Comment by ggm | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ggm | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm not entirely sure I get what this tells us. A degree of cynicism in politics is inevitable, for the players. And, Kissinger was undoubtedly playing. As was Mao, with other people.

Interesting Edgar Snow was brought up, I read his long March piece as a child, it's pretty accessible. ("Red Star over China" 1937)

Zhou EnLai was a survivor and a moderating force in the bad times. The national museum in Tienanmen square celebrates his life quite quietly. I saw photos of Zhou all through China on shop walls, drinking tea and having a smoke with people. Deng somehow less so. There's a rather odd fashion statement moment when all three of Deng, Mao and Zhou can be seen separately in photos, sporting a western style golf cap like Bing Crosby. "I'll get back to par on the ninth hole, just after I finish reconstructing steel industry furnaces and representing the farm sector in a standup" -I doubt they had much time for golf, but maybe they liked listening to Bing on 78s?

Ironic that Kissinger talked about US hopes for Iran, they royally fucked up with the Shah, and what followed pretty much defined the US/USSR battle lines in the middle east. So much can be laid at the door of misplaced US diplomacy.

But it was good to engage with China, and I think most Chinese now would be happy a pair of cynical bastards met and talked it out.

Nixon wasn't much more than a figurehead in this.

Christopher Hitchens was right: Kissinger was a war criminal so I tend to regard this kind of verbatim report as reflecting two criminally minded geniuses shooting the breeze together.

> Kissinger was a war criminal so I tend to regard this kind of verbatim report as reflecting two criminally minded geniuses shooting the breeze together.

Of course he was / they were. But guilt v. innocence is too crude a distinction to say anything meaningful about history. There's a lot going on that that distinction can't account for. In the end, they're all guilty, and we're all guilty, and only a childish craving to see oneself as innocent and project all badness onto others imagines otherwise.

p.s. This is not a criticism. I enjoyed your comment.

Everyone isn’t guilty to the same degree. Seeing guilt at different degrees doesn’t necessitate innocence. Casting blame evenly or vaguely isn’t good.

There are many instances of guilty vs less guilty throughout history. The current world is built off of the colonizing of the Americas and the lessons and reactions from that. There’s no both sides to that. The west was and has always been wrong with imperialism. Kissinger doesn’t need to be white washed.

Exactly this. There's people responsible for not paying their parking tickets on time, and then there's folks such as Kissinger and Madeleine Albright that have the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on their hands. Lets not sweep it all under the same rug.

The issue here is that, when you live in the same society, the effects of these killings tend to trickle down to benefits towards you.

Not being able to see that the shoes we wear can be the product of child exploitation on the other side of the world is the problem, that allows people on the top to act the way they do.

Plenty of people today are aware of things like clothing being made in unsavory conditions. Few can afford clothing themselves in the alternatives, however. Even in the grocery store, you have to pay sometimes double for free range eggs. Not everyone has the disposable income to pay extra for the morally conscious choice. We are limited to what the market makes available at our own price points, you never have much choice in the matter.

> Christopher Hitchens was right: Kissinger was a war criminal so I tend to regard this kind of verbatim report as reflecting two criminally minded geniuses shooting the breeze together.

Perhaps, but the trade arrangements made at that meeting have essentially been policy for every Administration since. That's very interesting. What to make of that? Why have no U.S. Presidents (except, maybe, maybe in rhetoric, Trump) wanted something different? The point is that Kissinger figured out something very important, and got it done, and it's lasted half a century. Policy momentum is a fascinating thing, and how to arrange for it.

Another question I have is why Mao's intense hostility to the Soviets. Yes, Kruschev's Secret Speech was the cause of their schism, but why did all the premiers who followed Kruschev fail to right things with the Chinese? And why did Kruschev not find a way to smooth things with Mao? "Look, that Speech is not an attack on you, it's just me shoring up support in the USSR by attacking Stalin, and that works because Stalin made himself so feared, m'kay?" And why wouldn't that work, as long as the Speech stayed Secret and even if not, as long as it stayed out of the public eye in China? Well, ok, Kruschev couldn't keep it that secret, but still, the premiers that followed him could have denounced that speech and made things ok with China. But this hostility survived Mao's death, even when Deng Xiaoping essentially (but not overtly) accepted Kruschev's position against personality cults! Why? Only now, maybe, the Russians are finally repairing that schism.

Really, TFA is extremely interesting.

And yes, it's clear that to some degree Mao and Kissinger were playing roles, being flattering and saying things they probably didn't really mean.

And then there's Mao's quip about Americans not being "awakened". Who knows what he meant, but Kissinger either did or pretended. Mao might have meant something very pedestrian, or perhaps something sinister, or perhaps something very good -- it'd be good to know.

I'm not all the way through reading this and I'm just full of questions.

Say what you will about the protagonists, but these memos are riveting.

Kruschev was explicitly attacking cults of personality and individuals hoarding too much power at the expense of the party.

It’s hard to imagine how could Mao have not taken this seriously.

The soviets were patronising. Mao resented Stalin's operatives telling him what to do all the time pre 49. Post 49, nothing much Russia did was in China's longterm interest. China and India were in border dispute which still rancours yet the soviets wanted some degree of amity with India, leading the non aligned nations in the UN there was much for them to profit from not supporting China across that boundary dispute. The Korean war probably started overt resentments which had things like inner/outer Mongolia to stew over since day 1. When Russia blew hot, China was cold, and vice versa. When Russia went with peaceful coexistence China was still militant. In the end, they were "much too much in love to get along"

> Perhaps, but the trade arrangements made at that meeting have essentially been policy for every Administration since. That's very interesting. What to make of that? Why have no U.S. Presidents (except, maybe, maybe in rhetoric, Trump) wanted something different? The point is that Kissinger figured out something very important, and got it done, and it's lasted half a century. Policy momentum is a fascinating thing, and how to arrange for it.

It's no great secret, the US business community wanted access to China's huge market. That's been true since the 1800s. Nixon and Kissinger, and their successors, especially Clinton, were just acting in their political donors' interest. That's why it happened and why it lasted, until Xi and Trump at least.

> But it was good to engage with China, and I think most Chinese now would be happy a pair of cynical bastards met and talked it out.

Is this referring to Mao and Kissinger? Calling Mao and Kissinger collectively cynical doesn’t fit. The imperialist war criminal being a cynical bastard makes sense. Not the eastern revolutionary leftist. That necessitates optimism.

> That necessitates optimism.

Only if you’re into mass murder and artificially induced famines. The cultural revolution was another very ‘optimistic’ policy (well from the perspective of some deranged lunatics anyway)

As awful as Kissinger was Mao was just on another level of awfulness…

I don't know how to describe the great leap forwards if not cynical. Nor Stalin's collectivization of agriculture.

Their brand of idealism permitted the sacrifice of millions for what they believed was the greater good. I suppose there is a certain kind of optimism there, but it's still deeply cynical.

The fascinating thing with Kissinger is that he's still alive, still wields political influence, and has been active for eighty years and was wielding his influence in essentially all major conflicts during that time. He just published another book and just celebrated his 100th birthday.

He started out as a German Jewish refugee. Fought in WW II and became an American, ended up being part of the post WW II effort to administer Germany, and then started his career in political science and international politics.

The nineteen sixties and seventies were a complicated era. The war in Vietnam was an ugly affair, and Kissinger's involvement with negotiating the peace deal is what earned him a controversial Nobel peace price. It was also the peak of the cold war and Kissinger was basically coordinating policy in a number of proxy wars across the world. Iran/Iraq, Chile, Vietnam, etc. and projecting US power everywhere he could.

Calling him a war criminal is a bit rich. But undeniably some of the decision making at the time backfired in a big way and Kissinger was at the core of a lot of that. Both during the Nixon era and long after when he advised administrations all the way until now.

Particularly the decision to prop up a lot of corrupt despots in order to prevent the Russians from gaining influence has caused a lot of long lasting conflicts that continue to play out today. You could make the point that the US ultimately won the cold war. Albeit at the cost of triggering a lot of other ugly conflicts.

The Iranian revolution is probably one of his bigger failings. Triggered directly by him backing the wrong horse in Iran, which ultimately lead to the Iranian revolution, the US providing military aid to Iraq, the Iran/Iraq war, the Iran contra affair (where the US provided weapons to Iran) the Russian/Afhanistan conflict where they US also provided lots of military aid, both Gulf wars, more recently the Afghanistan and Syrian conflicts. And there's of course the decades long support for the brutal regime in Saudi Arabia, the US involvement in various revolutions across Africa and South America. There's a pattern there of the US backing the worst regimes in order to divide and conquer and gain/expand its influence and power. That's what big countries do.

Was Kissinger involved with and personally responsible for all of that? Probably not but he was definitely advising a lot of politicians and this soft power via military aid, diplomacy, meddling, propping up despots, etc. definitely is his style. But he was only in office for a few years and during that time his big focus was ending an ugly war in Vietnam that he did not start. There were hard line politicians before and after that. He certainly has been on the sideline advising many of them for decades. Especially the hard line policies under the Reagan and both Bush presidencies have his finger prints all over them and he also consulted Democratic presidents like Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Biden. But does that make him a criminal? If so, there are a lot of other war criminals. And they are enabled by voters who keep voting for this sort of thing.

This is disgusting, Kissinger is absolutely a war criminal.

He played both sides and helped sabotage the 68' peace talks by leaking information to Nixon, just to get a job within either administration. So great, he helped end a war he prolonged for years and was involved with the bombing of neighboring countries.

Kissinger did not end the war, or help in ending it, though. He did eventually help negotiate a withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam, but only after having participated in several serious war crimes, as well as helping to sabotage the 1968 Paris peace talks, as a political move to get clout with the Nixon campaign in the first place.

Famously, Lê Đức Thọ, who was jointly given the Nobel with Kissinger, refused to accept it, partially because peace had not in fact been achieved.

What was the right horse in Iran?

Well, Chris didn’t have any problem killing a lot of baby killing in Iraq. Made Pol Pot proud.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com