TheGaggle
Politics • Culture • News
Our community is made up of those who value the freedom of speech, the right to debate and the promise of open, honest conversations.

We don't agree on everything but we never silence our followers and value every opinion on our channel.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
December 07, 2024
The Gaggle Book Club

After having given the matter some thought, we are finally launching The Gaggle Book Club. Every week, we will recommend a book for Gagglers to read and—most important—we will upload a pdf version of it.

One need hardly add that we do not vouch for the reliability or accuracy of any book we recommend. Still less, do we necessarily agree with a recommended book's central arguments. However, any book we recommend will be one of undoubted interest and intellectual importance.

To kick off The Gaggle Book Club, we recommend E.H. Carr’s "The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations." Published in 1939, Carr’s work is a pithy, often sarcastic, critique of the interwar period’s idealistic approach to international diplomacy.

Carr was the founder of the modern “realist” school within the theory of international relations. He anticipated by several decades many of John Mearsheimer’s insights. Carr detested what he labeled “utopian” or “idealist” approaches to international relations. These approaches, fervently promoted by the liberals of that era, found expression in post-World War I projects such as the League of Nations or the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact to outlaw war.

Carr argued that idealism, with its emphasis on morality, international law and mutual cooperation among states, ignored the realities of power politics.
He took particular issue with the notion that collective security agreements or disarmament treaties could prevent war. International politics, according to him, was a competitive and anarchic blood-sport. He would have ridiculed any suggestion that there existed something called a “rules-based international order,” and would have taken delight in pointing out the dishonesty and hypocrisy of policymakers who would make such a suggestion.

Carr contrasted idealism with “realism,” an approach to international relations that emphasizes power and self-interest as the forces that drive the behavior of states. As he saw it, morality plays only a very minor role in how states comport themselves toward one another.

Written on the eve of World War II, Carr’s book takes many well-deserved potshots at the League of Nations. However, the League of Nations was low-hanging fruit. Most interesting was Carr’s defense of the policy of appeasement that successive British governments, particularly that of Neville Chamberlain, had pursued toward Nazi Germany in the years leading up to World War II.

Carr argued that an effective foreign policy must acknowledge the interests of all major powers, including those of revisionist states such as Nazi Germany. He believed that the Versailles Treaty had imposed unjust and unsustainable conditions on Germany, and had thus contributed to the rise of the Nazi movement. The book was published before the outbreak of World War II, and was thus written in the shadow of the 1938 Munich agreement, which had apparently successfully staved off war among the Great Powers.

During the Cold War, Carr came under frequent attack for his supposed lifelong habit of taking the side of powerful actors while dismissing the grievances of the weak and victimized. In other words, he supposedly loved winners and despised losers. For example, his mammoth history of the early years of the Soviet Union was very sympathetic to the Bolsheviks—who had prevailed over their enemies—and at the same time unconcerned about the plight of the victims of the Bolsheviks who had fallen by the wayside.

As the West became more and more obsessed with “Munich” and “appeasement,” seeing in every nationalist, anti-Western leader the traits of Hitler, and in every cautious Western politician the traits of Neville Chamberlain, Carr’s reputation went into decline.

However, "The Twenty Years’ Crisis" is today considered one of the seminal texts of realism, a dominant school in International Relations theory that focuses on power, national interest, and the inevitability of conflict.

E._H._Carr_-_The_Twenty_Years__Crisis,_1919-1939__An_Introduction_to_the_Study_of_International_Relations__-MacMillan_and_Co._Ltd._(1946).pdf
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
TG 2090: The U.S.-Israel War On Iran Day 21: Trump Happily Settles Into Junior Partner Role

George Szamuely and Peter Lavelle discuss President Trump's increasingly forlorn attempts to demonstrate some measure of independence from Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, the real leader of Operation Epic Fury.

00:57:16
TG 2091: Tulsi Gabbard--A National Political Embarrassmant

George Szamuely and Peter Lavelle discuss the continuing descent into laughable irrelevance of ODNI Tulsi Gabbard, as well as the increasingly vicious attacks on Joe Kent, the one member of the Trump administration with some principles.

01:14:41
TG 2089: A Contrast In Integrity: Joe Kent Quits, Tulsi Gabbard Stays On

George Szamuely and Peter Lavelle discuss the contrast between the principled resignation in protest from the Trump administration of Joe Kent and the careerist, opportunist determination to stay on of his former boss, ODNI head Tulsi Gabbard.

01:16:17
Monday Night At The Movies

Please choose which one of the following 8 movies you would like to have screened next Monday, March 23.

The theme is "Diplomats, Negotiators and Emissaries."

Please continue to vote after March 23, so that we can determine the runner-up. The runner-up will be screened on March 30.

18 hours ago
March 20, 2026

Criticism rained down on Viktor Orbán at Thursday’s summit of EU leaders, where he dug in on his opposition to the €90 billion loan for Ukraine. He seemed to love every minute of it.

"I have never heard such harsh criticism before," said Sweden’s Ulf Kristersson as he left the meeting. Orbán has said he won’t lift his veto until Russian oil deliveries resume through the Druzhba pipeline, which passes through Ukraine to Hungary.

“There is no plan B,” insisted Emmanuel Macron. Friedrich Merz escalated things in his farewell press conference, suggesting at close to midnight that Orbán’s intransigence could spell trouble for Hungary in upcoming EU budget talks.

Meanwhile, at his press conference, Council President António Costa launched an uncharacteristically harsh public rebuke of Orbán, accusing him of blackmailing the EU institutions and making demands that other EU leaders are simply unable to meet. It was “completely unacceptable” Costa said.

For now, though, the ...

January 21, 2023
More Leftie Than Thou
"Jacobin" Magazine Celebrates A Strike Against Ol' Blue Eyes

Here at "The Gaggle" we have very little time for the "more Leftie than thou" school of thought--that's the approach to life according to which the only thing that matters is whether you take the right position on every issue under the sun from Abortion to Zelensky. No one in the world meets the exacting standards of this school of thought; any Leftie leader anywhere is always selling out to the bankers and the capitalists. The perfect exemplar of this is the unreadable Jacobin magazine. 

The other day I came across this article from 2021. It's a celebration of trade union power. And not simply trade union power, but the use of trade union power to secure political goals. Of course (and this is always the case with the "more Leftie than thou" crowd), this glorious, never-to-be-forgotten moment on the history of organized labor took place many years ago--in the summer of 1974 to be exact. Yes, almost half a century has gone by since that thrilling moment when the working-class movement of Australia mobilized and prepared to seize the means of production, distribution and exchange. 

Well, not quite. Organized labor went into action against...Ol' Blue Eyes, the Chairman of the Board, the Voice; yes, Frank Sinatra. Why? What had Sinatra done? Sinatra was certainly very rich, and he owned a variety of properties and businesses. But if the Australian trade union movement were, understandably, searching for the bright, incandescent spark that would finally awaken the working class from its slumber there were surely richer, greedier, more dishonest, more decadent, above all more Australian individuals it could have discovered. Australia was never short of them. Rupert Murdoch immediately springs to mind. Why Sinatra?

 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals