Book Reviews : The War-Peace Establishment. By ARTHUR HERZOG. (New York: Harper and Row, 1965. Pp. xiii, 271. $4.95.)

• DOI: 10.1177/106591296601900132
• Author: Whitaker T. Deininger
• Date: 01 March 1966
• Published date: 01 March 1966
• Subject Matter: Articles

173
-
the profit motive involves values that take priority over all others leading men to
exploit and corrupt for their own advantage. While emphasis is placed on the tech-
nological advances of capitalism, the author’s remedies suggest that his primary
concern is the institution itself. It is now widely recognized that the structure of
institutions does not determine the values they promote though some structural influ-
ence on institutional outputs is expected. The actual effect of specific structure on
specific output is an empirical question for which the narrative approach of the
author is inadequate. This is true whether the institution be capitalistic or socialistic
or some
variation of these. Thus the appeal of the book will likely depend on one’s
own philosophical predilection rather than on the cogency of the author’s presen-
tation. As for the professional political scientist, if he values new knowledge or pro-
found insights, he must look elsewhere.
S. SIDNEY ULMER
University of Kentucky
The War-Peace Establishment. By ARTHUR HERZOG. (New York: Harper and
Row, 1965. Pp. xiii, 271. $4.95.)
The war-peace establishment about which Arthur Herzog writes is not so much
an institutional one as &dquo;one of ideas and theory, of scientists, seers and strategists, as
they’ve been called, who have worked out the form and rationale of present Amer-
ican defense and foreign policies, as well as the doctrines that constitute their chief
opposition.&dquo; The author thus seeks to categorize important elements in this estab-
lishment as well as to introduce men who are leaders of one or another of the influ-
ential ways of thinking about war and defense. This book is primarily informative
and factual, though a final brief section of critical appraisal is included.
The Deterrers (Part I ) represent dominant opinion in the United States. They
insist that &dquo;a potential enemy&dquo; can &dquo;through fear&dquo; (i.e., fear of nuclear retaliation,
say) be influenced...