Layne - Fall 2012 - Bush School of Government and Public Service

NTA 623
Grand Strategy Seminar
Fall 2012
Professor Christopher Layne
TENTATIVE SYLLABUS
NOTICE: This syllabus is not a legal contract between the Instructor and the students and is
not to be construed as such. The Instructor retains the right to make such changes in this
syllabus as he, in his sole discretion, deems necessary in the best interest of the class. If
changes in the syllabus are necessitated, the Instructor shall make every reasonable effort to
give the students due and reasonable notice thereof.
Email:
chrislayne@aol.com (Preferred)
clayne@bushschool.tamu.edu
Office Hours: By Appointment
Course Objectives:
SYLLABUS
This course will use both international relations theory and historical case studies to answer the
following questions. What are the origins of great powers’ grand strategies? Are they to be
found in the structure of the international system, internally (economic strength, the nature of the
state’s political system, “bureaucratic politics,” ideology, the capacity of state institutions), or
some combination thereof? How does the international system’s polarity affect a state’s grand
strategic options? When and why do states enter into alliances? When do great powers act
offensively? When do the act defensively? Why and when do great powers seek hegemony?
Why and when do great powers balance? Why and when to they buck-pass? How does
geography affect great powers’ grand strategies (land power vs. sea power). How does
technology affect grand strategy? Why causes great powers to overexpand and become
overstretched?
This semester’s course is a hybrid combining the essence of Grand Strategy as I have taught it in
previous semester’s with research on the ongoing shift in international politics caused by the
relative decline of the United States and the rise of new power centers in the international system
especially China. When combined with the core knowledge of grand strategy that you should
get from this course, the research you undertake on the shifting power dynamics of the
international system in the early 21 st century should equip you to assess the likely grand strategic
trajectories of both the United States and China.
Course Format:
1

This is a seminar, not a lecture class. The seminar format is the standard one for graduate
instruction in top U.S. universities. A seminar means that the students need to take a good deal of
the ownership of the class, and show initiative in the discussions. In a seminar, the instructor does
minimal, if any, lecturing, and stands on a more or less equal footing with the students during
discussion. The exchange of ideas through discussion is how knowledge is gained. A seminar,
however, requires commitment from the students. For this course to work, you must do the
readings, and - at equally important - think hard about the issues raised therein. Attendance, and
participation in the class discussions, is the key to making a seminar work. Therefore, although
roll will not be taken formally, it is important that you attend all scheduled class sessions.
To help focus class discussion, each student is required to submit by email to the instructor, and the
discussion leaders, by 9pm the night before class meets, one or two questions, observations, or
particularly interesting responses to the readings.
Requirements:
The grade will be based on three components: (1) Presentation of a draft paper for seminar
discussion; (2) Final term paper (on the same topic as presented for seminar discussion); and (3)
the assigned research tasks your teams produce on the shifting power dynamics of the early 21sst
century international political system. There will be no final examination.
Course Requirements/Grading:
Final Research Paper: 50% of course grade. Due Date: 7 December 2012. Papers (hard copies
only) are due in my box in the Faculty Workroom by 5pm. Papers submitted by fax or email will
not be accepted.
Papers will be an historical case studies that also incorporates the theoretical material covered the
course. Specific topics will be determined by the instructor in consultation with each student.
To the extent possible, I will try to match each student with a topic of interest to them.
By 10 September, you are required to submit to me a short (2-4) page paper proposal. This
should set out your hypotheses, data, methodology, and a short bibliography. Submit hard copy
only by 5pm, 21 September in my mailbox in the Faculty Mail Room.
Final papers are to be a maximum of 25 pages (double-spaced), exclusive of endnotes and
bibliography. Papers must be in a scholarly format, with an introduction, thesis statement, main
body, and conclusions. This is a research paper, which means you must use materials outside of
the assigned readings to enrich your argument and analysis. To avoid the dangers of plagiarism,
your sources must be properly cited. I prefer that you use the Chicago Manual citation style.
Papers will be graded on the basis of: quality of critical analysis; creativity; clarity; research effort;
and Your ability to combine theory with historical evidence..
For an excellent discussion of what makes a good research paper - and useful tips on how to write
2

one - I strongly suggest that you read Stephen Van Evera, A Guide to Methods for Students of
Political Science (Cornell University Press, 1997), pp. 89-95, 97-109, 123-128.
NOTE: It is not acceptable to hand in the same assignment for more than one course.
Translation: you cannot “recycle” work you have done for other courses for this class.
Draft Paper and Presentation: 10% of course grade.
Special Research Team Projects on the Shifting Balance of Global Power in the Early 21 st Century:
40% of course grade. These grades will be assigned on a team basis.
The 22, 29 October and 5 November class meetings will be set aside [tentatively] for
presentations of draft papers. Each student will make an oral presentation in class based upon a
draft of your research paper. The oral presentations will serve as one of the bases for class
discussion during these weeks. The draft paper should be reasonably polished, and should not
exceed 15 pages in length. The class discussion and critique of draft papers should provide
feedback and suggestions to incorporate into your final paper. The final paper, therefore, should
show significant revision from the draft paper, based on comments from the instructor and from
your peers - as well as your own evolved thinking about your topic.
Draft papers should be circulated by email to the instructor and to all class members no
later than 48 hours prior to their scheduled presentation in class.
Discussion Leadership: Discussion leadership is a course requirement but will not be graded.
There are two components to discussion leadership: (1) Leading the class discussion of the
assigned weekly readings; and (2) serving as discussant/commentator on a draft paper
presentation.
All students will be responsible for leading at least one class discussion. Depending on
enrollment, students may be called upon to lead more than one discussion.
Discussion leaders are responsible for discussing the assigned readings for the class session,
raising questions for class discussion, and preparing a Power Point presentation that identifies the
key themes of the readings and sets out a number of discussion questions. Discussion leaders are
to go beyond providing a mere summary of the reading (because all students are required to do the
assigned readings). The function of discussion leaders in not to regurgitate the assigned readings,
but rather to engage the material, highlight the main points, and get the class involved in debating
and discussing the material. You should also feel free to bring up what you think is wrong, or
missing, from the arguments made in the readings under discussion. Discussion leaders will be
evaluated on the basis of the substance and style of the presentation, as well as on the quality of the
Power Point presentation and discussion questions. The instructor will be looking especially for
evidence that you have carefully read and thought about the assigned readings. Your
presentations are expected to cover the main points, issues, and arguments that arise from the
readings. Discussion leaders should situate the readings theoretically, critique them, dissect the
causal logics of the arguments, and consider their policy implications.
3

In addition to leading discussions based on assigned readings, each of will be required to comment
upon, and critique, the draft paper of one of your classmates following the oral presentation
thereof. In academic conferences it is standard procedure to have a discussant critique the papers
of the panelists. That is the model here. A good discussant clearly highlights BOTH the
strengths and weaknesses of the paper in terms of its argument, evidence, and writing. The
purpose of the discussant’s comments is to help the author during the revision process.
Late Assignments:
*Failure to turn-in an assignment on time will result in an automatic lowering of the grade
for that assignment by one full letter grade for each 24 hour period between the due date
and the date the assignment is turned in. Example: a one date late A assignment would
become a B. This policy will apply to all late assignments unless there is documented good
cause for failure to submit an assignment on time.
*To obtain credit for this class, all course requirements must be fulfilled. Failure to
complete all course assignments will result in a grade of F.
Procedure for Appealing Grades:
If you are believe a grade does not fully reflect the quality of your work and you wish to appeal the
grade, you must submit to me a written statement -
not exceeding 2 pages in length - setting forth with
specificity the reasons you believe that your grade
should be revised. After reviewing your written
statement, I will make an appointment to discuss the
matter with you. After we meet, I will make a
decision on your appeal.
Academic Integrity:
The Bush School is committed to the development of principled leaders for public service. The
commitment to "principled leadership" is a further expansion of the Texas A&M student honor
code that states: “An Aggie will not lie, cheat or steal nor tolerate those who do.” Each student
in this course must comply with this code in all work submitted for a grade and will be held
accountable accordingly. Anyone who is not prepared to adhere to this standard should
immediately withdraw from this course.
Specific attention is directed to the requirement to avoid plagiarism, or the appearance of
plagiarism through sloppy citation. As commonly defined, plagiarism consists of passing off as
one's own ideas, words, writings, etc, that which belong to another. In accordance with this
definition, you are committing plagiarism if you copy the work of another person and turn it in as
your own, even if you have the permission of that person. It does not matter from where the
material is borrowed --a book, an article, material off the web, another student's paper– all
constitute plagiarism unless the source of the work is fully identified and credited. It is important
4

when using a phrase, a distinct idea, concept, a sentence, or sentences from another source to credit
explicitly that source either in the text, a footnote or endnote. Plagiarism is a violation of
academic and personal integrity and carries extremely serious consequences. Scholastic
dishonesty (including cheating, multiple submission of your work for grades in different courses
and plagiarism) will not be tolerated and will be punished. Further information can be found at
http://www.tamu.edu/aggiehonor/acadmisconduct.htm
Suspected instances of academic misconduct will be referred to the University Honor Committee.
Americans with Disability Act:
The Americans with Disability Act (ADA) is a federal anti-discrimination statute that provides
comprehensive civil rights protection for persons with disabilities. Among other things, this
legislation requires that all students with disabilities be guaranteed a learning environment that
provides for reasonable accommodation of their disabilities. If you believe you have a disability
requiring accommodation, please advise the instructor promptly.
Laptops:
Laptop computers may used in the classroom. However, they may be used for class-related
purposes only. If you use a laptop in class I will assume that you have, pursuant to the Aggie
Honor Code, given me your word that you are using it for class-related purposes.
Make-Up Classes:
Should it become necessary to schedule a make-up class, I will consult with the class to find the
most convenient time for the majority of the students.
Attendance at make-up sessions is not mandatory, and because there is no final examination in this
class, students unable to attend a make-up session (or sessions) will not be disadvantaged with
respect to grading because of inability to attend. However, if it is necessary to schedule make-up
sessions I hope you will be interested enough in the subject matter of this course to attend.
Reading Assignments:
The reading list for this course contains both required and suggested readings. The required
readings are divided into two categories. First, there are readings that will be read by the entire
class. It is mandatory that you read these, and be prepared to discuss them in class. Second,
there are is a “menu” of further readings from which students will be required to read some - but
not all - of the materials in this category. My goal here is to reduce the overall reading burden on
each of you. Although this could change depending on the enrollment in the course, my plan is to
allow each student to choose which of the materials in this category they will read. However, I
am going to ask that you each coordinate among yourselves to ensure that each of the readings in
the “menu” category is read by at least one member of the class, and to inform me prior to each
class meeting which of you has read which of the readings for the week that are in this category.
5

Students are not required to read the suggested readings, and will not be held accountable for
them. They are included for informational purposes only in the event you wish to pursue a
particular topic in greater depth than is covered in the assigned readings. The suggested
readings may also help in the preparation of your research papers.
NOTE: Additional required readings may be added to - or deleted from - the syllabus as the course
progresses. I will give advance notice, both in class and by email, of any readings added
to/deleted from the syllabus.
BOOKS
(Recommended, but not required, for purchase)
Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow, The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile
Crisis (Longman, 2d. Ed., 1999).
Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery (Humanity Books, 2006).
Paul Kennedy, The Rise of the Anglo-German Antagonism (Humanity Books, 1988)
Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict
from 1500 to 2000 (Vintage Books, 1989).
Beatrice Heuser, The Evolution of Strategy: Thinking War from Antiquity to the Present
(Cambridge University Press, 2010).
Williamson Murray, Macgregor Knox, Alvin Bernstein, eds., The Making of Strategy: Rulers,
States, and Wars (Cambridge University Press, 1996).
Williamson Murray, Richard Hart Simmreich, and James Lacey, eds., The Shaping of Grand
Strategy: Politics, Diplomacy and War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).
Peter Paret, Gordon Craig, and Felix Gilbert (eds.), Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli
to the Nuclear Age (Princeton University Press, 1986).
All of these books are available in paperback. They are available for purchase from the
Bookstore and also can be purchased from Amazon.com. At least one hard copy of each of these
books will be on reserve at the PESL (in the Presidential Conference Center).
All other materials should be available on e-reserve
.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Week 1 (27 August)
What is Grand Strategy and Why is it Important?
6

B.H. Liddell Hart, “Fundamentals of Strategy and Grand Strategy,” in B.H. Liddell Hart, Strategy
(2d. ed.), pp. 319-370
Paul Kennedy, “Grand Strategy in War and Peace: Toward a Broader Definition,” in Paul
Kennedy, ed., Grand Strategies in War and Peace, pp. 1-7
Williamson Murray and Mark Grimsley, “Introduction: On Strategy,” in Murray, Knox, and
Bernstein, The Making of Strategy, pp. 1-23
Williamson Murray, “Thoughts on Grand Strategy,” in Murray, Sinnreich and Lacey, The Shaping
of Grand Strategy, pp. 1-13.
Richard Sinnreich, “Patterns of Grand Strategy,” in in Murray, Sinnreich and Lacey, The Shaping
of Grand Strategy, pp. 254-270/
Barry Posen, The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany Between the World
Wars, pp. 13-33
Week 2 (3 September)
The Origins of Grand Strategy:
The Role of the International System
Allison and Zelikow, The Essence of Decision, “Model 1: The Rational Actor,” pp. 13-76.
John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, pp. 29-54.
Kenneth Waltz, “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History,
18:4 (Spring 1988), pp. 615-628.
The Origins of Grand Strategy:
The Role of Polarity
Karl Deutsch and J. David Singer, “”Multipolar Power Systems and International Stability,”
World Politics, 16:3 (April 1964), pp. 390-406.
John J. Mearsheimer, “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War,” International
Security, 15:1 (Summer 1990), pp. 5-56 (read pp. 13-19 only)
Stephen Van Evera, “Primed for Peace: Europe After the Cold War,” International Security, 15:3
(Winter 1990/91), pp. 7-57 (read pp. 33-40 only).
Kenneth Waltz, “The Stability of a Bipolar World,” Daedalus, 43:3 (Summer 1964), pp. 881-909.
7

The Origins of Grand Strategy:
The Role of Power Transitions
A. F. K. Organski, World Politics (1968), Chapter 14.
A. F. K. Organski and Jacek Kugler, The War Ledger (1980), pp. 13-28.
Jack S. Levy, “Long Cycles, Hegemonic Transitions, and the Long Peace,” in Charles W. Kegley,
ed., The Long Postwar Peace (1991), pp. 147-176.
Week 3 (10 September)
The Origins of Grand Strategy:
The Role of Unit Level Factors - An Overview
Allison & Zelikow, The Essence of Decision, pp. 143-196, 255-324.
Barry Posen, The Sources of Military Doctrine, pp. 34-80.
The Origins of Grand Strategy:
The Role of Unit Level Factors - Economics
Edward Meade Earle, “Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List,” in Peter Paret, ed.,
Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, pp. 217-261.
Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, pp. 3-30.
The Origins of Grand Strategy:
The Role of Unit Level Factors - Strategic Culture
Colin Dueck, Reluctant Crusaders: Power, Culture, and Change in American Grand Strategy, pp.
9-20.
Colin S. Grey, “National Styles in Strategy: The American Example,” International Security, 6:2
(Fall 1981), pp. 21-47.
Alastair Ian Johnson, “Thinking About Strategic Culture,” International Security, 19:3 (Spring
1995), pp. 32-64.
Week 4 (17 September)
The Origins of Grand Strategy:
The Role of Unit Level Factors - Regime Type and Ideology
Michael W. Doyle, “Liberalism and World Politics, American Political Science Review, 80:4
8

(December 1986), pp. 1151-1169.
G. John Ikenberry, “Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Persistence of American Postwar
Order,” International Security, 23:3 (Winter 1998/1999), pp. 43-78.
Michael C. Desch, “America’s Libreral Illliberalism: The Ideological Origins of Overreaction in
U.S. Foreign Policy,” International Security, 32:3 (Winter 2007/2008), pp. 7-43.
Jonathan Monten, “The Roots of the Bush Doctrine: Power, Nationalism, and Democracy
Promotion in U.S. Strategy,” International Security, 29:4 (Spring 2005), pp. 112-156.
Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, pp. 1-32
The Origins of Grand Strategy:
The Role of Unit Level Factors: The Primacy of Innenpolitik
Christopher Layne, The Peace of Illusions, pp. 25-39, 118-133.
Michael R. Gordon, “Domestic Politics and the Origins of the First World War: The British and
German Cases,” Journal of Modern History, 46:2 (June 1974), pp. 191-226.
Week 5 (September 24)
TYPES OF GRAND STRATEGIES
Grand Strategic Options - Hegemony
Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics, p. 187-210.
Christopher Layne, “The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers Will Rise,” International
Security, 17:3 (Spring 1993), pp. 5-51.
William Wohlforth, “The Stability of a Unipolar World,” International Security, 21:1 (Summer
1999), pp. 1-36.
Grand Strategic Options - Balancing and Bandwagoning
John Mearsheimer, Tragedy of Great Power Politics, pp. 138-167.
Stephen Walt, The Origins of Alliances, pp. 17-33.
Thomas J. Christenson and Jack Snyder, “Chain Gangs and Passed Bucks: Predicting Alliance
Patterns in Multipolarity,” International Organization, 44:2 (Spring 1990), pp. 137-168.
9

Robert G. Kaufman, “To Balance or Bandwagon? Alignment Decisions in the 1930s,” Security
Studies, 1:3 (Spring 1992), pp. 417-447.
Randall Schweller, “Unanswered Threats: A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing,”
International Security, 29:2 (Fall 1994), pp. 159-201.
Glenn Snyder, “The Security Dilemma in Alliance Politics,” World Politics, 36:4 (July 1984), pp.
461-495.
Grand Strategic Options - Buck-Passing
and Offshore Balancing
John Mearsheimer, Tragedy of Great Power Politics, pp. 234-267.
Christopher Layne, The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present,
pp. 16-23, 159-192.
Week 6 (1 October)
GEOGRAPHY AND STRATEGY
Geography and Grand Strategy:
Sir Halford Mackinder, “The Geographic Pivot of History,” The Geographical Journal, 22:4
(April 1904), pp. 421-437.
Paul Kennedy, “Mahan vs. Mackinder” in Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of British Naval
Mastery, pp. 177-204.
Colin Gray, “In Defence of the Heartland: Sir Halford Mackinder and His Critics a Hundred Years
On,” Comparative Strategy, 23:1 (January-March 2004), pp. 9-25.
Christopher Fettweis, “Sir Halford Mackinder, Geopolitics, and Policymaking in the 21 st
Century,” Parameters (Summer 2000), pp.
58-71.
Robert J. Art, “The United States, The Balance of Power, and World War II: Was Spykman
Right?” Security Studies, 14:3 (2005), pp. 365–406.
Naval Power
Beatrice Heuser, The Evolution of Strategy, Chapters 8-11
Air Power and Nuclear Weapons
10

Beatrice Heuser, The Evolution of Strategy, Chapters 12-14.
David McIsaac, “Voices from the Central Blue: The Air Power Theorists” in Peter Paret and
Gordon A. Craig, eds., Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, pp.
624-647.
Lawrence Freedman, “The First Two Generations of Nuclear Strategists,” in Peter Paret and
Gordon A. Craig, eds., Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, pp.
735-778.
Week 7 (8 October)
PRACTICING GRAND STRATEGY: HISTORICAL CASE STUDIES
Imperial Recessional: Britain and the
Grand Strategy of Decline
Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery, pp. 239-298.
John Gooch, “The Weary Titan: Strategy and Policy in Great Britain, 1890-1918,” in in Murray,
Knox, & Bernstein, The Making of Strategy, pp. 278-306.
Williamson Murray, “The Collapse of Empire: British Strategy, 1919-1945,” in Murray, Knox, &
Bernstein, The Making of Strategy, pp. 393-427.
Zara Steiner, “The Fall of Great Britain,” in Geir Lundestad, ed., The Fall of Great Powers: Peace,
Stability, and Legitimacy, pp. 47-80.
Week 8 (15 October)
WORLD WAR I
Background: The Age of Total War
Beatrice Heuser, The Evolution of Strategy, Chapters 5-7
Germany: The Strategy of a Continental Power
Marcus Jones, “Strategy as Character: Bismarck and the Prusso-German Question, 1862-1878" in
Murray, Simmreich, and Lacey, The Shaping of Strategy
Holger H. Herwig, “Strategic Uncertainties of a Nation-State: Prussia-Germany, 1871-1918,” in in
Murray, Knox, & Bernstein, The Making of Strategy, pp. 242-277.
11

Michael Geyer, “German Strategy in the Age of Machine Warfare, 1914-1945, in Peter Paret and
Gordon A. Craig, eds., Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, pp.
527-597.
Weeks 9, 10 & 11 (22, 29 October, 5 November)
Week 12 (12 November)
The Anglo-German Rivarly: Economics, Ideology, Innenpolitik and the Balance of Power
Paul Kennedy, The Rise of the Anglo-German Antagonism
The Failure of Grand Strategy
Jack Snyder, The Ideology of the Offensive: Military Decisionmaking and the Disasters of 1914,
pp. 15-40.
Stephen Van Evera, “The Cult of the Offensive and the Origins of the First World War,”
International Security, 9:1 (Summer 1984), pp. 58-107.
Daniel A. Baugh, "British Strategy During the First World War in the Context of Four Centuries:
Blue-Water versus Continental Commitment," in Daniel M. Masterson, ed., Naval History: The
Sixth Symposium of the U.S. Naval Academy.
Richard Hart Sinnreich, “About Turn: British Strategic Transformation from Salisbury to Grey,”
in Murray, Sinnreich, and Lacey, The Shaping of Strategy, pp. 111-146.
Week 13 (19 November )
British Grand Strategy Between the World Wars
Christopher Layne, “Security Studies and the Use of History: Neville Chamberlain’s Grand
Strategy Revisited,” Security Studies, 17:3 (July 2008), pp. 397-437.
Norrin Ripsman and Jack S. Levy, “ Wishful Thinking or Buying Time: The Logic of British
Appeasement in the 1930s,” International Security, 33:2 (Fall 2008), pp. 148-181.
Williamson Murray, “British Grand Strategy, 1933-1942,” in Murray, Sinnreich, and Lacey, The
Shaping of Strategy, pp. 147-181.
Weeks 13 and 14
1. A Shifting Balance of Power?
Grand Strategy and the Emerging Sino-American Relationship
12

2. The Future of Sino-American Relations
2. Lessons of the Past?
Read the following, all of which will be on hard copy reserve at the PESL:
Fareed Zakaria, The Post-American World (New York: W. W. Norton, 2008).
Robert Kagan, The World America Made (New York: Knopf, 2012)
Robert Lieber, Power and Willpower in the American Future: Why the United States is Not
Destined to Decline Cambridge University Press, 2012)
Edward Luce, Time to Start Thinking: America in the Age of Descent (New York: Atlantic
Monthly Press, 2012).
Martin Jacques, When China Rules the World: The End of the Western World and the Birth of a
new Global Order (New York: Penguin Press, 2009).
G. John Ikenberry, Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American
World Order (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011).
- and (on e-reserve) -
Michael Beckley, “China’s Century: Why America’s Edge Will Endure, International Security,
36:3 (Winter 2011/2012), pp. 41-78.
SUGGESTED READINGS - FYI ONLY
Strategic Culture
Alastair Ian Johnson, Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History
(1995).
Elizabeth Keir, Imagining War: French and British Military Doctrine Between the Wars (1997).
Stephen Peter Rosen, Societies and Military Power: India and its Armies (1996).
Types of Grand Strategies
Innis Claude, Power and International Relations (1962), pp. 3-93.
Michael W. Doyle, Ways of War and Peace (1997), Chapter 5.
13

Edward Gulick, Europe’s Classical Balance of Power (1955), Part I.
Glenn H. Synder, Alliance Politics (1997).
John A. Vasquez and Colin Elman, eds., Realism and the Balancing of Power (2002)
Geography
Nicholas J. Spykman, America’s Strategy in World Politics
Seapower
Alfred Thayer Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power on History, 1660-1783
Germany from Bismarck to Hitler
Robert M. Citino, The German Way of War: From the Thirty Years’ War to the Third Reich.
Robert T. Foley, German Strategy and the Path to Verdun: Erich von Falkenhayn and the
Development of Attrition, 1870-1916.
Holger Herwig, “Luxury Fleet:” The Imperial German Navy, 1888-1918.
Eckhart Kehr, Battleship Building and Party Politics.
Terrence Zuber, Inventing the Schlieffen Plan: German War Planning, 1871-1914 (2003).
Britain and the Strategy of Decline
Correlli Barnett, The Collapse of British Power
Aaron Friedberg, The Weary Titan: Britain and the Experience of Relative Decline, 1895-1905
(1988).
Britain and World War I
Stephen Broadberry and Mark Harrison, eds., The Economics of World War I
John Charmley, Splendid Isolation? Britain, the Balance of Power and the Origins of the First
World War (1999).
Niall Ferguson, The Pity of War
Elizabeth Greenhalgh, Victory Through Coalition: Britain and France During the First World
War (2005).
14

Michael Howard, The Continental Commitment
Michael Howard, The British Way in Warfare: A Reappraisal (1974).
Eric W. Osborne, Britain’s Blockade of Germany, 1914-1919 (2004).
David French, The British Way in Warfare, 1688-2000 (1990).
British Grand Strategy Between the Wars
John Charmley, Chamberlain and the Lost Peace (1989).
David Edgerton, Warfare State: Britain, 1920-1970
Paul Kennedy, The Realities Behind Diplomacy: Background Influences on British External
Policy, 1865-1980 (1981).
James P. Levy. Appeasement and Rearmament: Britain: 1936-1939
Frank McDonough, Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement, and the British Road to War (1991).
Williamson Murray. The Change in the European Balance of Power, 1938-1939: The Path to Ruin
(1984).
R. A. C. Parker, Chamberlain and Appeasement: British Policy and the Coming of the Second
World War (1993).
G.C. Peden, British Rearmament and the Treasury.
David Dilks, “‘We Must Hope for the Best and Prepare for the Worst:’ The Prime Minister, the
Cabinet, and Hitler’s Germany, 1937-1939, Proceedings of the British Academy, LXXIII (1987).
David Dilks, “Appeasement Revisited,” University of Leeds Review, 15 (1972).
15