History and Diplomacy as Viewed by a Historian

Diplomacy has changed so greatly since the beginning of the twentieth century that the diplomatic historian is driven to wonder whether his subject has any relevance to the contemporary world.* Then and now—let us set them against each other. Then Europe was the center of diplomatic action; now the diplomat's mind must compass the globe. Then he need take account of a few powers, all with settled traditions of policy. Now he must try to estimate the direction of policy in states with no settled traditions, like Indonesia, while even in older states like Italy and Germany tradition is not a safe guide. Then the diplomat was, for the most part, concerned with narrowly political subjects; now he must study and report on many and diverse subjects. Then information was easy to come by; now, over much of the earth's surface, heroic efforts are made to conceal essential facts and figures. Then there was intimacy and confidence within the group concerned with diplomacy in any country; now discussion is carefully kept within the scope of the lowest security clearance in the room. Then diplomacy was a leisurely business—Bismarck buried in the country for months on end, Salisbury deep in chemical experiments at Hatfield House, Grey feeding his beloved ducks. Today incessant activity is the mark of the statesman. “I spent 350 of my 562 days as Secretary of State at international conferences,” boasts Governor Byrnes. Secretary Dulles' air mileage over the last three years surely exceeds that of any traveling salesman

Diplomacy · Diplomatic history · Economic history · Foreign policy · Globe · International relations · Political science · Politics · Relevance (law · State (computer science · Subject (documents · Wonder · Balkan and Eastern European Studies · History · Law · Philosophy