Rating: 
Summary: Not too dry
Review: A good read, not terribly dry. The writing and analysis are clear and concise. It is easy to follow, even if one doesn't have a great deal of background in the subject matter. I wish that he could have given a little space to the presentation of opposing theories, I felt at times I was getting a one-sided view, albeit from an intelligent and informed source.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent but not without some minor flaws
Review: All in all, this book is very good. It covers a lot of territory with a brisk, interesting, and opinionated (at times sardonic) narrative. The chapters are organized around presidential administrations, but the actions of Congress and other countries are given fair account. Of all the presidents, Eisenhower gets the most sympathetic treatment (probably due to Ambrose's influence), followed by Truman and JFK. Johnson, Nixon and Reagan come off as the worse but are not subject to hack jobs.And now for the whining. I do have a few problems with this book. I have the 1997 edition, but it does not look like it has been throroughly updated in all its aspects. For example, it describes how the Japanese were eating our economic lunch in 1990 but fails to note that the situation was quite different before the decade was over. One particular thing that bothered me was that the "October Surprise" was discussed as an incontrovertible fact, while KAL 007 gets an anemic statement about how truth was "elusive"--isn't there pretty strong evidence now that the Soviets were at fault? Whether you agree or not, it looks like two standards of proof are being used. There is also a discussion of a certain Soviet-American spy swap where the authors go out of their way to make a somewhat flimsy suggestion of the American's guilt but are absolutely silent on the Russian. But these are relatively minor complaints (I'm not accusing them of being Useful Idiots). The subtle Oliver Stone-JFK myth-busting was a nice touch. Bottom line: worth your money.
Rating:
Summary: A first-rate overview
Review: Ambrose's survey of U.S. foreign policy since 1938 is rigorous and informative. It is one of the few works of its subject and scope capable of captivating beginners and scholars alike. The development of key topics, most notably U.S. policy toward the Middle East and Vietnam, is impressive considering the book's breadth. Only on very few occasions does Ambrose's broad brush fail to discuss adequately the roots and ramifications of U.S. intervention, particularly in Guatemala and Iran. On the whole, however, it is the best book of its kind available. Those longing for an explanation of U.S. policy through caricatures of demonic presidents and ruthless capitalism will (or should) be somewhat disappointed. The story we read here is, rather, the tale of a nation rising to become the world's greatest power in much the same way as others have throughout history. Of the presidents, even the most dishonest (Nixon) and frightening (Reagan) are depicted as they were: leaders of their times very much imbued--often unfortunately for the rest of the world--with assumptions accepted by most of their fellow Americans.
Rating:
Summary: Foreign policy and world history
Review: Covering 60 years of US foreign policy in a little over 400 pages requires that much detail be edited out. However, Stephen Ambrose and Douglas Brinkley are able to squeeze in a lot of history and have room left for some interpretation and analysis. RISE TO GLOBALISM is a great resource for recent US and world history, and provides a lot of the context for what occurs today in foreign affairs. Few history books are so readable and comprehensive, but the span of time and the complexity of the events cannot be adequately covered in the given pages. It is, at best, a very good summary or overview of US foreign policy. My main annoyance was with the frequent typographical errors. I can understand the desire of professors to continue using this book in spite of the author's recent plagiarism incident; what would you replace it with?
Rating: 
Summary: Wrong Impressions
Review: I am older than Ambrose would be if he had lived until today. I remember WWII well. So I was curious to read this book which was among my son's college materials. I didn't get beyond the introduction. I had enough right there. Mr. Ambrose is indeed a facile writer. But the wrong impressions begin in the very first paragraph. America felt secure in 1938. Isolationism, an organized "head in the sand" foreign policy, was the popular opinion. In Europe we believed that "it's their fight." We don't have to get involved. In the Pacific we never seemed to get the point. Great Amereicans like Jack London and General Billy Mitchell told us that Japan was going to attack. But it was easier not to believe it.
The American leaders, including most especially our political and intellectual leaders, failed to understand what was happening in the world. America was unprepared for the "real world" of 1938. A huge war broke out. A war that America might have prevented. Prevention would have required that we join the League of Nations and play the World role that our economic power called for after World War I. Instead many thousands of Americans and millions around the world died in the '30's & 40's. After the war with the very real threat of Stalin facing the world we began to play the World role that we alone could play. First the Marshall plan rebuilt Europe and American aid put Japan back in business. As for power politics We were new at it. All in all I think we did well. The Soviet Union with its Comintern and its Gulags collapsed. Yet the clear impression left by Ambrose's comments on post WWII political and military policy suggests only a clumsy or even arrogant American overkill. Ambrose's comments are without even a hint that we might have done a few things both right and important.
There are many other wrong impressions but perhaps the most colossal is the complete absence of any recognition of the world changing economic and technical leadership of the U. S. over those same 50 years. This leadership has improved living standards and the general well being of hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. There is plenty left to do. But nations like India, China and Korea, where bare existence or starvation had been the rule, today prosperity is steadily increasing. Somehow these facts apparently we not "history" as Mr. Ambrose saw it. But he does think it historically notable that during those 50 years WE were doing well economically (and no one else?) because of the "arms race" and "cheap" raw materials. He must have misplaced information on entrepreneurial investment and the development of new technologies. But he did find evidence that during those 50 years "Businessmen looked for profitable markets...the military looked for overseas bases" suggesting only a grasping selfishness Mr. Ambrose has raised my curiosity. But I am going to look for a more reliable source of historical information about these critically important years.
Rating:
Summary: Wrong Impressions
Review: I am older than Ambrose would be if he had lived until today. I remember WWII well. So I was curious to read this book which was among my son's college materials. I didn't get beyond the introduction. I had enough right there. Mr. Ambrose is indeed a facile writer. But the wrong impressions begin in the very first paragraph. America felt secure in 1938. Isolationism, an organized "head in the sand" foreign policy, was the popular opinion. In Europe we believed that "it's their fight." We don't have to get involved. In the Pacific we never seemed to get the point. Great Amereicans like Jack London and General Billy Mitchell told us that Japan was going to attack. But it was easier not to believe it.
The American leaders, including most especially our political and intellectual leaders, failed to understand what was happening in the world. America was unprepared for the "real world" of 1938. A huge war broke out. A war that America might have prevented. Prevention would have required that we join the League of Nations and play the World role that our economic power called for after World War I. Instead many thousands of Americans and millions around the world died in the '30's & 40's. After the war with the very real threat of Stalin facing the world we began to play the World role that we alone could play. First the Marshall plan rebuilt Europe and American aid put Japan back in business. As for power politics We were new at it. All in all I think we did well. The Soviet Union with its Comintern and its Gulags collapsed. Yet the clear impression left by Ambrose's comments on post WWII political and military policy suggests only a clumsy or even arrogant American overkill. Ambrose's comments are without even a hint that we might have done a few things both right and important.
There are many other wrong impressions but perhaps the most colossal is the complete absence of any recognition of the world changing economic and technical leadership of the U. S. over those same 50 years. This leadership has improved living standards and the general well being of hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. There is plenty left to do. But nations like India, China and Korea, where bare existence or starvation had been the rule, today prosperity is steadily increasing. Somehow these facts apparently we not "history" as Mr. Ambrose saw it. But he does think it historically notable that during those 50 years WE were doing well economically (and no one else?) because of the "arms race" and "cheap" raw materials. He must have misplaced information on entrepreneurial investment and the development of new technologies. But he did find evidence that during those 50 years "Businessmen looked for profitable markets...the military looked for overseas bases" suggesting only a grasping selfishness Mr. Ambrose has raised my curiosity. But I am going to look for a more reliable source of historical information about these critically important years.
Rating: 
Summary: Ambrose should've realized that hindsight is not 20/20
Review: I read the 7th edition (published in 1993) while I was in college taking a U.S. Foreign Policy Course. I am nowadays a High School History teacher.
The book is filled with useful information laid out in a clear and understandable way. I've seen many an interview with Ambrose, and I could almost hear his voice reading it to me.
However, there are obvious biases toward an agenda (which I am still not sure what the agenda is.) Ambrose rips apart basically every President since World War II. He basically holds them responsible for not having 20/20 hindsight. In other areas, he criticizes them for over-reaction...and then will criticize them for not doing enough. You can't have it all ways. He also tends to rely on looking at short-term outcomes instead of long-term. He spends most of the book criticizing containment...but ends the book by saying that the Truman Doctrine was correct.
Ambrose seems to have a serious distaste for Reagan and Johnson. He seems to believe Carter was an ideological idiotic President that ended up doing the exact opposite of everything he stood for. Believes Kennedy was naive and being led/misled by the people around him. (He attributes similar things to Reagan.) He seems to have the most admiration for Nixon. I don't get the feeling he liked Nixon as a person, but as a President, his administration was probably most up to the task of running a super-power.
I also found the Reagan chapter interesting. He bashes Reagan for spending on defense (weapon spending) at the expense of the deficit. BUT...in the next chapter he claims that Bush didn't spend enough on defense and that defense spending has been falling too much. He then makes reference to the fact that we were spending less on defense in 1989 than 1981 and this is a problem. WAIT A SECOND!!! You just spent the previous chapter bashing Reagan for spending on defense and now you say he cut spending on defense and shouldn't have? My head was spinning.
Use the book as a very good primer. But there is inherit danger in using it as an end all be all. Having re-read it again recently (11 years after it came out) it is amazing how off the mark his final chapter was. I guess his hindset isn't 20/20.
Rating:
Summary: The birth of a super power
Review: I read the first edition of this book in 1989 as part of required reading in college. I've never been interested in history before I read this book. This book taught history in such a way that you will realize that past is important to move forward. I read it with the same enthusiasm I always have for good fiction. A must read for anyone who wonder how the USA become a major power broker in the world.
Rating:
Summary: Behind the scenes and comprehensive
Review: I read this book years ago and still recall details vividly. Ambrose's greatest gift is eluding the historians pompous, hindsighted viewpoints and, instead, reliving the moments and letting the reader make relative conclusions. Ambrose captures key personalities and shows how differing cabinets of our past presidents have shaped the dynamics of the world today more than you know, as well as the ids and superegos of the presidents, themselves. You feel each decision as if it were your own. This is history, with major doses of adventure and responsibility.
Rating:
Summary: Very informative and amazingly entertaining
Review: I was actually forced to read this book for a US History course I am taking and I got so into it that I completed the entire text between chapters six and seven of Steinbeck's gruelingly booring Grapes of Wrath. It was superbly writen and comprehensive. The authors unbiased tone prevents it from simply being a defense of America's mistakes and a parade of America's successes. It brings the reader down to earth because by time you reach the end, it is well engraved into your head that one bomb can still end you life, and everyone else in your states for that matter.
| 
