Cold War Diplomacy And The Quest For Leadership In Europe - Book Report/Review Example

 Cold War Diplomancy And The Quest For Leadership In Europe Does the book deal with an important issue? The book addresses an important idea; which is the rise of a nation (France) and its diplomacy amid the different challenges faced such as war and turmoil. The idea brought in the book is also relevant in the modern society, because different countries are faced with similar challenge which eventually translates to social insecurity (war). Through the book, leaders and stakeholders are in a position to come up with appropriate strategies as well as exercise good leadership styles, which would ensure that the national turmoil would be transformed /changed to national prosperity just like what happened with France after World War II1. What is the objective of the book? An objective in literature review is the main idea that an author wants to reveal to the readers of his book, or what inspired the author to write a particular book. The main objective that propelled the author in writing this book involved his desire and willingness, to tell a story about the history of the French people after World War II. The book highlights the economic development and synergy in virtually all the spheres of human development such as economic restructuring, social-political and diplomatic survival among other spheres. The book enables the audience to understand the rationale and reasons that would have propelled France to achieve different national security targets or goals, despite the huge political, economic and international barriers that the company encountered from the “Anglo-Saxons” who had profound influence during World War II. To sum it all, the other objective of the book is to enable readers to understand the nature of relations that existed between the Franco-Americans and Franco-Germans during the war respectively2. Is there an argument and what is the argument? An argument is the unique concept that an author wants to bring out to his audience in order to enlighten them or to persuade them to change their viewpoint concerning different sissues. The book brings out one argument, the argument involves determining the position that France holds in the Soviet Union. For instance, the author has highlighted in his book that, in the year 1948 different political leaders such as Philip Andre and Leon Blum were of the opinion that, economist takeovers more particularly in Czechoslovakia were the main factors that hindered France not to be willing to join the USSR (Soviet Union). On the contrast, the author eludes on the reality that, economists such as Monnet and Rene held different views about the willingness of France to join the Soviet Union. According to the socialists, the determination of France to continue containing the power that the Germany had was the main factor that delayed France from being part of the USSR3. Does it support or contradict a generally accepted argument? The argument contradicts the generally accepted notion. The general notion concerning being members to regional and international bodies and treaties, should be based on free will and the drive that guides members to such bodies towards achieving similar predetermined goals. In addition, the general argument concerning membership to international bodies reveals that individual persons do not have significant influence on who becomes a member to an international body. This is contrary to the argument that the author has highlighted in the book because, the author highlights that, different people based on their social status in society more particularly politicians and socialist played a significant role in hindering France from being part of the USSR4. What evidence does the author use to support the argument? In order to support his argument, the author argues that, immediately after the world war (postwar era) France was viewed with a lot of frustrations, cynicism and was subsequently considered to be a country with unstable political position. Therefore, member countries to the USSR through high ranking officers within the Soviet Union such as, Gaulle were not willing to include France in different committees such as the Yalta and Potsdam conferences. The author further highlight that, after the postwar era, France was viewed with pity and contempt by different committees, this eventually led to France being left out of most of the Germany operations (zones of occupation ) and their role was only limited to allied committees5. Does the author acknowledge limits or flaws in his or her argument? The author has highlighted the flaws that exist in his arguments that are presented in the book. For instance, the author has highlighted that, despite the bad reception that France got from different countries. France was willing to soldier on with the sole intention of becoming a member state in the Soviet Union. In addition, the author highlights that, France took important strides to ensure that this happened. Such strides include; a strategy was developed by George Bidault under the France movement called Lucian Populace, this strategy sought to ensure that the oppression that France was getting from the Germanys was eliminated thereby ensuring that no nation would continue to oppress them. Through this strategy, France was able to detach itself from Ruhr and Rhineland thereby ensuring that France was able to achieve industrial capability and sole use of its recourse in the subsequent growth of the Soviet Union6. The author highlights that he did not concentrate on all the major details that were considered by France when deciding to join the Soviet Union and the roles played by their leaders to ensure this happened. Is the book persuasive or not? The book is not only interesting and educative, it is also persuasive. This is because the author of the book uses persuasive words to explain to his audience, of what happened during the war. Through persuasion the author has attracted and convinced a good number of readers to understand the impact of political turmoil to different states more particularly France. Through persuasion, the author has highlighted the appropriate strategy that countries should go through when faced with challenges of governance and leadership breakdown. What questions remain unanswered? There are several questions that have not been answered by the author in this book. However, there major questions stand out for the reader, these questions include, one, the author does not explain to readers the factors that contributed to World War II from his viewpoint. Two, even though the book highlights the different activities that happened during and after the war the author does not explain how France was an enemy for itself during the war (being its own enemy). To sum it all, the last question that remains unanswered involved the inability of the author to explain the essential parameters within which France operated during the war among other questions7. Citation Cold War Diplomacy and the Quest for Leadership in Europe, 1944-1954 by William Hitchcock Read More