hans J., The Decline of Democratic Politics (Chicago, 1962), p. 130Google Scholar.

23 Politics among Nations, p. 10.

24 Politics among Nations, pp. 199–200.

25 Politics among Nations, pp. 232–4.

26 Politics among Nations, 1st edn, 1948, pp. 284 and 285.

27 Morgenthau, Hans J., In Defense of the National Interest: A Critical Examination of American Foreign Policy (New York, 1951), p. 77Google Scholar.

28 In Defense of the National Interest, p. 70.

29 Nor were others. Robert C. Tucker criticized that simile as proving nothing: ‘Professor Morgenthau's Theory of Political “Realism”’ American Political Science Review, 46 (1952), pp. 214–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 In Defense of the National Interest, pp. 62 and 63.

31 In Defense of the National Interest, pp. 155 and 156.

32 ‘The Conquest of the United States by Germany’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 6 (1950), pp. 22Google Scholar and 25.

33 ‘Conquest of the United States’, pp. 25 and 26.

34 ‘Conquest of the United States’, p. 23. See also In Defense of the National Interest, pp. 159–200.

35 Sprout, Harold, ‘In Defense of Diplomacy’, World Politics, 1 (1949), p. 413CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Aron, Raymond, ‘Enquête d'une Philosophie de la Politique Etrangèré’ Revue française de science politique, 3 (1953), pp. 81CrossRefGoogle Scholar and 83.

37 In Defense of the National Interest, p. 58.

38 Politics among Nations, preface to the Second Edition.

39 In Defense of the National Interest, pp. 205, 207, 208.

40 In Defense of the National Interest, pp. 212, 79–80, 208, 80.

41 ‘Has Atomic War Really Become Impossible?’ Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 12 (1956), pp. 9Google Scholar and 7.

42 ‘Atomic War’, p. 9.

43 ‘The Decline and Fall of American Foreign Policy’, New Republic, 135 (1956), p. 12Google Scholar.

44 ‘Diplomatic Calamities Seen’, New York Times, 13 November 1956, p. 36Google Scholar.

45 ‘The Revolution in US Foreign Policy: From Containment to Spheres of Influence?’ Commentary, 23 (1957), pp. 102Google Scholar and 103.

46 ‘The Decline of America: I. The Decline of American Power’, New Republic, 137 (1957), pp. 11Google Scholar and 12.

47 Coser, Lewis A., Gass, Oscar, Morgenthau, Hans J. and Schlesinger, Arthur Jr, ‘America and the World Revolution’, Commentary, 36 (1963), p. 282Google Scholar.

48 ‘A Political Theory of Foreign Aid’ American Political Science Review, 56 (1962), pp. 305–7Google Scholar.

49 Coser et al., ‘America and the World Revolution’, p. 283.

50 ‘Kennedy's Foreign Policy: Failure and Challenge’, New Leader, 24 (1961), p. 4Google Scholar.

51 ‘Cuba-The Wake of Isolation’, Commentary, 34 (1962), p. 430Google Scholar.

52 Politics among Nations, 4th edn (1967), p. 7Google Scholar.

53 Chomsky, Noam and Morgenthau, Hans J., ‘The National Interest and the Pentagon Papers’, Partisan Review, 39 (1972), p. 364Google Scholar.

54 Menashe, Louis and Radosh, Ronald (eds.), Teach-ins USA. Reports, Opinions, Documents (New York, 1967), p. 200Google Scholar.

55 ‘Vietnam-Another Korea?’ Commentary, 33 (1962), p. 372Google Scholar.

56 ‘Political Folklore in Vietnam’, in Teach-ins USA: Reports, Opinions, Documents, pp. 160–1.

57 Morgenthau, Hans J., Vietnam and the United States (Washington, DC, 1965), pp. 65Google Scholar and 68.

58 ‘What Ails America?’ New Republic, 157 (1967), pp. 17–21Google Scholar.

59 ‘Vietnam-Another Korea?’, p. 373.

60 ‘Asia: The American Algeria’ Commentary, 32 (1961), p. 46Google Scholar.

61 ‘Asia: The American Algeria’, p. 46.

62 Morgenthau, Hans J., A New Foreign Policy for the United States (New York, 1969), pp. 201–2.Google Scholar

63 ‘Atomic Force and Foreign Policy: Can the “New Pacifism” Insure Peace?’, Commentary, 23 (1957), pp. 503Google Scholar, 505.

64 Politics among Nations, 1st edn (1948), p. 319Google Scholar.

65 ‘The Four Paradoxes of Nuclear Strategy’, American Political Science Review, 58 (1964), pp. 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 24, 25, 32, 33.

66 ‘Four Paradoxes’, p’. 35.

67 ‘Changes and Chances in American-Soviet Relations’, Foreign Affairs, 49 (1971), p. 435Google Scholar.

68 ‘After the Summit: Superpower Polities’, New Leader, 55 (1972), p. 11Google Scholar.

69 US Congress, Foreign Military Sales and Assistance Act, Hearing of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 2–8 May 1973, 93rd Congress, 1st Session, p. 174.

70 US Congress, Reassessment of U.S. Foreign Policy, Hearing of the Subcommittee on Future Foreign Policy, Research and Development, House Committee on International Relations, 15–24 July 1975, 94th Congress, 1st Session, p. 28.

71 ‘Missing: A Moral Consensus: The Danger of Detente’, New Leader, 56 (1973), pp. 5Google Scholar and 6.

72 US Congress, Soviet Jewry, Hearing of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 9–10 November 1971, 92nd Congress, 1st Session, p. 134.

73 US Congress, Detente, Hearing of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 8 May-31 July 1974, 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, p. 142.

74 Morgenthau, Hans J., The Purpose of American Politics (New York, 1960), p. 30Google Scholar.

75 The theme is discussed further in Nobel, Jaap W., ‘Morgenthau's Theory and Practice: a Response to Peter Gellman’, Review of International Studies, 15 (1989), pp. 266–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

76 ‘The Intellectual and Political Functions of a Theory of International Relations’, in Harrison, H. V. (ed.), The Role of Theory in International Relations. (Princeton, 1964), pp. 114–15Google Scholar.

77 A New Foreign Policy for the United States, p. 163.

78 US Congress Detente, p. 147.

79 ‘The Intellectual and Political Functions of a Theory of International Relations’, p. 113.

80 ‘The Nature and Limits of a Theory of International Relations’, p. 20. The dilemmas of practical policy decisions are treated at length in ‘The Intellectual and Political Functions of a Theory of International Relations’, pp. 108–12. While there need be no quarrel with the argument as such, it should be pointed out that Morgenthau's concept of theory was ambiguous. While, as has been shown, he wished to develop a theory which would provide a rational understanding of politics, he also laid claim to empirical qualifications. The theory should meet a ‘dual test’, an ‘empirical and a logical one’. It should be ‘consistent with the facts’, and, like all scientific truth, it should be ‘empirically verifiable’ (Politics among Nations, p. 3; and ‘The Nature and Limits of a Theory of International Relations’, p. 16). Yet the hermeneutical approach which seeks to understand in subjective terms, and the empirical approach which seeks to explain in objective terms cannot be so easily reconciled. Of course, the political rationale which Morgenthau sought to delve from the debris of historical facts may reflect historical experience. Yet this is a far cry from ‘empirical verifiability’. Thus it is often very difficult to determine what standing Morgenthau's pronouncements on international politics have. If then the theory was sometimes ‘misunderstood’, as Morgenthau complains it was, it was partly because ambiguity was built into it.

81 The Intellectual and Political Functions of a Theory of International Relations’, pp. 115–16.

82 ‘The Commitments of Political Science’, in Hans J. Morgenthau, The Decline of Democratic Politics, pp. 37 and 40. See also: ‘Reflections on the State of Political Science’ Review of Politics (1955), pp. 431–460Google Scholar; ‘The Intellectual and Political Functions of a Theory of International Relations’.

83 ‘Truth and Power’, The New Republic, 26 November 1966, p. 14.

84 Truth and Tragedy, p. 380.