What do you think?
Rate this book
Realpolitik: A History
Since its coinage in mid-19th century Germany, Realpolitik has proven both elusive and protean. To some, it represents the best approach to meaningful change and political stability in a world buffeted by uncertainty and rapid transformation. To others, it encapsulates an attitude of cynicism and cold calculation, a transparent and self-justifying policy exercised by dominant nations over weaker. Remolded across generations and repurposed to its political and ideological moment, Realpolitik remains a touchstone for discussion about statecraft and diplomacy. It is a freighted concept. Historian John Bew explores the genesis of Realpolitik, tracing its longstanding and enduring relevance in political and foreign policy debates. Bew's book uncovers the context that gave birth to Realpolitik-that of the fervor of radical change in 1848 in Europe. He explains its application in the conduct of foreign policy from the days of Bismarck onward. Lastly, he illuminates its translation from German into English, one that reveals the uniquely Anglo-American version of realpolitik-small "r"-being practiced today, a modern iteration that attempts to reconcile idealism with the pursuit of national interests.Lively, encyclopedic, and utterly original, A History illuminates the life and times of a term that has shaped and will continue to shape international relations.
403 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 30, 2015
53 people are currently reading
764 people want to read
About the author
John Bew
21 books41 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
John Bew is Reader in History and Foreign Policy at the War Studies Department at King's College London and Director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence. In 2013 he became the Henry A. Kissinger Chair in Foreign Policy and International Relations at the Library of Congress. From 2007-10, Bew was Lecturer in Modern British History at Cambridge University, where he was also educated. He has published several books and papers, writes for the New Statesman, Irish Times, London Review of Books and Spectator, among others and appears regularly on television and radio including Newsnight, The Review Show, the Today Programme and Sky News. He is currently filming a documentary for the BBC on Lord Castlereagh. He lives in London, and lectures in political institutions around the world.
John Bew is Reader in History and Foreign Policy at the War Studies Department at King's College London and Director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence. In 2013 he became the Henry A. Kissinger Chair in Foreign Policy and International Relations at the Library of Congress. From 2007-10, Bew was Lecturer in Modern British History at Cambridge University, where he was also educated. He has published several books and papers, writes for the New Statesman, Irish Times, London Review of Books and Spectator, among others and appears regularly on television and radio including Newsnight, The Review Show, the Today Programme and Sky News. He is currently filming a documentary for the BBC on Lord Castlereagh. He lives in London, and lectures in political institutions around the world.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
July 6, 2017
An examination of realpolitik's history from Ludwig von Rochau's coining of the term through its many variations up to it's modern usage and interpretation. Bew cites the year 1853, when Rochau introduced the term: realpolitik (uppercase case "R") in which as Rochau put it to examine the "nuts and bolts" of a state and/or society. Rochau sought to analyze and synthesize what he saw ...what lied underneath the surface of a society without concocting an overall picture. Rochau believed in the value of history, but that history did not predetermine a state or society, but rather provided a means to anticipate and shape its future.
From this early understanding of realpolitik, Bew goes on to show how realpolitik has gone through different interpretations depending on the interpreter and the state or group s/he represents. Realpolitik is about power! Rochau exclaims realpolitik is about harnessing the most powerful forces within a state and achieves a balance between them. Ideas matter, not that they are noble, but how many people subscribe to said idea to make it a powerful force.
Bew's explaining of major realpolitikers and anti-realpolitikers:
Realpolitik (Machtpolitik) - Otto Von Bismarck - "Blood and iron" Uniting Germany by force of arms. Make allowances for moral factors, but unwillingly. p. 165
Realpolitik (Moderate Socialist version) - Karl Rodbertus - Social Democrats should harness themselves to the monarchy and achieve their goals by making the state dependent on their support. p. 50
Anti-realpolitik - Constantin Frantz - Duties are first to GOD, then to neighbor then to country. Realpolitik didn't care much for morals only the national interest.
Realpolitik would come to be seen as either a policy contemptuous of all ideas and ideologies or a policy exclusively employing power for the achievement of ends. p. 68
Realpolitik - Heinrich von Treitschke - Superior force swallowing up the others. p. 69 The state must live by its own imperative of preserving its existence and developing its full potential. p. 71 Noblest quality of the practical statesman was his ability to point to the signs of the times, and to realize in some measure how universal history may develop at a given moment. The statesman must resign himself to desiring only the really attainable and to keeping this aim perpetually and steadfastly in view. pp.71-72
Realpolitik - Leopold von Ranke - Emphasized an empirical treatment of primary sources and the role of the narrative. p. 73
Realpolitik - Friedrich Meinecke - Fused Staatsrason (raison d'etat) and realpolitik. Humanitarianism is a poison that must be driven out the body in order for it to function properly. p. 77 The state was not artificial or imposed, but was a product of the national will and had its roots in history. The state should be understood from within. p. 79
Anti-Realpolitik - Belief that international affairs could be placed on surer footing, with multilateralism trumping the pursuit of narrow national interests.
American realpolitik (lower case "r") - America's willingness to play a leading role in global affairs. p. 87
Anti-Realpolitik - J.A. Hobson - Nations scramble for markets and resources and their own imperialism with behavior by all states deteriorating in international interactions. p.91
Anti-Realpolitik - Liberal imperialism - The idea that the empire was a benevolent project based on broad consensus. p. 98
Anti-realpolitik - Ramsay Muir - Concert of powers striving for compromise. The establishment of small states under the general protection of Europe. The spread of international arbitration. The restriction of arms among leading states. The development of an agreed conduct in warfare. p. 102
American realpolitik - Walter Lippmann - Lippmann argued peace could be secured if the great powers agreed to a humane and stable legal and administrative framework for governing unstable areas of the world. p. 116
Realpolitik - Lloyd George - The elimination of principle and substitute expediency as the determining factor. p. 143
Realpolitik - Thomas Masaryk - Realism in politics consists not of a cynical disregard of principles but a scrupulous reckoning with facts, moral and material; that honesty is not only the best policy but the only safe guide in public as in private life; and the character, not astuteness or trickery, is the first requisite in a statesman. p. 165 Nationalism without humanism is harsh and destructive: humanism without nationalism is academic and barren. p. 166
Realpolitik - Hans Morganthau - Realism maintains that universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states. The national interest must be the organizing principle in a nation's foreign policy. The importance of the balance and equilibrium in international politics must be stressed. pp. 209-210 Four great evils of American foreign policy thinking: 1) Utopianism. 2) Sentimentalism. 3) Legalism. 4) Neo-isolationism. No nation could escape into a realm where action is guided by moral principles rather than by considerations of power. p. 211
Realpolitik - Lord Castlereagh - Understanding the distinction and relationship between ideology and power politics and to refuse to be swayed by ideological preferences or animosities into embracing policies which can contribute nothing to the national interest of one's country. p. 212
Realpolitik - Gottfried-Karl Kindermann - The political culture of a given nation can be measured by the degree of its awareness of the nature of power and its ability to translate this awareness into action, in a manner that provides domestic security. p. 222
Realpolitik - Henry Kissinger - The role of history should be to grasp the totality of life, not just its appearances. The test of the statesman was his ability to recognise the real relationship of forces and make this knowledge serve his ends. p.258
Anti-Realpolitik - Woodrow Wilson ideologues - Idealists suspicious that power was the key determinant in international politics. p. 278
American realpolitik - Jean Kirkpatrick The United States should generally promote the liberalization and democratization of other states. However, it should not do so in a way that destabilized those authoritarian regimes that were friendly to the United States, particularly if this meant that they fell into the hands of communists. p. 280
American realpolitik - Charles Krauthammer - The goal of American foreign policy was not just security but the success of liberty. This meant a foreign policy that was universal in aspiration but also prudent in application. p. 283 America cannot and will not live by realpolitik alone. U.S. foreign policy must be driven by something beyond power. p. 284
Realpolitik - Lord Palmerston - Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies but only permanent interests. p. 285
Realpolitik - Reinhard Niebuhr - There is serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain, though we should be humble and modest in our belief that we can eliminate those things. But that we should not use this as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. pp. 295-296
John Bew covers the actual history of the actual word: Realpolitik from the mid 1800s. However, the idea of the word in my estimation goes back to time immemorial. Basically for me, Realpolitik is the assessing of the world as it actually is not an illusion of what it is and responding accordingly that can most benefit you and the interests of the nation you represent; where human morality is served but not to a point where the attempt to serve human morality compromises the common good and success of the nation.
"Ideology is great until reality kicks you in the face." - MM
From this early understanding of realpolitik, Bew goes on to show how realpolitik has gone through different interpretations depending on the interpreter and the state or group s/he represents. Realpolitik is about power! Rochau exclaims realpolitik is about harnessing the most powerful forces within a state and achieves a balance between them. Ideas matter, not that they are noble, but how many people subscribe to said idea to make it a powerful force.
Bew's explaining of major realpolitikers and anti-realpolitikers:
Realpolitik (Machtpolitik) - Otto Von Bismarck - "Blood and iron" Uniting Germany by force of arms. Make allowances for moral factors, but unwillingly. p. 165
Realpolitik (Moderate Socialist version) - Karl Rodbertus - Social Democrats should harness themselves to the monarchy and achieve their goals by making the state dependent on their support. p. 50
Anti-realpolitik - Constantin Frantz - Duties are first to GOD, then to neighbor then to country. Realpolitik didn't care much for morals only the national interest.
Realpolitik would come to be seen as either a policy contemptuous of all ideas and ideologies or a policy exclusively employing power for the achievement of ends. p. 68
Realpolitik - Heinrich von Treitschke - Superior force swallowing up the others. p. 69 The state must live by its own imperative of preserving its existence and developing its full potential. p. 71 Noblest quality of the practical statesman was his ability to point to the signs of the times, and to realize in some measure how universal history may develop at a given moment. The statesman must resign himself to desiring only the really attainable and to keeping this aim perpetually and steadfastly in view. pp.71-72
Realpolitik - Leopold von Ranke - Emphasized an empirical treatment of primary sources and the role of the narrative. p. 73
Realpolitik - Friedrich Meinecke - Fused Staatsrason (raison d'etat) and realpolitik. Humanitarianism is a poison that must be driven out the body in order for it to function properly. p. 77 The state was not artificial or imposed, but was a product of the national will and had its roots in history. The state should be understood from within. p. 79
Anti-Realpolitik - Belief that international affairs could be placed on surer footing, with multilateralism trumping the pursuit of narrow national interests.
American realpolitik (lower case "r") - America's willingness to play a leading role in global affairs. p. 87
Anti-Realpolitik - J.A. Hobson - Nations scramble for markets and resources and their own imperialism with behavior by all states deteriorating in international interactions. p.91
Anti-Realpolitik - Liberal imperialism - The idea that the empire was a benevolent project based on broad consensus. p. 98
Anti-realpolitik - Ramsay Muir - Concert of powers striving for compromise. The establishment of small states under the general protection of Europe. The spread of international arbitration. The restriction of arms among leading states. The development of an agreed conduct in warfare. p. 102
American realpolitik - Walter Lippmann - Lippmann argued peace could be secured if the great powers agreed to a humane and stable legal and administrative framework for governing unstable areas of the world. p. 116
Realpolitik - Lloyd George - The elimination of principle and substitute expediency as the determining factor. p. 143
Realpolitik - Thomas Masaryk - Realism in politics consists not of a cynical disregard of principles but a scrupulous reckoning with facts, moral and material; that honesty is not only the best policy but the only safe guide in public as in private life; and the character, not astuteness or trickery, is the first requisite in a statesman. p. 165 Nationalism without humanism is harsh and destructive: humanism without nationalism is academic and barren. p. 166
Realpolitik - Hans Morganthau - Realism maintains that universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states. The national interest must be the organizing principle in a nation's foreign policy. The importance of the balance and equilibrium in international politics must be stressed. pp. 209-210 Four great evils of American foreign policy thinking: 1) Utopianism. 2) Sentimentalism. 3) Legalism. 4) Neo-isolationism. No nation could escape into a realm where action is guided by moral principles rather than by considerations of power. p. 211
Realpolitik - Lord Castlereagh - Understanding the distinction and relationship between ideology and power politics and to refuse to be swayed by ideological preferences or animosities into embracing policies which can contribute nothing to the national interest of one's country. p. 212
Realpolitik - Gottfried-Karl Kindermann - The political culture of a given nation can be measured by the degree of its awareness of the nature of power and its ability to translate this awareness into action, in a manner that provides domestic security. p. 222
Realpolitik - Henry Kissinger - The role of history should be to grasp the totality of life, not just its appearances. The test of the statesman was his ability to recognise the real relationship of forces and make this knowledge serve his ends. p.258
Anti-Realpolitik - Woodrow Wilson ideologues - Idealists suspicious that power was the key determinant in international politics. p. 278
American realpolitik - Jean Kirkpatrick The United States should generally promote the liberalization and democratization of other states. However, it should not do so in a way that destabilized those authoritarian regimes that were friendly to the United States, particularly if this meant that they fell into the hands of communists. p. 280
American realpolitik - Charles Krauthammer - The goal of American foreign policy was not just security but the success of liberty. This meant a foreign policy that was universal in aspiration but also prudent in application. p. 283 America cannot and will not live by realpolitik alone. U.S. foreign policy must be driven by something beyond power. p. 284
Realpolitik - Lord Palmerston - Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies but only permanent interests. p. 285
Realpolitik - Reinhard Niebuhr - There is serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain, though we should be humble and modest in our belief that we can eliminate those things. But that we should not use this as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. pp. 295-296
John Bew covers the actual history of the actual word: Realpolitik from the mid 1800s. However, the idea of the word in my estimation goes back to time immemorial. Basically for me, Realpolitik is the assessing of the world as it actually is not an illusion of what it is and responding accordingly that can most benefit you and the interests of the nation you represent; where human morality is served but not to a point where the attempt to serve human morality compromises the common good and success of the nation.
"Ideology is great until reality kicks you in the face." - MM
November 6, 2016
A history of a specific brand of political thought, making the case it is not exactly realism but rather something that dates only back to the 19th Century as a tactic for funneling one's ideals into a ruthless world. Though the author applies this to liberalism meeting realism, it could really be applied to any other state-driven ideology. Tito came to my mind as an example from another direction, but it is the evolution of thought in Germany, Britain, and America that this work is almost entirely concerned with.
June 8, 2025
“Morgenthau warned that America must avoid well intentioned folly, and focus on its national interest rather than vague liberal internationalist fantasies. At the same time, he rejected the argument that he elevated the national interest above moral or ethical considerations in statecraft… Morgenthau emphatically rejected what he called the ‘equation of political moralizing with morality and political realism with immorality.’ In fact, there was a strong ‘moral dignity’ to the national interest, not least because it demanded great caution in the exercise of power. Once again, the idea of restraint remained the distinguishing characteristic of American realism.”
—John Bew, Realpolitik
Bew’s scholarly approach to realpolitik is evident throughout his work, which proceeds from the mid-19th century to the present in often painstaking levels of detail. Broad generalizations are not to be found here, as Bew traces the sources, variants, transmittals, and abuses of realpolitik, which under his treatment emerges less as a singular school of formal thought and more as a cautious, historically-informed method of analysis within the tortured practice of foreign policy.
—John Bew, Realpolitik
Bew’s scholarly approach to realpolitik is evident throughout his work, which proceeds from the mid-19th century to the present in often painstaking levels of detail. Broad generalizations are not to be found here, as Bew traces the sources, variants, transmittals, and abuses of realpolitik, which under his treatment emerges less as a singular school of formal thought and more as a cautious, historically-informed method of analysis within the tortured practice of foreign policy.
July 24, 2016
Realpolitik: A History is a book that I learned about while listening to a podcast in which the author was being interviewed about his work. Below is a link to a similar video:
https://youtu.be/gNWPLUyg2zU
To start off, I really enjoy word etymology and furthermore I really enjoy learning about international affairs, so picking up this particular book was a no-brainer. However, I did not quite know that the book would be so enjoyable. I simply thought that I would acquire some insight into the origins of the word 'Realpolitik' and maybe trace its use through history.
Realpolitik is a word that most of us have at least heard of, but did not really understand what it is, muchless what it isn't. For those who are students of political affairs, realpolitik conjures up images of stern-faced, unfeeling diplomats overlooking a map and pointing out where their interests lie. Such diplomats have no inclination towards sentiment or feel-good initiatives only cold realist interests. As the mantra of nineteenth-century British foreign policy, made famous by Lord Palmerston says, nations have “no permanent friends and no permanent enemies but only permanent interests.”
This is what I expected to find as the long-lost meaning of realpolitik. However, I came to find that the answer was much more nuanced. As the book indicates, "Realpolitik has existed for just over a century and a half. It was created by the German journalist and liberal activist, August Ludwig von Rochau, in his 1853 treatise Foundations of Realpolitik." Rochau's original concept of realpolitik, as expected, has been misinterpreted and bastardized for political experiency throughout the intervening years to fit the needs of many politicians and diplomats. For the most part, their interpretation of realpolitik was that of cold, heartless national interests, doing only that which advances your own purposes, ignoring moral concerns, and doing whatever it takes to get ahead. Some of the results of such shrewd diplomacy are: world-wide colonization efforts, the shaky foundations of the middle east, two world wars, a cold war, and arguably modern terrorism.
I enjoyed the simple scope of the book as well as the depth to which it explored the subject. The book greatly increased my academic understanding of how the use (and misuse) of realpolitik can have tremendous impacts. I must admit that I came to the book with the appreciation of what I had understood realpolitik to be. Before reading the first page I felt that realpolitik was a 'mature', 'clear-eyed', or 'adult' approach to international relations. I firmly believed in the addage that "countries don't have friends, they have interests."
Having read this book, I understand now that I had previously ascribed to a one-dimensional understanding of realpolitik. Politicians and diplomats - in order to have a balanced foreign policy - also need to consider the moral elements of their decisions. Jeane Kirkpatrick, then a professor at Georgetown, declared that a “realistic foreign policy that pursues ‘national interest’ without regard to morality, ultimately founders on its lack of realism about the irreducible human concern with morality.”
An element of the book that I enjoyed is that the author points out several fundamental thinkers and books that students of realpolitik should read for greater insight. I jotted the titles down and added them to my ever-growing pile of 'to read' books.
At any rate, I fully appreciate the fact that this book is not for everyone. However, those who are interested in foreign policy/diplomacy should definitely consider picking it up to expand their knowledge of realpolitik. In the last chapter of the book ,the author outlines six points that should be considered in the employment of realpolitik:
1. Real Realpolitik, as articulated by Ludwig von Rochau, offers a simple but sensible formula for approaching most foreign policy dilemmas
2. Real Realpolitik is an enemy of “habitual self-delusions” and “naively accepted catchwords” from wherever they come
3. Foundations of Realpolitik helps us understand political possibility in the age of modernity
4. Foundations of Realpolitik emphasizes the importance of ideas and idealism as forces of change and transformation
5. Foundations of Realpolitik (Rochau's book) asks us to consider power, ideas, economics, and society at the same time, and to identify the junctures and connections between them
6. Real Realpolitik is ecumenical in the tools it chooses for political analysis and is suspicious of those methods of analysis that claim to offer a science of politics, or to be innately superior to others
One final thought: “when policy becomes excessively moralistic it may turn quixotic or dangerous.” The policymaker, he had concluded, “must strike a balance between what is desirable and what is possible.”
https://youtu.be/gNWPLUyg2zU
To start off, I really enjoy word etymology and furthermore I really enjoy learning about international affairs, so picking up this particular book was a no-brainer. However, I did not quite know that the book would be so enjoyable. I simply thought that I would acquire some insight into the origins of the word 'Realpolitik' and maybe trace its use through history.
Realpolitik is a word that most of us have at least heard of, but did not really understand what it is, muchless what it isn't. For those who are students of political affairs, realpolitik conjures up images of stern-faced, unfeeling diplomats overlooking a map and pointing out where their interests lie. Such diplomats have no inclination towards sentiment or feel-good initiatives only cold realist interests. As the mantra of nineteenth-century British foreign policy, made famous by Lord Palmerston says, nations have “no permanent friends and no permanent enemies but only permanent interests.”
This is what I expected to find as the long-lost meaning of realpolitik. However, I came to find that the answer was much more nuanced. As the book indicates, "Realpolitik has existed for just over a century and a half. It was created by the German journalist and liberal activist, August Ludwig von Rochau, in his 1853 treatise Foundations of Realpolitik." Rochau's original concept of realpolitik, as expected, has been misinterpreted and bastardized for political experiency throughout the intervening years to fit the needs of many politicians and diplomats. For the most part, their interpretation of realpolitik was that of cold, heartless national interests, doing only that which advances your own purposes, ignoring moral concerns, and doing whatever it takes to get ahead. Some of the results of such shrewd diplomacy are: world-wide colonization efforts, the shaky foundations of the middle east, two world wars, a cold war, and arguably modern terrorism.
I enjoyed the simple scope of the book as well as the depth to which it explored the subject. The book greatly increased my academic understanding of how the use (and misuse) of realpolitik can have tremendous impacts. I must admit that I came to the book with the appreciation of what I had understood realpolitik to be. Before reading the first page I felt that realpolitik was a 'mature', 'clear-eyed', or 'adult' approach to international relations. I firmly believed in the addage that "countries don't have friends, they have interests."
Having read this book, I understand now that I had previously ascribed to a one-dimensional understanding of realpolitik. Politicians and diplomats - in order to have a balanced foreign policy - also need to consider the moral elements of their decisions. Jeane Kirkpatrick, then a professor at Georgetown, declared that a “realistic foreign policy that pursues ‘national interest’ without regard to morality, ultimately founders on its lack of realism about the irreducible human concern with morality.”
An element of the book that I enjoyed is that the author points out several fundamental thinkers and books that students of realpolitik should read for greater insight. I jotted the titles down and added them to my ever-growing pile of 'to read' books.
At any rate, I fully appreciate the fact that this book is not for everyone. However, those who are interested in foreign policy/diplomacy should definitely consider picking it up to expand their knowledge of realpolitik. In the last chapter of the book ,the author outlines six points that should be considered in the employment of realpolitik:
1. Real Realpolitik, as articulated by Ludwig von Rochau, offers a simple but sensible formula for approaching most foreign policy dilemmas
2. Real Realpolitik is an enemy of “habitual self-delusions” and “naively accepted catchwords” from wherever they come
3. Foundations of Realpolitik helps us understand political possibility in the age of modernity
4. Foundations of Realpolitik emphasizes the importance of ideas and idealism as forces of change and transformation
5. Foundations of Realpolitik (Rochau's book) asks us to consider power, ideas, economics, and society at the same time, and to identify the junctures and connections between them
6. Real Realpolitik is ecumenical in the tools it chooses for political analysis and is suspicious of those methods of analysis that claim to offer a science of politics, or to be innately superior to others
One final thought: “when policy becomes excessively moralistic it may turn quixotic or dangerous.” The policymaker, he had concluded, “must strike a balance between what is desirable and what is possible.”
January 29, 2020
Flows like an amazing lecture!
November 25, 2024
Starting at the birth of term 'Realpolitik', in mid C19 Germany after the failure to establish a liberal government in Frankfurt, due to a tendency towards idealism, rather than dealing with the real political situation, by Ludwig Rochau, Bew takes us on a whistle stop tour of the terms use through to the present day (well ~2007). The nuance of the term, with it's method of assessing the current political climate, and blending it with your ideals, is quickly lost, as is becomes used instead to just denote a crude form of power politics, in the hands of people like Trietshke, the godfather of nazism. After a period of study of Bismark, his rejection of the term, despite being deeply associated with it, and his downfall to the Kaizer, the stage is set for WW1 and the rise of the USA on the world stage.
What follows is dense with people and ideas, as the book describes the forging of the USA's foreign policy. It's swings between idealist forms, Harold Wilson's Wilsonism and it's support for the League of Nations, and it's realist, or realpolitik periods, by people like Nixon and Reagan. Obviously, there's a lot of detail in there! It's at turns fascinating, informative, yet bewildering and confusing. Terms morph and change over time, and there are so many people wading in on the topic, makes your head spin. People with better grounding in the discussion will have a better time, but when it's 90% new, it's tough going at times.
Bew ends with a call to a return to the real 'realpolitik' in the modern world. A development of policy that appreciates the history of a place, the powers at play, and the room to manoeuvre in. Something considered, thoughtful, and realistic. Yet, not afraid to have an idealist core, to strive for something greater than just the next move being to maxims your advantage.
This sounds very appealing to me, however applying realpolitik to that idea itself, to do so as a country, you need an educated, engaged, populace. People need to understand and appreciate the ideal goal, but also be able to understand the nuance when we can't go directly towards it. Maybe Bew had the same thought, so he wrote a book about it to help bring that about.
What follows is dense with people and ideas, as the book describes the forging of the USA's foreign policy. It's swings between idealist forms, Harold Wilson's Wilsonism and it's support for the League of Nations, and it's realist, or realpolitik periods, by people like Nixon and Reagan. Obviously, there's a lot of detail in there! It's at turns fascinating, informative, yet bewildering and confusing. Terms morph and change over time, and there are so many people wading in on the topic, makes your head spin. People with better grounding in the discussion will have a better time, but when it's 90% new, it's tough going at times.
Bew ends with a call to a return to the real 'realpolitik' in the modern world. A development of policy that appreciates the history of a place, the powers at play, and the room to manoeuvre in. Something considered, thoughtful, and realistic. Yet, not afraid to have an idealist core, to strive for something greater than just the next move being to maxims your advantage.
This sounds very appealing to me, however applying realpolitik to that idea itself, to do so as a country, you need an educated, engaged, populace. People need to understand and appreciate the ideal goal, but also be able to understand the nuance when we can't go directly towards it. Maybe Bew had the same thought, so he wrote a book about it to help bring that about.
December 16, 2021
Realpolitik is a solid history of an elusive concept. John bew provides a history of the term, how it was applied as a tool to conceive of various political and cultural power structures, and its uneasy relationship with idealism. He goes into great detail in how the concept was conceived and abused within central Europe, and how it was applied in the Anglopshere. Bew is strong writer, who does his best to unpack political theory, discuss notable practitioners, and discuss the limits of realpolitik itself. The term has taken on negative connotations, often associated with ruthlessness and Machiavellianism, but Bew stresses that realpolitik is a fusion of knowing what is realistic and what is moral and crafting policy around these elements. This title loses a star because it gets bogged down in conflicts between academic figures, removing realpolitik from the political sphere in which it's practiced.
October 1, 2024
This was truly a great book to read.
Realpolitik is often talked about in my classes on International Relations. However, it was one that I had never really thought to expand my knowledge of. Bew's book does that in a way that appeals not just to my History-loving heart, but also goes into the nitty gritty of some of the biggest names in Realpolitik of the 20th Century, from Morgenthau to Kissinger. Overall a history, and a study of Realpolitik in action, Bew's work is a must-read for anyone wanting to expand their view of International Relations theory and Political History as well.
Realpolitik is often talked about in my classes on International Relations. However, it was one that I had never really thought to expand my knowledge of. Bew's book does that in a way that appeals not just to my History-loving heart, but also goes into the nitty gritty of some of the biggest names in Realpolitik of the 20th Century, from Morgenthau to Kissinger. Overall a history, and a study of Realpolitik in action, Bew's work is a must-read for anyone wanting to expand their view of International Relations theory and Political History as well.
November 14, 2016
John Bew writes some very interesting articles on world affairs for the New Statesman, but this book is rather on the dry side and it is quite unlike his articles. Also, it is not so much about the uses of Realpolitik in the real world, but rather about the ideas of various moderate conservatives or ultra-moderate liberals in the recent past. A worthy subject perhaps, but not quite what I was expecting when I picked this up
June 2, 2024
Read this over a few car journeys a couple of summers ago. John Bew’s book is extremely insightful on its topic, and although I may look back on it with a rosy hue (at the time I read it I was obsessed with international relations and political thought) I still believe it’s a great handbook to anyone looking to understand the interaction between ideology and policy and it’s international implications. Bew is fairly accessible, and imo is concise too on what is a complex subject area.
February 1, 2024
Excellent book, a lot of information for the layman on the subject of geopolitics and realpolitik, how the term evolved, and how it was applied through the ages. Some of the discussion is quite advanced and it is now a privilege to be able to analyze in detail some of the decisions of world politics and how they came about.
February 27, 2021
A grand tour of realpolitik. It’s origins and evolution.
Offers an argument for a more nuanced approach to foreign policy.
Offers an argument for a more nuanced approach to foreign policy.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 8, 2020
Realpolitik: A History by John Bew is a study of one of the most misused words in the discussion of international relations. Bew is Reader in History and Foreign Policy at the War Studies Department at King's College London and Director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence. In 2013 he became the Henry A. Kissinger Chair in Foreign Policy and International Relations at the Library of Congress.
The word realpolitik usually brings a host of terms to mind. The mind registers unilateral retaliation, Reagan, carpet bombing of South East Asia, nuclear deterrent, and perhaps a single man more than anyone else -- Henry Kissinger. The problem is all these examples are wrong. Most reflect realism and not realpolitik. Kissinger said many times he was not Realpolitik, but as a realist with a German accent how could he be anything else. Reagan was not realpolitik either; he was a hard line romantic.
Realpolitik formed from the failed revolutions throughout 1848 Europe. It is tied in with nationalism and acting in a manner that is within the realm of the practical. Internally, realpolitik united the people under nationalism creating a system that distracted people from creating disorder that the 1848 revolutions brought to Europe. Bismark is often credited as an early supporter of the policy. His goal was to keep the state strong, but at the same time giving some ground to liberal or socialist policies to prevent a bottom-up type rebellion. By the late nineteenth century, realpolitik had lost its original meaning and had drifted to mean a more brutal power politics.
Bew gives the reader a complete history of realpolitik from its modern creator Ludwig von Rochau to perhaps one of America’s greatest international relations thinker Hans Morgenthau and post-WWII foreign policy. Also examined are swings in American policy from realpolitik to anti-realpolitik. Carter and Clinton would be the best known anti-realpolitik turning to moral guidelines in foreign policy. Perhaps the closest modern realpolitik president was George H. W. Bush who used power and alliance for limited practical goals. However, he was criticized for that. The freeing of Kuwait was the immediate and formal goal. Remove the threat, punish the enemy militarily and economically, but do not leave a vacuum of power. The mission was successful. It had realistic goals and was not distracted by non-reachable idealism. Two decades later the plan was to remove the Iraqi leader, disband the military, and be welcomed as arriving heroes bringing peace and democracy. This was not successful. There was no clear threat, it created a power vacuum that as of yet not been filled, and it was deeply set in unrealistic idealism.
Realpolitik is a comprehensive look at a mid-nineteenth century theory that has been interpreted and reinterpreted through the last one hundred and fifty years. Like many terms and ideas, it has changed from its original intent and has even developed regional meanings. It is a catch phrase, in America, that has come to mean power politics without a moral compass. It opposes idealism and the liberal theory. But, what realpolitik is and the role it plays in today’s society are two very different things.
The word realpolitik usually brings a host of terms to mind. The mind registers unilateral retaliation, Reagan, carpet bombing of South East Asia, nuclear deterrent, and perhaps a single man more than anyone else -- Henry Kissinger. The problem is all these examples are wrong. Most reflect realism and not realpolitik. Kissinger said many times he was not Realpolitik, but as a realist with a German accent how could he be anything else. Reagan was not realpolitik either; he was a hard line romantic.
Realpolitik formed from the failed revolutions throughout 1848 Europe. It is tied in with nationalism and acting in a manner that is within the realm of the practical. Internally, realpolitik united the people under nationalism creating a system that distracted people from creating disorder that the 1848 revolutions brought to Europe. Bismark is often credited as an early supporter of the policy. His goal was to keep the state strong, but at the same time giving some ground to liberal or socialist policies to prevent a bottom-up type rebellion. By the late nineteenth century, realpolitik had lost its original meaning and had drifted to mean a more brutal power politics.
Bew gives the reader a complete history of realpolitik from its modern creator Ludwig von Rochau to perhaps one of America’s greatest international relations thinker Hans Morgenthau and post-WWII foreign policy. Also examined are swings in American policy from realpolitik to anti-realpolitik. Carter and Clinton would be the best known anti-realpolitik turning to moral guidelines in foreign policy. Perhaps the closest modern realpolitik president was George H. W. Bush who used power and alliance for limited practical goals. However, he was criticized for that. The freeing of Kuwait was the immediate and formal goal. Remove the threat, punish the enemy militarily and economically, but do not leave a vacuum of power. The mission was successful. It had realistic goals and was not distracted by non-reachable idealism. Two decades later the plan was to remove the Iraqi leader, disband the military, and be welcomed as arriving heroes bringing peace and democracy. This was not successful. There was no clear threat, it created a power vacuum that as of yet not been filled, and it was deeply set in unrealistic idealism.
Realpolitik is a comprehensive look at a mid-nineteenth century theory that has been interpreted and reinterpreted through the last one hundred and fifty years. Like many terms and ideas, it has changed from its original intent and has even developed regional meanings. It is a catch phrase, in America, that has come to mean power politics without a moral compass. It opposes idealism and the liberal theory. But, what realpolitik is and the role it plays in today’s society are two very different things.
Want to read
February 1, 2016Reviewed by Open Letters Monthly
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews