180 Notes
countries are subject to changes and include the way in which a nation defines
its interests, the way in which it treats them, and the means that it will use for
contending with threats aimed against it. Melvyn P. Leffler, A Preponderance of
Power: National Security, the Truman Administration, and the Cold War (Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press, 1992), p. ix; John J. Mearsheimer, Liddell Hart and the
Weight of History (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988), p. 17; Barry Posen,
The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany Between the World Wars
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984).
- Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978), pp. 2–12; Waltz, Theory of International Politics,
chapter 2. - Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, p. 46.
- A. F. K. Organski and Jacek Kugler, The War Ledger (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1980), pp. 19–20, 23. - Schweller, “Bandwagoning for Profit,” pp. 104–105.
- Felix Gilbert, To the Farewell Address: Ideas of Early American Foreign Policy
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961), pp. 95–96. Thomas Schelling
argues that this view of the diplomacy of major powers, which he considers
greedy, is a precise picture of interests of countries in the pre-Napoleonic period,
which may be referred to as the sport of kings’ war. Thomas C. Schelling, Arms and
Influence (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966), pp. 27–28. - Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, chapter 1.
- Schweller, “Bandwagoning for Profit,” pp. 100–104. It is important to note
that this statement by Schweller led Legro and Moravcsik to argue that he had
changed realism to idealism because he based himself on the preferences of coun-
tries rather than variance in their capabilities for explaining the shift in the polarity
of the system in the interwar period of the 1930s. Legro and Moravcsik, “Is Any-
body Still a Realist?” - Benjamin Frankel, “Restating the Realist Case: An Introduction,” Security
Studies, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Spring 1996), pp. ix–xx; Sean M. Lynn-Jones, “Realist and
America’s Rise,” International Security, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Fall 1998), pp. 157–182. - Waltz, Theory of International Politics.
- Jervis, “Cooperation under the Security Dilemma.”
- Waltz, Theory of International Politics, p. 126.
- For studies from the defensive realism, see Walt, The Origins of Alliance;
Posen, The Sources of Military Doctrine; Thomas J. Christensen and Snyder Jack,
“Chain Gangs and Passed Bucks: Predicting Alliance Patterns in Multipolar-
ity,” International Organization, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Spring 1990), pp. 137–168; Thomas
J. Christensen, “Perceptions and Alliances in Europe, 1865–1940,” International
Organization, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Winter 1997), pp. 65–97; Van Evera, “Offense, Defense,
and the Causes of War”; Stephen Van Evera, Causes of War: Power and the Roots of
Conflict (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999). - Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.
- By examining six cases of behavior of great powers (Japan 1868–1945, Ger-
many 1862–1945, the Soviet Union 1917–1991, Italy 1861–1943, Britain 1792–1945,
and the United States 1800–1990), Mearsheimer tries to prove that the history of
great powers’ politics includes primarily a clash of revisionist countries and that
the only status quo powers that appeared were local hegemons. The cases of Japan,
Germany, the Soviet Union, and Italy strongly support his theory. These countries