I can understand why people despise Kissinger, but he’s a pretty interesting figure on the whole. Not the best diplomat or Secretary of State we’ve had, but certainly a seminal figure in American foreign policy.
Idk, it's actually wild how HN is almost entirely "Kissinger is a war criminal" meme-ing with little actual specific policy substance behind it. Meanwhile, if you read any Kissinger, you'd realize he understood history and the international relations better than 99% of these comments. Truly, word-for-word basis you will undoubtedly learn far more about history reading World Order than you will these HN comments. Personally, I have little hope in their uneducated decisions in a position of astronomical consequences and no 20/20 hindsight.
This is a good point. Can we really say for certain that “bombing noncombatant countries both during a war and after a treaty was signed” is a war crime, and even if it were would “coming up with the whole idea” even count as contributing to something like that? It is confusing stuff like this that has led to no person ever being convicted for war crimes — the concept is too nebulous and complex to nail down.
Surely if Kissinger were a war criminal he would have said so in the books that he wrote
"In 1966, Sihanouk made an agreement with Zhou Enlai of the People's Republic of China that would allow PAVN and VC forces to establish base areas in Cambodia and to use the port of Sihanoukville for the delivery of military material
Before the diplomatic amenities with Sihanouk [and the US] were even concluded, Nixon had decided to deal with the situation of PAVN/VC troops and supply bases in Cambodia.
On 30 January 1969, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Earle Wheeler suggested to the president that he authorize the bombing of the Cambodian sanctuaries. He was seconded by General Creighton W. Abrams, who also submitted his proposal to bomb the Central Office of South Vietnam (COSVN), the elusive headquarters of PAVN/VC southern operations, located somewhere in the Fishhook region of eastern Cambodia. Abrams claimed to Nixon that the regions of eastern Cambodia to be bombed were underpopulated and no civilian deaths would be caused."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu
But instead, all any snarky layman hears from the grapevine is that Kissinger is coming up with the whole plan to bomb a random Commie country for zero reason. That you know Kissinger's name and not any of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Sec Def, or Sec State at the time involved in these decisions tells everything. People need an evil mastermind scapegoat, like McNamara was for Vietnam, because they can't comprehend the complexities involved in fog of war decision making, with no hindsight, and all the actors involved.
[1] https://gsp.yale.edu/sites/default/files/walrus_cambodiabomb...
[2] https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB123/3%20%20Kissinger...
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/cold-war-henry-kissi...
Given the intricacies of the natural bomb migration patterns, who is to say if any person can be thought of as participating in how they fall? It is a philosophical question for theologians and meta physicists.
You have a fascinating point that you are very smart and the act of disagreeing with you on this categorically makes others very dumb.
I suppose you can claim a victory in that I decline to refute your idea that “an action can’t be a war crime if multiple people are involved, also knowing who Henry Kissinger is means you don’t know who anyone else is”, it is simply a thought too eloquent and genius to craft an equally compelling riposte.
Anyway, you’re welcome to directly address the primary sources I linked and make a bullet pointed list explaining why each part is proof that Henry Kissinger did not commit any war crimes.
Should a country delay a peace process with an enemy nation for several years for the sake of optics over peace? (Vietnam)
Should a world leader meant to promote peace and de-escalation of armed conflict intentionally snub and antagonize their chief political rival with nukes, for the sake of optics? (USSR regarding wars in the mideast)
From my brief reading in the past few hours, it seems he decided a number of US policy positions that not only killed a large number of humans, but did so by expressly ignoring the stated principles of liberalism, self-determination and human decency and honor.
So I guess if people were to fully support him and his actions, I would at least ask them to be consistent and say "I do not believe in a rules-based world order and I do not believe the US has any obligation to advance human rights worldwide".
There are times the US has done things that were horrific, but were deemed absolutely essential to saving more lives than they cost - such as the bombing of Japan. Kissinger's difference is that none of the moves he endorsed seem to have been necessary to the survival of the "West" or the US, but it cost more lives than the bombings.
https://jacobin.com/2023/11/kissinger-in-bangladesh
https://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/when-russia-stunned-us...
Kissinger might be worse than average but he certainly isn't exceptional.
Bush got us into Iraq, for what?
This doesn't mean Kissinger doesn't deserve criticism.
One thing of note in the spew of bile aimed at Kissinger in the HN comment thread is that it appears to emanate from people who were children or not even born during the cold war, and who seem to base their opinion on the comments of rock n' roll stars, cooks, leftist journalists/activists (sometimes turned neocon in their later life, surprise!).
I lament the decline of comment quality on HN whenever a somewhat controversial figure is brought up. It's almost as bad as Ars Technica in those cases, and closely resembles the what comes out of the comment section of the worst right wing news cloaca.
I'll order biography by Niall Ferguson in the meantime.