pp. 3-6: brief introduction--ponder the question of the significance of the personal background in understanding the later decisions by policymakers. This gets at a bigger question key in diplomatic history--when dealing with themes like the national interest or strategic necessities, do personalities play an important role?
p. 7--TK position on WW flirtation with socialism--is this analysis overstated? If not, what is its significance?
p. 8--WW on international law. Think of the ways you see his approach as being similar and differing from that of Root.
pp. 9-11: relationship between imperialism and progressivism. This is one of the most contentious areas in the historiography of US foreign relations. What seems increasingly clear is that no linear relationship existed between the two concepts--that being a progressive domestically could lead one to support imperialistic ventures abroad, as WW did in the Philippines, or be anti-imperialist, as were the peace progressives, about whom we'll be studying shortly.
pp. 12-15: WW personality again. Can be skimmed, but grapple with significance question.
pp. 15-19: key section. The long-term significance of the 1912 election in both US political and US diplomatic history cannot be underestimated.
pp. 19-23: Bryan and House. Knock places considerably more importance on them (especially on Bryan) than most historians of WW's foreign policy do. What role does this decision play in TK's overall argument?
pp. 24-30: read this section very closely. WW's response to international revolution is one of the critical--and most difficult--elements in understanding his foreign policy.
pp. 32-36: not key for TK, but interesting in tracing evolution of WW's thought.
pp. 36-38: this is important, showing how the American public became increasingly active on the question of international organizations.
pp. 39-44: How does WW's response to the PAU differ from that of Root, if at all? And, by the way, this is one of TK's original arguments--no previous historian had discussed the relationship between the Pan-American Pact proposal and the formation of the League of Nations. Do you buy TK's argument?
pp. 44-47: summary