Alexander DeConde

Essay and Reflection: On the Nature of International History

who study, teach, and write the history of relations between societies and nations can seldom forget that, like many in academe, we labour in a field of ambiguous identity known by a number of different names.1 Depending on our individual predilection, we refer to it as the history of international relations, of foreign relations, of foreign policies, of foreign affairs, and as international history, but most often as diplomatic history. Before and since I began my career as an historian, regardless of the terminology employed to describe this area of study, we have also regularly subjected it to intensive censorious scrutiny. In the past several decades it has perhaps undergone more criticism than any other comparable field of historical investigation.2 Invariably, critics shower their disdain on what they term conventional diplomatic history, particularly denouncing its concentration on the detailed study of government documents and of limited related sources. Even though this emphasis has long been modified, they still

HERBERT S. PARMET and MARIE B. HECHT. Never Again: A President Runs for a Third Term. Pp. xii, 306. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1968.

icy, 1890-1964: Business and Government in Twentieth-Century America. Pp. ix, 286. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1968.

6.95

7.95. It is difficult for me to write a short review of this well-written book. The reviewer, by training and belief, is consumerand conservationist-oriented. My heroes are not the book’s heroes. Had I been the author of this work, I would have written from a different viewpoint. Professor Nash’s major conclusion is that the years between 1900 and 1964 &dquo;witnessed the development of a consensus by business and government concerning the end and means of public policy.&dquo; I notice that he