18 For perhaps the most starkly realist version of this argument, see James Burnham, The
Managerial Revolution(New York: John Day, 1941).
19 For Carr’s influence, see William T.R. Fox, The American Study of International Relations,
(Institute of International Studies, University of South Carolina, 1968); and William T.R.
Fox, ‘E.H. Carr and Political Realism: vision and revision’, Review of International Studies,
11 (4), 1985, pp. 1–16.
20 Whittle Johnston, ‘E.H. Carr’s theory of International Relations: a critique’, Journal of
Politics, 24 (4), 1967, p. 861.
21 The other main branch of neorealism, Gilpin’s theory of hegemonic instability, is
explicitly an elaboration of Carr’s first argument, also rooted in Thucydides. Robert
Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).
22 Carr’s materialist argument is most indebted to Marx’s production-centred materialism,
but he assigns military technology a role not explicitly or readily reducible to productive
forces and relationships. Carr, Conditions of Peace, p. 57. See also Mick Cox’s introduction
in Carr, E.H. The Twenty Years’ Crisis: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations
(Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001) and Charles Jones, E.H. Carr and International Relations: A
Duty to Lie(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
23 Carr, Conditions of Peace, p. 39.
24 Carr, Conditions of Peace, p. 54; Andreas Dorpalan, ed.,The World of General Haushofer:
Geopolitics in Action(New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1942); and Johannes Mattern,
Geopolitik: Doctrine of National Self Sufficiency and Empire(Baltimore: John Hopkins
University Studies in Historical and Political Science, 1942).
25 Carr, Conditions of Peace, p. 37.
26 Carr, Conditions of Peace, p. 55. Here Carr’s reaction to the German geopoliticians and
Burnham’s image of a handful of world powers locked in struggle is similar to George
Orwell’s.
27 Carr, Conditions of Peace, p. 60.
28 For the most starkly realist version of nuclear one-worldism, see James Burnham, The
Struggle for the World(New York: John Day, 1947).
29 John Herz, International Politics in the Atomic Age(New York: Columbia University, 1960).
The first half of Herz’s book summarizes the understanding of the impact of the mature
industrial revolution held by Carr and others, and the second half treats the development
of nuclear weapons as a continuation of this same process.
30 Herz’s nuclear one-world argument is an extension of the concept of the ‘security
dilemma’. John Herz, Political Realism and Political Idealism(Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1951). For synoptic recent treatment, see Ken Booth and Nicholas J.
Wheeler, The Security Dilemma: Fear, Cooperation and Trust in World Politics(Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).
31 Herz, International Politics in the Atomic Age, p. 13. For Herz’s nuclear argument, see
Nicholas J. Wheeler, ‘To put oneself into the other fellow’s place: John Herz, the security
dilemma and the nuclear age’, International Relations, 22 (4), 2008, pp. 493–509.
32 Herz, International Politics in the Atomic Age, p. 22.
33 For the evolution of Morgenthau’s thinking about nuclear weapons, see Campbell Craig,
Glimmer of a New Leviathan: Total War in the Realism of Niebuhr, Morgenthau, and Waltz
(New York: Columbia University Press, 2003).
34 For discussion of Morgenthau’s nuclear one-worldism, see James Speer, ‘Hans
Morgenthau and the World state,’ World Politics, 20 (2), 1968; Richard Rosecrance, ‘The
OneWorld of Hans Morgenthau’, Social Research, 48 (4), 1981; and Campbell Craig,
‘Hans Morgenthau and the world state revisited’, in Michael Williams, ed., Realism
Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans J. Morgenthau(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
35 Hans Morgenthau, The Purpose of American Politics(New York: Knopf, 1960), p. 170.
36 Hans Morgenthau, Politics among Nations(New York: Knopf, 1947), p. 491.
37 Hans J. Morgenthau, ‘The four paradoxes of nuclear strategy’, American Political Science
Review, 68 (2), 1964, p. 35.
Anarchy and violence interdependence 33