I think this book is a classic, because its historical analysis on the problems of peace after a revolutionary period is truly insightful, and contains valuable lessons that are still very important nowadays. Kissinger allows us to understand the difficulties inherent to finding a new legitimacy, accepted by all. He also delves into the best ways to solve the disputes that often arise in coalitions which include actors whose interest differ a lot. His comments were specifically about the Quadruple Alliance (Great Britain, Austria, Prusia and Russia) but can be applied to other cases.

I specially liked how he dissected the personalites of the actors in this play, Napoleon, Metternich,Castlereagh and Talleyrand, and the manner in which he highlights that those personalities influenced the course of history.

This is an important period, because as the title of the book claims, a world was restaured. The Concert of Europe began and a new era of peace started, thanks to the perspicacy of Metternich and after the instability caused by the napoleonic wars. In this book we get to know a little more of Kissinger as an historian but also as a diplomat, as he shows us the intricacies of politics and diplomacy.

Even if this book is sometimes a little slow, I give it my highest recommendation, because it leaves you with much more knowledge, not only on this period but also on political realism.

For anyone seeking to understand the thought of Henry Kissinger _A World Restored_ is a must. In it you will find Kissinger's epistemological and ontological positions (which is clearly the historicist wing of neo-Kantianism, taken almost without change from the great German political and social scientist Max Weber) and with it the foundation upon which his thought is based. It is this background that serves as the foundation for Kissinger's political realism. These presuppositions are not clearly stated in his later writings, written for a wider audience during and after his political career. It is worth noting that the many commentaries on Kissinger in the popular media fail to address his epistemological and ontological position and therefore do not seriously engage their subject on an intellectual level because they either enter into a critique without understanding or are simply incapable of understanding the place from which Herr Doktor is very firmly placed in the Western intellectual tradition. Most of these critiques naively invoke a kind of facile humanism not taken seriously in the scholarly world since the eighteenth century and the original reign of terror inspired by such humanist uptopian crusaders. It is instructive that Kissinger's subject, in this his first professional work, deals with the aftermath of this revolutionary and reactionary period of naive humanism. It is, Kissinger tells us, the contest of the revolutionary conqueror (the prophet) and the statesman. "Utopias are not achieved except by a process of levelling and dislocation which must erode all patterns of obligation. These are the two great symbols of the attacks on the legitimate order: the Conqueror and the Prophet, the quest for universality and for eternity, for the peace of impotence and the peace of bliss. But the statesman must remain forever suspicious of these efforts, not because he enjoys petty manipulation, but because he must be prepared for the worst contingency."

The historical analysis itself is classic Kissinger, well written and full of the essentials of the political realism for which Kissinger is famous. It also serves to provide a basic delineation of the forces that molded the history of the first half of nineteenth century Europe until Napoleon III again sought to establish French continental hegemony only to be overcome by Bismark and Germany. This study of diplomacy is in the form of a commentary and therefore is necessarily incomplete. I do not think it is misleading.

Henry Kissinger, who wrote the essence of this book as a graduate student at Harvard, encapsulates his version of diplomatic lessons in this timeless masterpiece. Whether you are dealing with Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin or a tyrannical boss at work, this work contains insights which transcend the period of study. In picking an obsure historical period, the time around and after the Napoleonic wars at the beginning of the 18th century in Europe, Kissinger runs the risk of seeming irrelevant to the modern (or post-modern) sensibility. Even a cursory review of the book will disprove this. Kissenger basically discusses the problems and politics of building a coalition, proving a tyrant to be a tyrant, and finally how to construct a practical enduring peace. His writing is insightful, full of preternatural wisdom and of enduring value. The lessons transcend a time period, but also transcend an historical scale: they apply to a variety of coalitions at the national and individual level. I recommend the book whole-heartedly. You will come away with a deep understanding of politics at all levels and also why Kissinger dominated the diplomacy of his period.

The main premise of this 1958 book is that the USA must plan for a limited war and not assume that all wars will be total ones, like World War II. Kissinger argues that our failure to do this caused great trouble in Korea and put us at a disadvantage in dealing with the Soviet Union. Chapters discuss our allies, Soviet propaganda, and disarmament. The book is well written and most persuasive.

Of course it should be clear to everyone that a book over forty years old is of limited value today, especially as the Cold War is over. Kissinger warns us about the now disproved missile gap and fails to appreciate the Chinese-Soviet split, which had already started.

My one major disagreement concerns Kissinger's contention that limited use of nuclear weapons in war could be more appropriate than convential ones. He ignores the profound consequences crossing such a line would entail. He is right that any side using regular forces would be vulnerable to nuclear attack, but that does not mean that we must use them to start with! In fact, not using them sends the world an important message about how serious we are in wanting to avoid a total, nuclear war.