Henry Kissinger died. Good riddance.

[Murph]

Well one of the most destructive and evil men of our generation has finally left the mess he created at 100 years of age.  Good Riddance.  Kissinger was arguably one of the most influentially destructive people in the history of the US.  How such a man got so much power and adulation, is beyond me.  So Good Riddance to the Godfather of the New World Order.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/12/01/exclusive-seamus-bruner-remembering-henry-kissinger-the-godfather-of-the-new-world-order/

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/11/30/peter-schweizer-how-henry-kissinger-became-an-old-friend-of-china-who-rendered-great-help-to-the-ccp/

 

[sunday]

Piece on Kissinger by Seymour Hersh.

Quote

KISSINGER, ME, AND THE LIES OF THE MASTER
‘Off off the record’ with the man who secretly taped our telephone calls

(...)

(Forget about my tome if you want the deepest insights into the most deadly of Nixon and Kissinger’s scheming: in 2013, Gary Bass, a professor at Princeton and former reporter for the Economist, published The Blood Telegram, a focused account of the mass murder that Nixon and Kissinger made inevitable in 1971 in what was then known as East Pakistan, with only the slightest of acknowledgement by the international media.)

(...)

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 12/1/2023 at 4:08 PM, Murph said:

Well one of the most destructive and evil men of our generation has finally left the mess he created at 100 years of age.  Good Riddance.  Kissinger was arguably one of the most influentially destructive people in the history of the US.  How such a man got so much power and adulation, is beyond me.  So Good Riddance to the Godfather of the New World Order.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/12/01/exclusive-seamus-bruner-remembering-henry-kissinger-the-godfather-of-the-new-world-order/

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/11/30/peter-schweizer-how-henry-kissinger-became-an-old-friend-of-china-who-rendered-great-help-to-the-ccp/

 

Because he told the establishment what it wanted to hear. People think this is a new concept, but it really is not.

[Murph]

Agreed.  There is no country, moral precept, treaty, or person he was not willing to betray.  Just an evil, evil man, who epitomises the banality of evil just like Eichmann.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I dont think he was evil. I think he was certainly capable of evil, because there was at heart there was a moral vacuum. He was ideally fitted to Nixon, whom was just the same kind of person.

He pattern himself on the foreign ministers of the 19th Century, Tallyrand, Castlereagh, Bismark. They were not evil, so much as disposed to enabling their country to its ideal position through all means possible. That was Kissinger.

[lucklucky]

I disagree. Kissinger was not evil, he was as Stuart said an "European Diplomat" from another century where the big guys "managed" their borders and of their allies. 

 Unfortunately he also had  a strong stoke of pessimism that made him a defeatist. He certainly and i am now disagreeing with Stuart not defended his country as he should. Not because he was evil, or because he liked the other side, but because he thought the other side much more powerful than it was and maybe as a diplomat/manager he thought his job was to get a deal regardless of what the deal was.

For my country(Portugal) his pessimism/defeatism would have let it fell without a fight to Communists even if there is no logistical way for Soviet Union to support a coup there without USN Fleets lack of action.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Oh yes, completely agree with you on that one.

I have a book, memoirs really, by Admiral Zumwalt, CNO. (I was interested to learn more about the 1973 naval standoff with the USSR, and it has that in spades). Anyway, Zumwalt had a conversation with Kissinger at a Baseball game, and he repeated his comments in the book (on the back cover too actually). It was something along the lines of, the Communists were stronger and in the long term are probably fated to win, so it was for the US to extract the best terms it could. Or something rather like that. Which rather informs some of his position when it came to negotiating SALT.

Kissinger seemed to believe that the key to security was mutual insecurity. So if he made the US Insecure, through making concessions on ABM and some other systems, then if the Soviet union itself was made insecure through giving up some of its systems, they both had mutual insecurity, at least as far as nuclear weapons were concerned. In such circumstances, neither side could initiate a war.

Which worked up, to a point. Where he got it wrong was in the Soviets increasing their megatonage through the use of MRV's on their missiles, something that made the US perceive itself as greatly vulnerable, and developing SS20, to try and dominate Europe through nuclear superiority. It wasnt really superiority, because the Soviets would have taken about a month to gear up their nuclear strike capability in a crisis. But it was still the perception that drove the Reagan arms buildup, through documentaries like this.

Ultimately Kissingers effort to make both sides mutually vulnerable failed, because it failed to account that armourers on both sides would use that as a rallying point for further military investment.

There is some more of this on here, which is well worth wading through.

 

Edited December 10, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[BansheeOne]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Anyway, Zumwalt had a conversation with Kissinger at a Baseball game, and he repeated his comments in the book (on the back cover too actually). It was something along the lines of, the Communists were stronger and in the long term are probably fated to win, so it was for the US to extract the best terms it could.

In fact you might say that this take is alive in parts of today's Republicans when it comes to Russia, particularly the "they will win in Ukraine anyway" camp.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yeah, pretty much.  In fact, there has been part of the Republican party that has been obsessed with America being outclassed,  for decades. Trump presents this as a new idea, but it really is not, its been there at least 50 years.

I was reading a rather good book on the Nixon Presidency (https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0743227190?tag=fivboo-21 )  and Nixon himself went on record (I think this was one one of his tapes) as saying the future world belonged to China, it had a huge population, so it was inevitable they would dominate the world. Which considering the man made his career out of being a committed anticommunist, really makes you reflect on some of his core principles. Going to China in that context looks less like an attempt to use the PRC against the USSR and to get out of Vietnam, as its always been claimed,and more an effort to try and coopt the PRC and make them more 'American', or at least sympathetic, before the inevitable happened. As Kissinger was Nixons loyal right arm, it would hardly be surprising if, when he was crediting the inevitable success of the USSR, he was also reflecting Nixons views about the USSR, which again informs his signing SALT, and indeed going to meet with Brezhnev.

Even arming Iran could be seen as an effort to deal with inevitable American decline. In fact it was clearly ennunciated in part of the Nixon doctrine, to arm regional powers with all the weapons they wanted, so the US wouldnt have to get seriously involved. Which as it resulted in the Marcos and Galtieri regimes, and ultimately Ayatollah Khomeini, you could say ultimately rather backfired. It was arguably a policy of disengagement, not engagement as has been presented.

Im not sure its just Nixon/Kissinger either. I was going through Caspar Weinburgers memoirs on Internet Archive, largely because I was trying to see if he makes any references to Able Archer, or any in depth discussion of the arms buildup in the early 1980's. In fact the vast majority of it is spent red carpeting the PRC, and suggesting what really awesome guys the PRC actually were, we really must sell the more arms. He does that for dozens and dozens of pages. As someone whom has always rather admired Weinburger (he single handledly paid off my Parents Mortgage for one thing), you may call me somewhat disappointed to say the least.

 

Supposedly Nixon didnt get on with Reagan very well, though im not clear why. Maybe the core reason is that Nixon always believed the US was doomed to lose the cold war, and Reagan did not. Just a thought.

Edited December 10, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[lucklucky]

Republicans are not a monolith. Nixon was a big government Republican so in ideological terms nearer Democrats than Goldwater, Reagan group.

In Cold War,  the Democrats that were more keen on Communist win but they were also not a monolith since there were very strong anti-communists in Democratic camp. Carter that had no Vietname pressure and what he did do? He was basically aimless.

The reason for Reagan coldness and his team regarding Kissinger was precisely the Communist Chinese overtures and Realpolitik in general, to be read as too complacent versus Communists and not Moral.  Starting with Christian Morality.

Contemporary article when Kissinger supported Reagan since he was same party but the disagreements are clearly stated.

https://www.csmonitor.com/1980/0716/071645.html

Below also shows the different attitude of both Administrations. Reagan administration had the drive and intensity to always push Soviets to get more even if minor concessions. While for Kissinger and Nixon it was all high level diplomacy. 

https://www.faithandfreedom.com/ronald-reagan-the-anti-nixon-kissinger/

Btw i never found what US got out of China deal except almost giving Taiwan in a plate. It seems to have been only a very successful PR operation to get journalists praise.

[Stuart Galbraith]

12 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

Republicans are not a monolith. Nixon was a big government Republican so in ideological terms nearer Democrats than Goldwater, Reagan group.

In Cold War,  the Democrats that were more keen on Communist win but they were also not a monolith since there were very strong anti-communists in Democratic camp. Carter that had no Vietname pressure and what he did do? He was basically aimless.

The reason for Reagan coldness and his team regarding Kissinger was precisely the Communist Chinese overtures and Realpolitik in general, to be read as too complacent versus Communists and not Moral.  Starting with Christian Morality.

Contemporary article when Kissinger supported Reagan since he was same party but the disagreements are clearly stated.

https://www.csmonitor.com/1980/0716/071645.html

Below also shows the different attitude of both Administrations. Reagan administration had the drive and intensity to always push Soviets to get more even if minor concessions. While for Kissinger and Nixon it was all high level diplomacy. 

https://www.faithandfreedom.com/ronald-reagan-the-anti-nixon-kissinger/

Btw i never found what US got out of China deal except almost giving Taiwan in a plate. It seems to have been only a very successful PR operation to get journalists praise.

Greater rights for Native Americans, the environmental act. Yeah, think you are probably right on reflection.

Oh, I get why Reagan didnt like Kissinger and Nixon. I find it interesting how Nixon just couldnt get on with Reagan, even towards the end of the 1980's when it became increasingly apparent the Cold War was coming to an end. Maybe he felt threatened that somehow Reagan would eclipse the perceived success of Detente? Dont know. He was apparently very against the deals Reagan was making with the Soviets, which considering how much was given away at Salt was just a little hypocritical.

The apparent return on peace with China was the Chinese being increasingly reluctant to supply the North Vietnamese with arms. Quite a lot of the Mig19's they got turned out to be Chinese built for example. They also got a lot of artillery and presumably ammunition from them as well. There has also been the narrative that by making China an ally, it increased Soviet insecurity, which would bring them to the table for Salt. Which then of course, increased the need for the Soviets to get the Americans out of Vietnam, just so they could work on further security issues. It was all circular and all joined up, where I think it all fell down was that the Soviet angle would always fall down because of the momentum of the cold war. That could probably have been predicted. And secondly the Chinese, when they got access to Western Markets, would not become western style consumers whom wanted voting rights. If they believed that, they could look at the success of Imperial Germany, whcih was economically successful and still a stranger to Democracy.

Basically, as a problem, they overthought it. The only people that really mattered was the North Vietnamese. By giving the North Vietnamese what they wanted, which was South Vietnam, they could get out. When they North Vietnamese finally figured that out and stopped pissing about making America's exit harder, it all ended very quickly. It could have done that a good 2 years earlier if they hadnt been so boneheaded.

Edited December 10, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[JWB]

Who was more at fault for those crimes, Nixon or Kissinger?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Kissinger, so his biographer recently has said, would not have behaved so apallingly if his President had been Nelson Rockerfeller, whom was clearly a friend of his. I think perhaps they are right. I think, and you can see evidence of this with the Moorer-Radford affair, and Kissinger so enthusiastically embracing wiretappping, Nixon was a very paranoid man, and anyone in his orbit got sucked up in it too. Good men abandoned their moral perspective, just to be in his cabinet. And i think Kissinger, whom was after all a loyal guy, and seemingly had a capacity for looking beyond the moral perspective, really had no problem fitting into that environment. John Dean he certainly wasnt.

There is an allegation, which Niall Fergusson rather glosses over in his biography, that Kissinger had some role with Annna Chennault, in convincing the South Vietnamese to walk out of a peace negotiatoin under President Johnson, which kind of removed the last chance of peace. Supposedly they said they would get a better deal under the Nixon White house.As other have pointed out, if that is true, and there is limited evidence to support it other than Anna Chenault's word, then it means Nixon and Kissinger arguably committed an act of treachery against the United states. it also arguably seal any attempt for the Democrats to return Hubert Humphrey as President (which was rather closer than most people remember IIRC).

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/anna-chennault-affair-south-vietnamese-side-wars-greatest-conspiracy-theory

Would Kissinger have done that for Rockerfeller? Probably not. Largely because Rockerfeller wouldnt have asked.

I think one has to view Kissinger as Nixons loyal apprentice. He would do anything he wanted him to do. I suspect Rockerfeller would have been rather less morally ambiguous, and so would Kissinger to please him. But of course, we cant know that for certain.

Kissinger was, one might say, the ideal cut out for Nixon. If things went right, Nixon could clam the credit. If it went wrong, he just blamed his Jewish Foreign policy expert, and people would suck that up too, and have.

 

[Ivanhoe]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I was reading a rather good book on the Nixon Presidency (https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0743227190?tag=fivboo-21 )  and Nixon himself went on record (I think this was one one of his tapes) as saying the future world belonged to China, it had a huge population, so it was inevitable they would dominate the world. Which considering the man made his career out of being a committed anticommunist, really makes you reflect on some of his core principles. Going to China in that context looks less like an attempt to use the PRC against the USSR and to get out of Vietnam, as its always been claimed,and more an effort to try and coopt the PRC and make them more 'American', or at least sympathetic, before the inevitable happened. As Kissinger was Nixons loyal right arm, it would hardly be surprising if, when he was crediting the inevitable success of the USSR, he was also reflecting Nixons views about the USSR, which again informs his signing SALT, and indeed going to meet with Brezhnev.

I figure some of that pessimism comes from "They (the people and the institutions) won't do what I want, so I can't save the country from the Evil Empire" sort of thinking.

Supposedly Nixon didnt get on with Reagan very well, though im not clear why. Maybe the core reason is that Nixon always believed the US was doomed to lose the cold war, and Reagan did not. Just a thought.

One room, too small for two giant egos. A common scenario in politics.

 

[lucklucky]

39 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The apparent return on peace with China was the Chinese being increasingly reluctant to supply the North Vietnamese with arms.

I don't see the point since by that time US did not wanted to stay in Vietname.

 

11 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

, in convincing the South Vietnamese to walk out of a peace negotiatoin under President Johnson, which kind of removed the last chance of peace.

Peace with non interdictable Communists LLOC's  ? total victory is what Communists always wanted in that situation

Edited December 10, 2023 by lucklucky

[futon]

創発戦略研究オープンラボ（ROLES） https://roles.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp › ...PDF No.29 - Henry Kissinger and Japan: Focusing on the Nixon-Ford Administration Years - ROLES REPORT - 東京大学

https://japan-forward.com/why-wise-man-henry-kissinger-is-wrong-about-japan/

[Murph]

Kissinger was an opportunistic scumbag, and he caused problems we are dealing with today.

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 12/10/2023 at 4:44 PM, lucklucky said:

I don't see the point since by that time US did not wanted to stay in Vietname.

 

Peace with non interdictable Communists LLOC's  ? total victory is what Communists always wanted in that situation

No, but they wanted South Vietnam to survive, or at least, endure to the end of Nixons Presidency. Which to be fair, it did, though perhaps not in the manner he was expecting..

Im afraid you are missing the point. If Johnson had been successful, America could have started pulling out immediately. It would have resulted in significantly fewer American and Vietnamese deaths. Instead, Vietnam got another 5 years of war, Cambodia got invaded, thousands more died, just so Nixon could be assured of victory, and Kissinger could demonstrate his brilliant skills as statesman. Which he was, but not beyond making his own problems it seems.

Yes, the end result would probably have been the same, but they would have got there a lot quicker and a lot cheaper.

 

 

 

[Ivanhoe]

In y'all's ritualistic flogging of Kissinger's corpse (not that there's anything wrong with that, we all need more cardio), do not neglect the pols and Staties who gave him license to run around inflicting chaos. That whole cult of personality thing back in the 1960s really demonstrates that the problems with the insulated elite started long ago.

 

[bojan]

Problem started as soon as first elites formed, which predates written history.

[futon]

3 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

In y'all's ritualistic flogging of Kissinger's corpse (not that there's anything wrong with that, we all need more cardio), do not neglect the pols and Staties who gave him license to run around inflicting chaos. That whole cult of personality thing back in the 1960s really demonstrates that the problems with the insulated elite started long ago.

 

Expectations, or hopes, are higher from the land of the free. Other places.. the bar is lower. Illuminating is to show what might have been better, not only flogging. Noisy medium powers is kind of annoying. But if not honest once in a while, then not something worthy of trusting. 

I thought this was humourous bit in comparison to never talking normally with common people, and riding a white horse with medals and stuff. Maybe Kissinger has never seen it. Or all those 1970s Gamera, Godzilla, 1970s J-pop singers, and all, and so on. Precisely what America could pride itself in seeing from a past slayed enemy that proves America's worth to win. The influential American marveled Zhou Enlai... ┐(´д｀)┌   Ah.. that noisy medium power tone again, sorry, anyway the little clip from the humbly defeated. 

Question テレビなんかも   よくご覧になられると思いますが   例えばどういう風な番組をご覧になりますでしょうか？

いろいろ お楽しみのことについてもおうかがいさせて頂きたいと思います。

About Television, your majesty probably watches it but, for example, what kind of programs may you watch?

I would also like to inquire about any various enjoyable things.

 

Hirohito テレビ 色々を見てはいますが   放送会社の競争が    はなはだ激しいので   今どういう番組を見ているかということには答えられません。

While I do watch various things on TV, but because the competition between broadcast companies is so severe, I cannot answer about what kinds of programs I watch as of now. 

 

Edited June 10 by futon

[lucklucky]

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, but they wanted South Vietnam to survive, or at least, endure to the end of Nixons Presidency. Which to be fair, it did, though perhaps not in the manner he was expecting..

Im afraid you are missing the point. If Johnson had been successful, America could have started pulling out immediately. It would have resulted in significantly fewer American and Vietnamese deaths. Instead, Vietnam got another 5 years of war, Cambodia got invaded, thousands more died, just so Nixon could be assured of victory, and Kissinger could demonstrate his brilliant skills as statesman. Which he was, but not beyond making his own problems it seems.

Yes, the end result would probably have been the same, but they would have got there a lot quicker and a lot cheaper.

 

 

 

South Vietnam without an ideology and with many communists cannot defeat a Communist North Vietnam and non interdictable LOC from 2 Communist super powers. It is the same reason Western Europe post WW2 would have been defeated by Communist bloc if not for USA, despite larger population and economy.

Communists had more people willing to die for the cause.

[sunday]

45 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

South Vietnam without an ideology and with many communists cannot defeat a Communist North Vietnam and non interdictable LOC from 2 Communist super powers. It is the same reason Western Europe post WW2 would have been defeated by Communist bloc if not for USA, despite larger population and economy.

Communists had more people willing to die for the cause.

You forget Ted Kennedy

https://www.nytimes.com/1974/05/07/archives/senate-rejects-vietnam-aid-rise-transfer-of-266million-for-arms-is.html

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, lucklucky said:

South Vietnam without an ideology and with many communists cannot defeat a Communist North Vietnam and non interdictable LOC from 2 Communist super powers. It is the same reason Western Europe post WW2 would have been defeated by Communist bloc if not for USA, despite larger population and economy.

Communists had more people willing to die for the cause.

Once again, please read what I said. Nobody could save South Vietnam, and they knew it by 1965. So why be supporting the war 8 years later? Nixon promised to end the war vicoriously to South Vietnam, scuppered Johnsons chance to end the war, and he knew it was a giant shining lie.

I still admire Nixon for a lot of things, but he and Kissinger pulling that stunt were skunks, absolute skunks. And most Americans still aren't aware of it. Watergate, a trivial offence in comparison, completely  blotted it out.

[lucklucky]

Because it forced the Communists waste resources in that war and not start supporting insurgencies elsewhere. It obviously can be argued that the resources spend there were too much for the propose, but i think that need to be established and it would be better to fight whatever insurgency would be reinforced and or started . I don't admire Nixon.