France, de Gaulle, and Europe: The Policy of the Fourth and Fifth Republics Toward the Continent by Simon

Serfaty Review by: John C. Cairns The American Historical Review, Vol. 74, No. 5 (Jun., 1969), p. 1621 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the American Historical Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1841366 . Accessed: 26/06/2012 06:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and American Historical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Historical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

Modern Europe

I62I

FRANCE, DE GAULLE, AND EUROPE: THE POLICY OF THE FOURTH AND FIFTH REPUBLICS TOWARD THE CONTINENT. By Simon Serfaty.(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. I968. Pp. xiii, I76. $6.95.) THIS book is principally about French policytowardGermany, the relativedecline of France vis-'a-vis Germany,and the limitation Germanyplaces upon the rise of France. Mr. Serfatytraces the collapse of France's post-I945 policy of breaking up Germanyand the failureof the internally weak Fourth Republic to masterthe revivalof German strength, while seeking to hedge it about in the construction of "Europe." He shows that the revival of French internalstrength under the Fifth Republic still has not permitted any clear French masteryof the German problem because of the inextricable involvementof the German and European questions.Though the internaldecline of France guaranteedits externaldecline, subsequentinternal revivalcould not guaranteeparallelexternal ascendancy. This studyis part of an attempt by the WashingtonCenter of Foreign Policy Research,RobertE. Osgood says in the foreword, "to reassessthe foundations of international politicsin the light of the currentdynamicsof national power and interest." This is a torturedway of saying somethingmore obvious. It is unfortunate that the verbiageand strainedformulations of so much contemporary relationsclog Serfaty's studyof international book. Somewhere in this briefbut informative study a good clear statementis tryingdesperatelyto make itself heard. It does not do so. Now and then the rightnote is struck, the point trying to be made is clearlyperceived, but again and again the clouds of murkylanguage and the uncertain fora theoretical striving formulation obscurewhat one wishes, equally desperately, to hear said forthrightly. This is a great pity.Nor has the author been well served by his editors.He needed help. If the book were not potentially good, therewould be no point in sayingthis. But the kind of syntax and usage found herein are simply too often unacceptableto be excused in a published work. While examples might be cited,this is not the place for them. Some of the translations similarly spoil the quality of the study.Careful reading by anotherstudentof French affairs might also have spared the author some of the factualerrors. One hates to say this, but the book needs rewriting.As it stands, it is a challenge, but forthe wrongreasons. University of Toronto
JOIIN

C.

CAIRNS

HISTOIRE DU ROYAUME-UNI: LES PRINCIPAUX COURANTS. By Roland Marx. [Collection U, Series "<tudes anglo-am6ricaines."] (Paris: LibrairieArmand Colin. I967. PP. 423.)
THIs book stands up well in comparison with the very best among the onevolume histories of Britainwrittenby Britishor American historians. Historical analysison a high level is combinedwithexcellent narrative in a workthat portions neglectsnone of the aspects of history-economic,social, political,religious,and In each of its fivechronologically intellectual. divided parts thereare eithertwo or three chapterstopicallydifferentiated, except for those three chaptersin the