If you're looking for a typical left-wing "revisionist" account of US diplomatic history, then this book might appeal to you. Like too many pseudo-intellectuals, Williams has a preconceived notion of how the world works and then looks to support his theory with some facts, ignoring many others that would clearly contradict his view. He fails to offer a sophisticated analysis - not for the serious scholar.

The Tragedy of American Diplomacy holds a unique place in the annals of foreign policy and diplomatic history. As the veritable grand-daddy of revisionism in this field, its influence has been pervasive. As proponents worked to produce revisionist studies in the same vein and opponents set out to debunk those new arguments, a postrevisionist synthesis of sorts has emerged. Williams' focus on economics in the determination of American diplomacy has compelled other historians to take better take economic factors into account and in so doing to gain more understanding of the subject. While the field of study has benefited from the influence of this book, the arguments of the book itself are often questionable.

I found this book to be fascinating, sometimes insightful and sometimes propagandistic. As Bradford Perkins says in his essay on the book's influence, this is a manifesto rather than a monograph. The politics of the author appear clearly on the very first page, as he condemns the American invasion of Cuba and holds the policy behind that move up as a shining example of the tragedy of American diplomacy in his eyes. Williams' acknowledged radical views are spread liberally throughout the book, and they often serve to disrupt my own interest in some of his arguments. Basically, he says the drive for economic expansion, as espoused in the Open Door Doctrine of the late 1890s, determined American foreign policy from that time on, that it became a veritable axiom of American political thought. In Williams' eyes, the intensive desire to expand America's market and sell her surplus products throughout the world led to a problematic form of economic imperialism and inevitably did much to start the Cold War. His discussion of economic policy as foreign policy in the wake of the depression of the 1890s and up until the end of World War II struck me as very insightful and even compelling. While he says that America's intentions were indeed humanitarian, the policy caused other nations to resent America's dominating influence in their societies and further fueled the revolutions of the first half of the twentieth century. Williams' argument diminishes in impact, however, when he comes to discuss the origins of the Cold War. His portrait of the U.S. is one of an economically aggressive, imperial power seeking to remake the world in America's image. He contends that America was in fact the opposite of isolationist in its policies and that its steps forced the Soviet Union into a corner and brought on the Cold War.

William's intense radicalism thwarts his own efforts. He goes out of his way to defend the Soviet Union and its policies. He describes Stalin as a man who had no intention of spreading communism, only wanting to secure his own borders after World War II. America is the bully that "forces" Stalin to take over Eastern Europe and install the iron curtain there. His U.S.S.R. is one always looking to compromise and to live in peace with the terrible Americans. It is easy to see why some critics labeled Williams a Stalinist tool and dangerous Marxist intellectual. Williams pleads that he is not saying economic determinism is behind his theories, but the fact that his arguments are largely Marxist and all but solely economic in nature leads me to believe he only wanted to avoid being labeled as the socialist he was. I often found Williams to destroy what were valid arguments by slipping in snide political remarks--the most galling of which was that America's efforts to penetrate the Chinese market in the 1930s led the U.S. to go to war with Japan (as if America was the belligerent and not the victim of Japanese attack).

I do want to emphasize the fact that Williams does present some interesting and compelling ideas about economics and foreign policy. While I disagree completely with his overall view, I have to praise parts of the book for effectively making points worthy of consideration and of great value in understanding America's history of diplomacy in the 20th century. Anyone deeply interested in the subject almost has to read Williams because this book has affected the nature of the debate; if you are a conservative such as myself, you may have to grit your teeth through some sections, but you will reap definite rewards from reading this book.

The term "revisionist historian" has come lately to describe one who conforms to an ideology of "politically correctness". William Appleman Williams, however, embodies the true definition of a revisionist: one who examines the evidence from a new angle and breaks with the traditional interpretations. "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy" is such a text. Beginning with the Spanish-American War of 1898, Williams presents the United States as a tough and, at times, ruthless aggrandizer of its economic power and expansion. The traditional teaching of US history involves emphasis on American isolationist tendencies and stress on the nonexistence of an "American Empire." Williams challenges that presentation. While acknowledging that the US has never really had an empire on the model of the British or French empires, Williams argues that the US empire has always been economical. The Open Door Policy, generally associated with US-Chinese relations, actually formed a larger US economic philosophy adhered to in US relations everywhere. The American opposition and responses to Fidel Castro's revolution in Cuba (the culminating event in the book) stemmed largely from the loss of economic privileges, rather than the nebulous ideology of anti-Communism. Williams provocative analysis goes a long way toward altering traditional portrayals of US foreign policy and its goals, and inspired the careers of a whole generation of truly revisionist historians.

The documents are documents and they speak for themselves. However, the editors are revisionists and their explanation of the documents is very suspect. The editors put this collection together and based their commentary on the idea that United States foreign policy has always been evil, all the "dead white guys" who made these policies are evil, and everything we did during the cold war and Vietnam reflect that evil. I am not saying I agree with the Vietnam War. However, what I am saying is that if you are presenting documents present them fairly and in the proper context. The editors fail to do this. Their commentary reflects what they are trying to push: bad revisionist junk history. For an even handed look at the Vietnam War look at Karnow's Vietnam book. This book is dangerous in that if you don't have a background in the cold war or Vietnam, you might buy into this revisionist junk.

William Appleman Williams was a prolific and influential writer of a dozen revisionist books that challenged prevailing views of American history, deploring the United States as an imperialist power pressing its economic and ideological will around the globe. He was a professor at the University of Wisconsin from 1960 to 1968 and at Oregon State University from 1968 to 1986, when he retired with the title emeritus. The genially combative professor, who termed himself a radical and was often called the founder of the New Left school of American history, was particularly critical of America's role in the Cold War and in Vietnam. With passionate argument and complex analysis, he championed self-determination for all people and argued that a refusal by Americans to acknowledge a national desire for expansion and global hegemony has led to major errors and confusion over the nation's future.

This collection of documents is especially useful for documents not in the Pentagon Papers, including some amazing ones from the 1950s. It's concise and annotated, emphasizing the origins of the war; half of the documents are dated prior to 1960.