November 30, 2023

"He advised 12 presidents — more than a quarter of those who have held the office — from John F. Kennedy to Joseph R. Biden Jr."

With a scholar’s understanding of diplomatic history, a German-Jewish refugee’s drive to succeed in his adopted land, a deep well of insecurity and a lifelong Bavarian accent that sometimes added an indecipherable element to his pronouncements, he transformed almost every global relationship he touched.... He was the only American to deal with every Chinese leader from Mao to Xi Jinping. In July, at age 100, he met Mr. Xi and other Chinese leaders in Beijing, where he was treated like visiting royalty even as relations with Washington had turned adversarial. He drew the Soviet Union into a dialogue that became known as détente, leading to the first major nuclear arms control treaties between the two nations. With his shuttle diplomacy, he edged Moscow out of its standing as a major power in the Middle East, but failed to broker a broader peace in that region. Over years of meetings in Paris, he negotiated the peace accords that ended the American involvement in the Vietnam War, an achievement for which he shared the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize...."

Writes David Sanger, in "Henry Kissinger Is Dead at 100; Shaped Nation’s Cold War History/The most powerful secretary of state of the postwar era, he was both celebrated and reviled. His complicated legacy still resonates in relations with China, Russia and the Middle East" (NYT).

With an eye fixed on the great power rivalry, he was often willing to be crudely Machiavellian, especially when dealing with smaller nations that he often regarded as pawns in the greater battle. 

He was the architect of the Nixon administration’s efforts to topple Chile’s democratically elected Socialist president, Salvador Allende.

He has been accused of breaking international law by authorizing the secret carpet-bombing of Cambodia in 1969-70, an undeclared war on an ostensibly neutral nation...

When Pakistan’s U.S.-backed military was waging a genocidal war in East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, in 1971, he and Nixon not only ignored pleas from the American consulate in East Pakistan to stop the massacre, but they approved weapons shipments to Pakistan, including the apparently illegal transfer of 10 fighter-bombers from Jordan....

In 1975, Mr. Kissinger and President Ford secretly approved the invasion of the former Portuguese colony of East Timor by Indonesia’s U.S.-backed military...

Mr. Kissinger dismissed critics of these moves by saying that they did not face the world of bad choices he did. But his efforts to snuff out criticism with sarcastic one-liners only inflamed it. “The illegal we do immediately,” he quipped more than once. “The unconstitutional takes a little longer.”...

ADDED:

“For the formative years of his youth, he faced the horror of his world coming apart, of the father he loved being turned into a helpless mouse,” said Fritz Kraemer, a non-Jewish German immigrant who was to become Mr. Kissinger’s first intellectual mentor. “It made him seek order, and it led him to hunger for acceptance, even if it meant trying to please those he considered his intellectual inferiors.”

AND:

[B]efore returning to the United States [in 1945] he visited Fürth, his [Bavarian] hometown, and found that only 37 Jews remained. In a letter discovered by Niall Ferguson, his biographer, Mr. Kissinger wrote at 23 that his encounters with concentration camp survivors had taught him a key lesson about human nature.

“The intellectuals, the idealists, the men of high morals had no chance,” the letter said. The survivors he met “had learned that looking back meant sorrow, that sorrow was weakness, and weakness synonymous with death.

ALSO: 

If an American president was paralyzed by fear of escalation, Mr. Kissinger argued, the concept of nuclear deterrence would fail. If the United States could not credibly threaten to use small, tactical weapons, he said, it “would amount to giving the Soviet rulers a blank check.” In short, professing a willingness to conduct a small nuclear war was better than risking a big one.

MORE:

By the time that he and Nixon took office, he argued, it was too late to just leave [Vietnam]. “If you come into government and find 550,000 of your troops involved in the battle, how do you end that?” he asked. He and Nixon needed a way out, he said, that did not discredit “the 50,000 dead” or “the people who had relied on America’s word.” 

41 comments:

The Crack Emcee said...

That obituary made me shiver. Good riddance.

PB said...

Where we are today isn't a great testament to his sage counsel.

Dave Begley said...

A hard left Nebraska state Senator posted on X that Kissinger was a war criminal and he should “burn in Hell.” She’s an atheist or agnostic.

Sure wonder what Henry thought of today’s antisemitism. I’m guessing he knew Jew hatred will never go away, but he probably surprised how the Dems now support it.

Humperdink said...

Not a fan.

tim in vermont said...

“The intellectuals, the idealists, the men of high morals had no chance,” the letter said. The survivors he met “had learned that looking back meant sorrow, that sorrow was weakness, and weakness synonymous with death.”

This is indeed the basis of our foreign policy, and anybody who thinks that we start wars, inflame rivalries between neighboring countries, and foment "color revolutions" abroad for the good of the people involved in those countries is a fool. The problem is that to fully implement it requires endless wars, well, not "endless," once we have conquered the world, they will presumably end. The other problem is that you might see other powers rise that can resist our foreign policy of endless war effectively. In other words, it sounds coldly realistic and intellectually valid, but it is not. A better way is to muddle along, try to get along, and keep your powder dry. It just doesn't appeal to people who get a little boner when they see an aircraft carrier sent off the shore of some rival country that we have just been aching for the chance to give what for, but George Washington was right, we are protected by two oceans, and we don't need to get involved in these "foreign entanglements" that only serve to make our billionaire oligarchy even richer.

Kissinger fell out of favor with the sock puppets of the "Cyber Threat Intelligence League" though, when he allowed that picking a war with Russia over adding Ukraine into NATO was stupid. This kind of thinking is not allowed, it's "disinformation," in fact.

Rich said...

Kissinger was both smart and well-informed about the world, something that unfortunately cannot be said of several of his successors. His stake on realpolitik is bound to cause controversy, but the core tenet of "balance of powers" is as true today as it was after the treaty that ended the Napoleonic wars (and the topic of his early research). Like all great men or women, he has admirers and detractors, both of which have very good reasons for their opinion. Others simply react viscerally one way or the other, as several comments seem to do.

Getting the Saudis (and oil exporting countries) to price oil in US Dollars and reinvest the proceeds back into US assets /debts is/was one of the brightest ideas ever conceived. Kissinger’s human rights legacy is tarnished, but the petrodollar system he designed and implemented is undeniably ingenious.

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

The guy we have making the final decisions on foreign policy today, Joe Biden, flunked the third grade.

gilbar said...

He has been accused of breaking international law by authorizing the secret carpet-bombing of Cambodia junglein 1969-70, against a massive military presence of armed men from the other side of an undeclared war on an ostensibly neutral nation...

Since we WEREN'T at "war" with north vietnam (or laos);
what the f*ck difference did our bombing cambodia jungle mean?

Please ask the citizens of Tokyo or Dresden about "carpet-bombing" ?

William said...

I read the NYT obit. It's quite lengthy, and no fact detrimental to Kissinger is ignored. I don't think that this obit will be the final judgement of history....I read a couple of Kissinger's books. He was quite a good writer. His book, Diplomacy, clearly explained how and why diplomacy sometimes works. I can understand why world leaders sought him out for his advice. He had a huge fund of knowledge and he certainly sounded sage and wise.....I read his book on the Congress of Vienna, A World Restored. Much like Kissinger, Castlereagh and Metternich were reviled by the leading intellectuals of their time. It was felt that the diplomats at the Congress represented the forces of reaction. Well, so they did, but the Congress of Vienna gave Europe a hundred years of peace. It was during this period that humanity made its great leap forward.....The Treaty of Versailles was not negotiated by reactionaries. Lloyd George and Woodrow Wilson were progressives. They made quite a mess of things. The peace to end all peace. The sort of people who reviled Metternich and Kissinger were the sort of people who were enamored of Woodrow Wilson. Perhaps there's a lesson here.

Kai Akker said...

Niall Ferguson brings a little more perspective in his piece in the Wall Street Journal today:

In 1972 the administration achieved what Kissinger called “three out of three”: Nixon’s February visit to China, the May Moscow summit, and Kissinger’s October breakthrough with Le Duc Tho in Paris. On the phone to Nixon, Kissinger spoke of having “set up this whole intricate web. When we talked about linkage, everyone was sneering.”

In pursuit of this strategic trifecta, Kissinger was prepared to sacrifice smaller pieces on the chessboard. Pakistan took precedence over India and East Pakistan (which became Bangladesh), because Islamabad was the key conduit to Beijing. South Vietnam and Taiwan found that the U.S. was a fickle ally. Kissinger’s many critics focused on the human costs of strategic decisions that were, Kissinger long argued, inevitably choices between evils.

Jeff said...

Whatever one thinks of Kissinger, it takes massive chutzpah for any Democrat to criticize him. When Eisenhower left office, the US was at peace in Indochina. Eight years later, when Nixon, Eisenhower's VP, became president, Indochina was a massive bloodbath tearing the US to pieces in internal dissent -- all because of a pointless, stupid, undeclared Democratic Party war. Nixon and Kissinger managed to end the war in at least a stalemate, and conduct Detente with the USSR and make a significant opening with China.

William said...

I read the NYT obit. It's quite lengthy, and no fact detrimental to Kissinger is ignored. I don't think that this obit will be the final judgement of history....I read a couple of Kissinger's books. He was quite a good writer. His book, Diplomacy, clearly explained how and why diplomacy sometimes works. I can understand why world leaders sought him out for his advice. He had a huge fund of knowledge and he certainly sounded sage and wise.....I read his book on the Congress of Vienna, A World Restored. Much like Kissinger, Castlereagh and Metternich were reviled by the leading intellectuals of their time. It was felt that the diplomats at the Congress represented the forces of reaction. Well, so they did, but the Congress of Vienna gave Europe a hundred years of peace. It was during this period that humanity made its great leap forward.....The Treaty of Versailles was not negotiated by reactionaries. Lloyd George and Woodrow Wilson were progressives. They made quite a mess of things. The peace to end all peace. The sort of people who reviled Metternich and Kissinger were the sort of people who were enamored of Woodrow Wilson. Perhaps there's a lesson here.

RideSpaceMountain said...

I had always heard that Kissinger had a way with women. Never really believed that, but it made some sense. A man who looked like Henry would have to be really good at slinging rizz to bang almost anyone. It would make sense that a guy who negotiates for a living would have sufficient rizz to bang hot girls.

I wouldn't balk at Henry being my wingman, just to see what all the fuss was about.

Data Schlepper said...

"Witnessing his father being turned into a helpless mouse". I wonder if Kissinger ever encountered Art Spiegleman's graphic novel "Maus"?

Howard said...

I imagine Christopher Hitchens is smiling somewhere.

Wince said...

I used the term "Soviet adventurism" during a discussion in freshman lit class, to which the professor who liked to treat me as an inferior for some reason said there was no such word.

I always wished I'd replied, "I'll be sure to let Henry Kissinger know."

...and a lifelong Bavarian accent that sometimes added an indecipherable element to his pronouncements.

I always identified with Rush Limbaugh's Kissinger impression when he introduced the following topic:

"Foreign Policy."

Lloyd W. Robertson said...

There was a great piece I think in Slate on Cambodia. Either there was a Cambodian government that collaborated with the Viet Cong, or there wasn't. If yes, that government was at war with the U.S. If no, the Ho Chi Minh Trail was no man's land, fair game.

Chile: I hope the CIA didn't kill Allende. The country was unstable, big chunks of the population were anti- Allende (there was a truck drivers' strike), it wasn't just about the copper companies.

Postponing the end of U.S. involvement in Vietnam (not the end of the war). Served Nixon's domestic political purposes--the Silent Majority speech was one of the most successful of all time in turning public opinion. Kissinger gave the delay more of a "security" rationale. People who were being drafted naturally felt ripped off (played for suckers and losers?) and no one has been drafted since.

Kissinger on Iran vs. Iraq: the U.S. would like both sides to lose. True. Bush Jr. Made a big mistake in giving Iran a big victory.

Humperdink said...

He was right about some things, but catastrophically wrong regarding China.

wild chicken said...

And he had the worst vocal fry...

Interesting guy though.

planetgeo said...

When they do the autopsy, they'll discover that he was really our first Vulcan Secretary of State. Will probably be returned via the transporter in Area 51.

tim in vermont said...

Is it ironic that a foreign policy viewpoint born in the horror of concentration camps has led us to ally with a country which worships a man who sent hundreds of thousands of Jews to such camps, and has even named the highway leading up to the site of one death camp after him, Stephan Bandera Road? Or was it to be expected?

This is the problem with an amoral foreign policy, it's hard to sell to the rubes, so you not only have to lie, but you have to shut down voices which speak the truth.

"Take care, when fighting a monster, that you do not become a monster yourself." - Nietzsche

Roger Sweeny said...

Anyone who wants to understand Kissinger should read Barry Gewen's The Inevitability of Tragedy: Henry Kissinger and His World. Why did he support the Pakistani government's brutal attempt to stop the secession of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh)? Because he was using the Pakistani president as a back channel to China, preparing for the "opening to China" that was part of his and Nixon's plan to end the Cold War. Yes, they thought big.

Kissinger was acutely aware that in many cases, whichever decision you make will hurt some people. So you try to do what will be best for the most people in the long run. Which you can never know beforehand!

Lucien said...

SO, either Cambodia let North Vietnamese troops into its territory, or North Vietnamese troops had invaded Cambodia, but we were supposed to treat it as a neutral country? Sounds about right for the leftist logic of the 60's and 70's. (And even today).

Aggie said...

I didn't really care for Kissinger's work, but I would have taken him as head & shoulders better than anything Washington's diplomatic efforts has produced in the last 30 years. And I would give him credit for tackling problems that are beyond my ken, and cut them all some slack for having access to much better information than I have when making complex choices.

Bob Boyd said...

I had always heard that Kissinger had a way with women.

Plus, he was hung like a Bactrian camel.

gspencer said...

Lets see him form a NWO in the afterlife.

rcocean said...

Oh god, he was a holcaust survivor. Good grief. He came to the USA when he was 15, in 1938. His family was never in danger, and they all lived to be almost 90-100 years old.

If the Nazis had not been antisemitic, there's a good chance Kissinger would've been drafted into the Heer and died on the Eastern Front or in Allied bombing raid, like millions of other Germans his age. How many people know that almost 35 percent of German Boys born in 1923 died in WW II?

Anyway, I don't remember much about Kissinger in the 70s, except my parents would snark about Gerald Ford and how Kissinger seemed to be the real POTUS. Ford was always so proud that he had Kissinger to advise him and be his secretary of state. Later I read that Ford would talk to Kissinger every day at the Oval Office. When Kissinger told him he did a good job after the 76 debate where Ford "Freed Eastern Europe", this reinforced Ford's belief he should stand by his incredibly stupid statement.

Glad he's dead. Nothing against him personally, I just hate it when famous people get past 90, and people are still quoting them. Just get off the stage, old person.

William said...

According to the Times obit, the peoples of Cambodia, Bangladesh, East Timor, and Chile suffered a malign fate because of the Kissinger's malign machinations. If it weren't for his evil influence, they would have all gone on to live long happy lives.....I don't know that much about these countries, but I doubt whether he was the dominant factor in their wrong turns. Maybe Chile would have gone the way of Venezuela or Cuba if Allende had lived to see his dream fulfilled. In any event, there were lots of people in the fore mentioned countries who were going to proceed with their plans with or without our help.....Interesting to note that the war in Bangladesh caused hundreds of thousands of casualties and ten million refugees. This happened just twenty plus years after the creation of Israel. All the victims were Muslims, as, of course, were most of their oppressors. Did those ten million refugees go on to live happier, more fulfilled lives than the Palestinians? Why do we hear nothing about them. They're as invisible as those millions of ethnic Chinese who were forced out of Vietnam after the Communist conquest. Were those Chinese refugees the result of the malign machinations of the Chicago Seven and Daniel Ellsberg? In any event, the world has a limited amount of sympathy for those in sorrow, and most of it needs at this time to be directed to the plight of the Palestinians or, to a far lesser extent, their Israeli captives. No others need apply at this time.

Gulistan said...

They could've just used Monty Python's song about him as an obit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVGV6lvNTR4

Rabel said...

"Mr. Kissinger dismissed critics of these moves by saying that they did not face the world of bad choices he did."

A truth that is beyond the comprehension of many.

Narr said...

The Century of Peace after 1815 (tm) is, if not a myth, something of a mirage. The 1815 system in Europe was modified by the 1848 revolutions, which probably had as much or more to do with it, and then we mustn't forget the great Otto von B., who was the premier statesman of the age.

After 1815 the Brits and French turned their attentions to the chunks of land that weren't already colonized, and hardly a year went by without their troops or fleets planting their flags somewhere. The French, supposedly ground down by Bonaparte's wars, had troops in Spain in the 1820s, and the B, F, and Russians combined to destroy the Turkish fleet at Navarino in 1829, helping to ensure Greek independence.

The Brits of course extended their sway in India by way of big wars, and the French took over North Africa and started in on Indochina. From the 1830s through the 1860s the French sent forces into Mexico and the Levant when they felt like it. (This all while the US was fulfilling Manifest Destiny and those aggressive, warlike Germans were . . . being peaceful or emigrating to the US.)

There were big power wars in Europe in 1854, 1859, 1864, 1866, 1870 and 1877. That they didn't become general was due to wise diplomacy on the part of Bismarck et. al., not so much the system of 1815 IMO.





Joe Smith said...

He always gave me a Dr. Strangelove vibe.

Did he ever meet Kubrick?

Old and slow said...

Boy, when rcocean decides to show his true colors, he doesn't mess around! What do you really think rcocean? Don't hold back.

Narr said...

"Did [Kissinger] ever meet Kubrick?"

Not that I know of, and IIRC if anyone was a model for Strangelove it was Herman Kahn and/or Edward Teller.



Iman said...

“He was right about some things, wrong about others, but you at least had the sense that when Kissinger faced off with world leaders and opponents, American interests were well represented and defended. Compare and contrast to individuals like Madeline Albright, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Tony Blinken.”

—- J.J. Sefton

Iman said...

Kissinger claimed “power is an aphrodisiac”. He may’ve been bumpin’ uglies with Jill St. John at this point in his career. 🤛

rcocean said...

One more point on Kissinger. Its humorous the way people give Kissinger the credit/blame for so many things. Bottom line: From 69-74 Nixon was in charge and he was calling the shots.

Nixon may have asked for Kissinger's advice, or delegated him a negotiating role, but Nixon ultimately made the final decision. Not Kissinger. I think whatever happened under Ford, Kissinger can shoulder more of the blame/praise. Ford was a dummy, especially in foreign policy, and thought Kissinger was a Foreign Policy genius.

Nixon and his associates were often amused at Kissingers attempts to take credit for anything popular and dissociate himself from anything unpopular. But to his credit Kissinger didn't do that with the Christmas bombing and mining of Haipong harbor that finally led to the peace accords.

Kissinger wrote 3 thick volumes about his NS Advisor/Sec of State days under Ford/Nixon. That's 3x more than most Presidents!

rsbsail said...

Kissinger caught a lot of flak from liberal bed-wetters. That told me he was over the target. Screw the Kissinger haters.

Ampersand said...

International relations are a nihilistic thicket. Kissinger got to the top. And then he got old and died. Next.

Robert Cook said...

"A hard left Nebraska state Senator posted on X that Kissinger was a war criminal and he should 'burn in Hell.' She’s an atheist or agnostic."

Has she stated she is an atheist or agnostic, or do you merely surmise this? (If she wishes for Kissinger to burn in Hell, does that not suggest she might be a believer?) Do you consider it a a fault to be an atheist or agnostic? I'm an atheist. It is childish, not rational, to believe in a god or a supernatural realm where our "spirits" reside after our physical deaths.

As for her being "hard left," is this something she has stated or something else you are inferring because you dislike her statement? The American right today is so far fight that a Dwight Eisenhower would be probably be accused of being "hard left" if he were alive and active today.

And the Nebraska state Senator whom you did not name is absolutely correct: Henry Kissinger was a war criminal. I know there is no Hell, so it is meaningless to wish for Kissinger to "burn in Hell." The tragic injustice is that he wasn't tried and punished in his life, but was feted and sought out for his "sage" advice on how to make the world a better place for the power mongers and dictators of the world.