Niall Ferguson: Henry Kissinger Reappraised, with Andrew Roberts
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 12. 2015
- Want to join the debate? Check out the Intelligence Squared website to hear about future live events and podcasts: www.intelligencesquared.com
__________________________
Filmed at the Emmanuel Centre on 12th October 2015.
No American statesman has been as revered and as reviled as Henry Kissinger. To the late Christopher Hitchens he was a war criminal who should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. To his admirers he is the greatest strategic thinker America has ever produced, the ‘indispensable man’, whose advice has been sought by every president from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush.
Internationally renowned Harvard historian Niall Ferguson came to the Intelligence Squared stage to discuss his new appraisal of Kissinger. In his view, far from being the amoral arch-realist portrayed by his enemies, Kissinger owed a profound debt to philosophical idealism.
In this exclusive London appearance, Ferguson was joined by the distinguished historian Andrew Roberts, who brought his expertise from writing about great statesmen of the past - from Napoleon to Churchill - to the examination of this controversial figure. How did Kissinger’s worldview develop over the course of his early years, as a Jew in Hitler’s Germany, a poor immigrant factory worker in New York, a GI at the Battle of the Bulge, and in the aftermath of the war an interrogator of Nazis? How should we assess Kissinger’s record during his time as adviser to Kennedy, Nelson Rockefeller and Richard Nixon, as he helped steer US policy during the Vietnam War, the rapprochement with China, and the Cold War?
I have great respect for Niall Ferguson as a historian and I was looking forward to having my preconceived notions about Kissinger challenged here, but I found myself almost unable to continue after hearing Ferguson unironically say that Kissinger supports democracy and abhors totalitarian governments in principle even if they're effective. Kissinger's record in Latin America and Asia completely refutes this idea, I'm wondering how naive Mr. Ferguson is to believe Kissinger's self-exculpatory diaries.
Niall was afraid Henry would have him capped if he wrote a truthful biography..
Kissinger's work as a Toady for the Rockefeller Bros,
seems to defy the logic of him rejecting totalitarian
Democracy, or the Commercial version that seems to
find so much prominence in US political life currently....
I read your comment before watching. I won't waste my time now. Thanks.
@@orosedobheathaabhaile Good choice. I hope someday to get the chance to ask Niall to clarify his statement about Kissinger's alleged support for democracy and abhorrence of totalitarianism if I'm in the audience at one of his lectures during the Q&A. It infuriates me that nobody followed up after he said such an absurd thing.
@@chegadesuade You'll get an evasive, politicians answer.
Kissenger never saw a genocidal dictator he didn't like, and a democratic election he didn't hate
So he liked Hitler and Stalin?
Although I see your point as regards Pinochet and the Shan of Iran, et al.
Maybe we should give him a fair prosecution. More than he did before condemning unspeakable numbers to an insufferable life and death.
Numbers are unspeakable. Wow. Pol Pot talks your language. Ho Chi Minh. Mao. Stalin. Insufferable life. Death is not insufferable. Your syntax really,really sucks.
The thing I remember about Kissinger was his remark when asked about the US bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam war he said "Cambodia is just a side show".
its quite weird i am not defending him I am merely describing him
What a lovely man! Reminds me of Madeline Albright!
Sick.
That's one hell of a side show
Cold
The Nixon Foundation is on record as saying that Buckley’s support in 68 was not just beneficial but crucial. When Nixon was elected Kissinger wanted to meet him so he phoned Buckley to see if Buckley could arrange it . Logic dictates that Kissinger consequently had an excellent reference.
Kissinger’s networks never surpassed those of Buckley’s in America.
This man who was the largest voice on the right was by far the most advantageous networking Kissinger ever did . How Buckley does not enter into a discussion of Kissinger’s formative years in politics is absolutely preposterous.
I don't agree with everything Niall Ferguson say's, although I find his talk or discussion on Kissinger refreshing and interesting. But he's engaging, witty, a good public speaker and historian.
say's of all things
Assuming Hitchens was motivated to write about Kissinger in a negative way because he was jewish is QUITE the lame hypothesis. Wow. Enjoyed the program tho.
Hitchens was Jewish as well
@@christopherhitchens163 and appreciated that heritage, too.
Ask the Cambodians, Chileans, Vietnamese, .... how great Kissinger is.
💤
Don’t forget Bengalis, also they can’t say how great he is since they are dead from the bombings
@@Drippydesi it's unbelievable how much blood he has on his hands, even by american standards.
As valid as your points may or may not be, it is clear that you haven’t chosen to absorb the points made in this video. Perhaps because they run contrary to your own biases.
Christopher Hitchens had no time for Kissinger!
Superb presentation!
Kissinger invited Buckley to speak to his class in 1954 and they became close friends. So why all the head scratching about how he entered politics? Indeed you talk about networks, well Buckley was entwined with nearly everyone that was mentioned.
The fact that he was a refugee and had difficult early life does not legitimise the criminal career he embarked on. He brought misery to millions of people on grounds of that he knew best. No single individual ever contributed so much towards the unpopularity of America.
MEYER LANSKY WAS A REFUGEE.
The unpopularity of _"America?"_ Aren't you talking about Vladimir Lenin?
Listen to the podcast!!
This is going to sound bizarre but, at 39:30 the line 'he writes books' literally sounds like Hitchens.
Mmmmmmmm! As much as his accent has become anglicised, he still speaks with a Scots accent. 🏴
Hugely informative - and witty: a rare combination!
Wow! A really good talk.
His articulacy is a great pleasure
Good to see Hitch referred to
Hitch was friends with Niall but sharply disagreed about Kissinger for good reason. Niall quoted Kissinger's senior thesis in this segment where Kissinger says we should oppose authoritarian regimes and promote democracy even when authoritarian regimes are effective. Hitch wrote a compendium of Kissinger's war crimes and would've pointed out the hypocrisy of those words, and he would've called Niall a fool for believing them.
Well the trouble with bitchy Hitch was he never saw the big picture. If Stalin or Mao hadn’t of purged 100 million of their own people then no doubt the doctrine of containment wouldn’t have existed and the need to suppress this evil ideology wherever it popped up in the world. Imagine the millions of lives that Kissinger’s tough decisions actually saved.
@@roughhabit9085 This logic really doesn't make sense. Firstly, the policy of containment was established before Stalin's crimes against his own people had become truly apparent to the west and before Mao had even come to power!
If you think the US bombing civilians indescriminately in South East Asia, or overthrowing a democratically elected government in Chile to install a brutal military dictator who murdered his own people is justified, that's fine. Just don't pretend the US was actually helping these people they brutalised.
@@Johncook1649 Stalin's crimes was known by the late 30's by those who needed to know. They chose to ignore it for ww2 but by 1948 when Stalin destroyed any illusion of a 'free' eastern europe by crushing democracy there a reaction came. The arguement is simple. Is Japan and South Korea better off under US light influence or better off under socialist rule? Had South Vietnam been a better place to live or worse place if the US had won that war for the people living there? -And don't get me wrong I think the Vietnam war was a stupid mistake; but that's mostly to do with the rotten egg that was the South Vietnamese government coupled with US arrogance and the geography that didn't lend itself in their favor; not because the end result would've been worse than what we got.
Um it’s been 21 years since Clinton declassified papers that showed that Johnson was “indiscriminately “ bombing Cambodia for four years!
Obviously Kissinger picked Ferguson because he thought Ferguson would write a favorable biography. I don't understand the indignation of many comments. If you don't like it don't buy his book, but if you are serious read both Ferguson and Hitchens.
I like the introduction.
If you’re not capable of asking a question, and instead insist on expressing a personal view, then we’ll take the microphone away from you.
Superb talk! Wonderfully fun and insightful
Superb talk! Defending a war criminal
Niall Ferguson must have never heard of Christopher Hitchens.
Don't read the comments. Just watch the talk. It's amazing.
why? it'll challenge your world view knowing not everyone holds your views?
I think it's quite the opposite actually. People in the comment section came here strictly to pout without ever watching the video let alone read the book.
You're 'right' on one count: The talk is good. Even if somebody fell asleep c. 19:58 ;) One wonders, though, why you'd make a comment declaring don't read comments...
Good advice
Surprisingly very good advice!
I wonder when the second volume of the biography will be released
Andrew, why is your book on Kissinger not available on Kindle? I don't have space on my bookshelves for more books and dislike fiddling with floppy books but wdv bought ur book moments ago if it were on Kindle
Brilliant lecture. Niall Ferguson has great insight on Historical facts on policy and policy makers
@H. Nguyen Pretty sure Vietnamese were butchered aplenty by both south Vietnamese and Vietcong and north Vietnamese soldiers. Also what Nixon policy? The Vietnam war was ramped up under Johnson not Nixon.. Nixon ENDED the draft that forced young men to go to Vietnam and he eventually ended the war in itself, continuously sending us troops home.
@H. Nguyen I know my history pretty well, and I know an ideologue who can't look at things objectively when I see one. Nixon's strategy was vietnamization, an attempt to leave south vietnam to fend for itself with US material help while pressuring the north to lay off through a peace settlement. If his strategy was to "Lie and deceive cauz I'm evil haha" then he did a terrible job as the Nixon administration ended the war in Vietnam.
Ferguson is merely an apologist for the war criminals who run the US fascist empire. Kissinger is a monster.
@H. Nguyen The US forces withdrew from Vietnam in the beginning of 1973 and Nixon resigned in August 1974.
@@lumpydark6173 I know my history pretty well too, and I know an apologist when I see one :)
Nixon committed treason when he sabotaged Johnson's last-minute attempt at a ceasefire in October 1968. He told the North Vietnamese he had a better offer. He was lying.
Who knows what would have come of Johnson's ceasefire. Maybe nothing. However, Nixon stabbed the Johnson Administration in the back and Johnson could have held his feet to the fire for it, but only had transcripts, not tapes, of Nixon's hijinks. There is even a rumour that the reason Nixon's men broke into Watergate is that Nixon was paranoid about these transcripts becoming public and was looking for them.
Nixon absolutely expanded the Vietnam War. He slowly withdrew American troops - 20,000 men died in Vietnam during his presidency - while massively expanding the bombing campaign, including into Cambodia and Laos. His actions are believed to have been key to the Khmer Rouge rise to power in Cambodia. God knows how many Vietnamese died as a result of American actions - we can only guess, but it is at least hundreds of thousands and possibly millions. Two hundred thousand Cambodians and 50,000 Laotians died. One of the bombing campaigns was conducted in secret, without congressional approval, which is illegal. He may have used nerve gas on a Laotian village in 1970 - very illegal. He also did not suspend the Agent Orange program when it became known that it was causing birth defects in Vietnamese children, meaning he knew it was literally a chemical weapon and kept using it anyway.
It took Nixon four years to end the war. Four years. As long as it had taken Johnson to escalate it.
Nixon was a slimeball and his actions in Southeast Asia were unforgivable. And then Gerald Ford pardoned him for Watergate, showing that presidents are effectively above the law, which had...consequences later.
Ferguson is so full of himself he's almost a parody of a public intellectual, but he is informed and entertaining.
Show me a person who isn’t informed and entertaining, who ISN’T full of themselves. It’s a prerequisite.
I totally agree. Ferguson feels his mojo when his tongue is burning. And that sells him more books. But he lacks the proper gravitas of an eminent intellectual.
No challenging questions, what a shame
The guy who asked the question about whether Kissinger would be in or out in the EU campaign is Richard Reed!!
We all make mistakes
The military dictatorship of Chile (Spanish: dictadura militar de Chile) was an authoritarian military government that ruled Chile between 1973 and 1990.
The dictatorship was established after the democratically-elected socialist government of Salvador Allende was overthrown by a CIA-backed coup d'état on 11 September 1973.
During this time, the country was ruled by a military junta headed by General Augusto Pinochet.
The military used the perceived breakdown of democracy and the economic crisis that took place during Allende's presidency to justify its seizure of power.
The dictatorship presented its mission as a "national reconstruction."
So where was our mistake? Venezuela?
Allende was elected on a relatively small vote with the centre and conservative vote split between several candidates. I mean just imagine what could happen in the next British general election contested by four major parties and significant Scottish and Irish fringe and splinter parties The United States did not expect his victory. I mean Bill Clinton was elected both ways because of a three way split and much of the Reaganite vote going to Ross Perot. Outside of the South , the support for Bill was not really any greater than McGovern could have achieved.
The real point about Allende is that he was a rather more white Dr than Che Guvera and he did not get quite a long period as Castro to prove he was going the same way. Allende had increased land farm confiscations and had confiscated the property of major us corporates and paid minimal compensation. Chile was like NZ now a pretty far left country which had been going that way with moral and social erosion of note and hard socialist policies being introduced by supposedly centrist regimes like Edward Freis for the previous 15 years. Allendes intention was to import the standard Warsaw Pact East German social stazi state controlled model of government industry, housing and health the Cuban Health and East German Public housing models being widely favoured by socialists and doctors throughout the Southern Cone for the last 40 years even unfortunately in NZ
@@frederickmiles327 so the solution is to overthrow a democratically elected government and install a destructive dictatorship? To assassinate general Schneider (ordered by Kissinger himself), completely negate the Chilean constitution? This is one of Kissinger’s great Cold War failings.
Especially within the framework of the Cold War it is pathetic. Strangle the democracy of a country that is of no threat to the U.S., just because you foresee policies that are unfavourable to American industry? And that in the spirit of anti-Communism? Because that is exactly what Communism does; invade countries or overthrow regimes that you deem threats to your geopolitical interests. In a way Kissinger’s policy reminds me of Lenin: complete tactical and moral flexibility. Abandon all principles in order to realise those principles.
I like Niall Ferguson, but he's sooooooo wrong on KISSENGER. He is a war criminal, his worst crimes were Cambodia and especially Chile.
Niall tried to explain why Kissinger became what he was by what events shaped him ? Dafuq ? And Niall is wrong that Kissinger was pro-democracy and anti-authoritarian .. He was Anti-India(Democratic) and pro-pak(authoritarian military regime) back in 70's .. His denial of 1971 genocide in Bangladesh by Pakistani Army itself showed how wrong he was.
An issue which remains with us to this day is Kissinger's secret negotiations with Beijing in 1970 / 71.
During the Cold war with the USSR , Nixon wanted to establish communications with Beijing .
Trade and US manufacturing soon started moving to China , but unfortunately the position of Tawain was never resolved .
I haven't read them , but there are documents available on the US National Security Archives if anyone is interested having a look .
.
wow.
Both in the book on Henry Kissinger Vol 1 and in this interview with Andrews Roberts , Niall Fergusson discusses, p20-24 &40, Kissingers role in deconstructing the Eisenhower , Mutually assured Destruction policy of mass nuclear retaliation to a nuclear strike on the USA by Russia/China. Niall Fergusson, never really accepts that Kissinger was totally serious and takes the accepted British PC view, nuclear deterrence was a marvel largely ending the possibility of large scale inter state war, were it became in fact impassionedly believed in left wing imposition which effectively gradually, disarmed Britain and reduced the British military and RN to minimal capability, despite spending massively on defence, until 1990 on largely pure strategic and tactical deterrence platforms.
Nobody accepts the possibility of nuclear warfare. You believe militaries are left-wing? It was the hawks who almost blew up the world in 1962, and modern 'simp' Kennedy stopped them.
"The illegal we do straight away, the unconstitutional takes a little longer."
If Christopher Hitchens ever heard Kissinger say this he would've vomited with rage.
Hitchens was a communist. Of course he hated people who thwarted it.
This is distressing since Kissinger was a multiple arena war criminal.
Whilst Roberts is enamoured by his subjects, Niall here seems, frankly, paid off by his, conveniently deriding any Kissinger critics as anti-semitic. Dean Rusk? Rusk actually went to war with Mao, Kissinger befriended him!
Ah, too bad they weren't interviewing Roberts on this
This was very thought provoking! We just dropped a rap explaining Kissinger’s life 🔥🔥🔥
I wonder who is the elderly men with a women next to him, they've been showing so often
One of them is Maurice Saatchi
The biography of Kissinger, where every critical event has to do with Kissinger's, quote, "divorce and second marriage"?
And how in the world did you get through the whole speech without once pointing out that Kissinger practically dictates his own thoughts when he is writing things? How do you not spot that, that he dictates on paper things that he wants to believe is true, and will now hold to be the case forever afterwards? He knew his position, and his influence - but you, as a historian today, could run around and talk to people who were there, to check if Kissinger's accounts were correct.
But then again that wouldn't end the paragraph with Kissinger's divorce and second marriage, so no go, obviously.
So I am curious if you have read the book?
I would like people to look up the definition of sociopath and explain to me how Kissinger isn't a sociopath (interestingly sociopaths are 1% of the population and more common than most realize). Kissinger lacked empathy for humankind to an extraordinary degree. Most politicians have to make tough decisions (sacrifice people) to do things that are right or beneficial for the greater good. Kissinger killed hundreds of thousands for his own self interest on numerous occasions and eschewed any consideration of morality. In the framework of 20th century US politics, HITLER wouldn't have done more needless damage than Kissinger did.
He is psychopath, just not a violent one, this one just liked geopolitics and managed to get into a position of power. It's either great or horrible depending on if you're on the side of the deaths or the killers.
Stuart McDonald might want to consider medication
Do you have any hard evidence that Kissinger killed hundreds of thousands of people, or are you just regurgitating Hitchens „The trails for Kissinger“ and it makes you feel morally superior and you are frustrated that nobody ever listens to you and you were never in a position of political decision making.
Which one is it, perhaps all of the above?
Yes, and probably why Kissinger and Xi share Chinese Whispers in secret. Two sociopaths.
@@tomschneider7555 Kissinger gave Indonesia free reign to take over East Timor after the withdrawal of the Portuguese empire, it was a genocidal mess of fire, murder, and mass rape.
What was Kissinger’s relationship with Brzezinski?
Friendly competition with the occasional unfriendly letter
I had the immense chance to find " Diplomatie" on a pavement of Paris priced in Francs and for free few years ago. Obviously this show would prevents this audiance of 2.0 students and arogant pensionners from reading THE Kissinger book. This Actor Studio Historian from Oxford is perfect for televisions of all kinds : he goes " great men" , private life (please tell us ! ) , gossips and People lifethat would replace the very fine analysis from Kissinger of some centuries of diplomatie , en français if you can . Instead of this cheap and quick show i would rather recommand the talk in between Kissinger and Eric Schmit , for understanding that History is the key ( hoping Schmit would get it one day ... )
He was Israel's man in Washington and he was brilliant at it.
Ferguson and his nostalgia for empire.Just redact all that ugly shadow and be grateful for painless dentistry.
Always thought Andrew Roberts is overrated, but I respect Niall Ferguson.
I prefer Intelligence Squared in debate format. If this is an impartial biography it should mention
1. Henry Kissinger illegally bombed Cambodia and prolonged the Vietnam War by 4 years. He wire tapped his own staff when he realized the Press was receiving leaked information about these bombing campaigns.
2. He told the Indonesian government that relations with the US would remain strong if they took over the land and destroyed the people of East Timor. He also organized the sale of U.S. weapons to Indonesian President Suharto so that this would be possible.
3. He arranged the murder of René Schneider, the commander-in-chief of the Chilean Army who opposed the 1970 coup in Chile. General Pinochet replaced the elected (and later murdered) President Salvador Allende. Pinochet's rule led to the murder of tens of thousands of people.
Horrible things, except South America. Killing communists, and anyone who took part in cleaning the filth from the world are heroes.
+numkie fucking nut job. you sound like the fascists who organized the killings in Latin America.
+Angus Keith- To be fair to I Intelligence Squared, the discussion centred around Niall's first book: 'Kissinger 1923-1968.' As mentioned in the talk, Niall will prob finish part two (covering the Vietnam War, Cambodia, etc) in a few years. It seems part one is serving as the exposition to part two. While it's obvious Niall is pro-Kissinger (which he has a right to be), I most definitely agree with the late, utterly great, Hitchens in denouncing the statesman as a total war criminal who clearly didn't give a shit for the so called 'peripheral' countries as long as he could help shape the power structures between the superpowers.
No biography of Kissinger that covers his life up to 1968 would mention any of those things since they all happened after 1968.
_Henry Kissinger illegally bombed Cambodia_ and the NVA "legally" used Cambodia as part of the Ho Chi Minh Trail. :eyeroll:
Read Barrett Browns takedown of this book, hilarious
detest typical q&a, this one is better
I find it impossible to listen to this apologia without feeling that I am being asked to gulp down a great big wet bucket of excreta. This is theater, not earnest historical endeavor.
I notice that the 3 year mark for Vol. II has come and gone, and I suspect that it will never appear in any bookshelf. Even defenders-for-hire have their pride, and something tells me Niall's pride would come at a price too steep for Kissinger, given what a monumental task it would be to justify Kissinger's actions post 1969.
As an aside: In Icelandic sagas, the most famous one is called The story of Burnt Njall (brennu-Njáls saga in Icelandic), who was burned alive in his house for defending a particularly prolific viking (a word that means pirate) and murderer, the strongest, fastest etc. of them all. Let's hope that Niall doesn't find his metaphorical house on fire as a result of poor choice in allegiances.
Say what you will. Kissinger made the best decisions he could. He alone was not responsible for Vietnam. The scream of “murderer” at the end was ridiculous. I’m sure he lives everyday with the decisions he either made or was involved in. War is never easy nor is losing. There’re are deeper principles involved. The US made a commitment to the South Vietnamese. Ironically, Kissinger was blamed by the South Vietnamese soldier for the US leaving AND others for staying. There is a bigger picture of geopolitics and human nature at play. These are abstract ideas and hence abstract decisions. Only the pessimists can assume the road not traveled was the better one.
The idea of the existence and potential use of tactical nuclear weapons has always been a concept too difficult for defence ministers, thinkers and officers outside the US, USSR and China to cope with and particularly from about 1963 as it becomes progressively clear that post Cuba and Kissinger Rand Corp and Most important Maxwell Taylor , JFK Joint Chief of Staff and only General liked and Trusted by RFK and JFK whose book , M.Taylor an Uncertain Trumpet called for a callibrated conventional and nuclear approach to Soviet/Chinese aggression and response, the response in Canada was cut defence spending from 10 to 2 per cent and Trudeau like the Netherlands told the US we no longer want your nuclear arms take them back.
Given the damage of even nuclear weapons let alone the colossal damage of any thermonuclear weapon the second line of nuclear deterrnce with by 1983-4 every RN/USN frigate and destroyer effectively wired with Asrock or for helicopter launched W177 NDB the destroyers, Frigates and SSNs alone with the Nimrods, Orion's and Atlantic's are the second real usable line of nuclear deterrence and the RAF Tornado, Jaguar, Buccaneer are restricted to 2/10k nuclear bombs another part of the second line nuclear deterrent.
At sea much of the problem for the RN was to have larger platforms for the potential efficient handling and 24hr availability of nuclear weapons. In the Falklands US sources say the two T22 the most modern a/s Frigates had 4 10k NDB each, Hermes had 16x10 160 Kilotons and Invincible 10 NDB. Hermes and Blake's old WW2 armoured magazines were seen as very useful for storing, protecting and sealing NDB.
The design of Britain's last real cruiser HMS Bristol approved in 1963 and with it's legend drawn 7/65 was intended to give efficient handlinstorage and delivery systems 24hrs with the Nuclear version of Ikara and supersonic air and surface defence with Sea Dart. Helicopter delivery of NDB was not efficient or safe because of the difficulty of loading, refueling and arming helicopters at night, terrifying on a frigate or a County guided missile destroyer.
But in 1966 Britain decided Ikara would be conventional, NDB stocks would be restricted to 500 depth charges and limited numbers of nuclear 5/10k bombs for the RAF and the obsolete thermonuclear Polaris would be maintained with 500k heads were the US Navy was moving to a mix of deterrent reserve doomsday SLBM and smaller war fighting MIRVs on other SBLM subs with 20-50k heads for what ABM, or war fighting in Europe. Officially No. But Yes. But in Britain the idea and thinking about limited nuclear war or 3 months conventional war in Europe, could not be contemplated or thought about. Healey, 0wen and Carrington , just said no, what is this and Polaris was renewed again again. So Britain lacked a conceivably usable independent deterrent or much conventional fighting power , other than the RAF by 1978.
I can't abide by apologists and whataboutism . I stand by Hitchens' assessment
Move to Cuba then 🌞
At about 1;06;58 NF says Kissinger would have been against Brexit , as he also is , because the UK 's influence is spread via the EU , I dont think that will stand the test of time, but it shows what a good form of government democrasy really is because the UK ordinary voters beat the academics , but thats another story
Many others than Kissinger attacked the MAD theory of deterence which relied on the, poorly thought out strategic triad of 32 boomers SBLM the B-52 sub sonic bombers and cruise missile carriers and ultimately just the Minuteman silos for ICBM in the six farm states of mid west USA which nobody really cared about. The Rand corp of Santa Monica and various other US think tanks played a more major role in deconstructing the MAD deterrence theory, to allow a flexible response and avoid the absurdity of just blowing up the world if the US came under attack , by launching all or most US strategic missiles immediately on warning, the first soviet hits on the USA. There were the other major problems that communication with SSBMs underwater were difficult, communications with submarines were problematic and may have largely been open to USSR real time interception during the period of the Walker brothers spy scandal in which replicate encyptors may have been built in the USSR. So the SNBLM become simply a doom day reserve, the B-52s progressively obsolete and unable to reach targets in Russia and .....
I know he has to sort of 'keep in' with his subject...but the fact that Niall talks antisemitism when it comes to the polarizing reputation of Henry Kissenger is such a cop out and completely disingenuous to say the least. Maybe the man wasn't a 'materialistic determinist', but he was a student of the 'great game' style of politics post Bismarck (and even wrote about it) and that was how he played peoples lives...like they were ches pieces in an elaborate game! He is the ultimate example of the danger people face in the world when it is ruled by technocrats with giant ego's, who seem to place them-self's in some 'Randian' super-strata above everyone else. Where was ethical dimension to he and Nixon undermining the 1968 peace talks? No where...it was a strategy employed because Kissinger believed that he could win the election for his boss and then give Nixon the credit for wrapping up the war quickly. But, whoops, Nixon kept the war going because he was more exposed to the more hawkish wing of his own republican party than Johnson was and so he had to keep the war going in order to find 'terms' by which time thousands has needlessly died. Which shows how limited Kissinger was (or how ethically bereft) he was, as it was obvious that a man who made his reputation as a 'hawk' like Nixon was the least likely man to bring peace in this field over someone like Johnson. But, oh well...he got him elected and he could go to Paris to screw lots of models so...you know...who cares eh? About the only thing of a positive nature I can think he and Nixon ever did was open up relations with the Chinese. Also, I guess Nixons setting up of the EPA (although that is being undermined now by his republican successor) but almost everything else was terrible...from the reaction to the OPEC agreements, inner cities, the war on drugs...also the irreparable harm Nixon did to the image of the USA with his totally venal paranoia and vindictiveness...all facilitated by Kissinger for the great intellectual 'game' for ego and profit.
I wish this whole speech could be summarized in two or three sentences...there is nothing of substance here
TKS..... watch THOMAS SONKARA for substance .
good call
This was a bit flimsy . Let me summarize Kissinger’s formative years in politics more accurately. Kissinger once said that his best friend Bill Buckley was responsible for shifting the political centre of American politics to the right! Such enormous influence was probably why Democrats labelled him the most dangerous man in America in the sixties. Make no mistake, as the founder of the modern Conservative party he was the major force on the right. Nixon was incredibly sycophantic towards him as he needed his endorsement.
The Kennedy’s, Henry Cabot Lodge ( the Vietnam ambassador) and even the Bonesman on the Board of Foreign Affairs were all Buckley’s collaborations. He introduced Kissinger to them.
When Nixon won office Kissinger wanted to meet him . Nixon had not been courting Kissinger, that was rubbish. Kissinger asked Buckley if he could pull some strings. Buckley set up the meeting at his friends cocktail party . That was how Kissinger got into politics. I recommend watching the couple of discussions between Buckley and Kissinger. You will notice two things, that Buckley does not suffer from an inferiority complex and that Kissinger is smarter than his biographer
Kissinger is a 100 years old now and still meeting with the Xi, lol.
Mr. Ferguson puts so much life into his stories. He shows that world politics are run by individuals and relations between these individuals who have incomplete understandings of our own politicians let alone that of people on the other side of the planet. That general geopolitical forces do shape what actually happens but they get a lot of tweaking by these individuals.
😂
My takeaway: Niall Ferguson really likes himself.
You'd rather that he loathed himself?
Niall goes to Bilderberg together with Henry... ;)
Ferguson masturbating to a picture of himself for an hour is the feeling of this talk.
Yeah, I'm sure. In this day in age any white guy who is comfortable in his own skin just RUBBS YOU THE WWRRROOOONNNNGGG WAY. Huh?
He's a very successful journalist. He can like himself. And you ?
Nerdgasm.
From the Nixon/Kissinger foreign policy to Bush/Rumsfeld -- I haven’t a clue if we were any different than the Russians. With this latest test unfolding in Ukraine the outcome is clear: if we fail here we will be called out on strikes.
the U.S. are different from the Russians in the sense that they have to explain their policies to their voters… Nixon was kicked out of office and Iraq remains a substantial stain on the Bush/Rumsfeld legacy. Putin invades a country and faces no internal repercussions, since there are no institutional constrains on his power (say an independent judiciary, press or parlement).
It is therefore extremely shameful and troubling that Kissinger has evaded his dues and was allowed to conceal his administrative records (which are supposed to be public).
1. Countries are sovereign. They make their own decisions.
2. The US breaches countries’ sovereignty again and again and that is illegal.
3. The US perpetrates violent regime change, and that is illegal.
4. It is not up to the US to determine what economies, politics and governments are allowed in the world; the US acts as world dictator.
5. Some say: “The Vietnam war was to stop communism”. That is vague and therefore meaningless. What did Vietnam exactly do, according to some, that justified the US democide?
6. John Kenneth Galbraith, the economist and US ambassador to India in the early 1960s, quipped: “I don’t see a difference between a capitalist rice field and a communist rice field”.
Please explain what is the difference between rice fields that is the business of the US?
7. The US exterminated 3 million people in Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos).
What is it exactly about these people that, according to some, justified exterminating them?
8. North and South Vietnam never really existed - the people generally considered themselves one people. That some outside country, the US, drew an artificial demarcation line, did not determine the state of facts. That’s an important cause why the Vietnamese could defeat and kick out the US aggressors.
9. The US tried to destroy them by carpet bombing them, throwing napalm on them, defoliating their forests with agent orange, destroying their rice fields, terrorizing their villages, displacing them and depopulating parts of the country. But the US could not submit them. The Vietnamese are a heroic people.
10. Vietnam as a communist country, reunited in 1976, never was a threat to the US or other countries. It ended the khmer rouge regime in Cambodia in 1978. It disproves the domino pretext.
11. This was not “the war in Vietnam”, as US propaganda falsely frames it.
It was the PREEMPTIVE DEMOCIDE IN INDOCHINA, where the US led by Heinz Kissinger and others preemptively exterminated 3 million innocent people.
12. Heinz Kissinger is one of the worst war criminals, mass murderers and terrorists in the past century - in such a way and to such a degree that he may have to be considered to have been a psychopath.
13. In the past 70 years, many US politicians, in their foreign policy, have been as evil as any politicians in dictatorships.
With a (middle) name like Campbell, this individual's various perfidies come as no surprise.
@ Hugh MacDonald: Oi! My mum's a Campbell and she's never treacherously slaughtered a MacDonald in her life. She says.
"Hahahahaha those silly americans" says the crowd that will eventually be led by Liz truss. Yeah, British conservatives have it together
There is one question: is Kissinger a war criminal. With that settled, you can stop listening to these two Tories.
BNP
N. Ferguson may rattle as he will, it makes no difference. He's a fraud.
Suppose I am building an aeroplane. While I’m doing it, N. Ferguson is rattling that it won’t fly. I ignore him. I just keep on building my aeroplane, and it flies. The rattler keeps on rattling. So what?
N. Ferguson may rattle as he will - don’t feed the troll. Paul Krugman said that too. N. Ferguson can’t stand that.
Oh yes the war criminal .Should be in prison!
The 1968 generation didn't like the Marx Brothers , are you kidding ? I am 75 yrs. old and we all loved the Marx Bros.
Everyone loves the Marx brothers ... except to one named Karl
has everybody on this program completely lost their minds? Dude was a war criminal. Dude is still a war criminal. There's no mystery. Why are you trying to humanize someone responsible for countless misery, strife and death? Utterly repugnant attitude. Let's see Kissinger in his prime play God over your family's fate. You probably wouldn't find him quite so charming.
Serious deuche chills.
You’re in the wrong forum . People here have read books
@@roughhabit9085 After you've given yourself a medal for reading, read the right books. And here's big tip-Listen to Mark Twain-you won't look so stupid if you stay quiet.
Pete A typical Oxford right wing mindless book-read intellectual twit. His ideas and incompetent ways of analysing information. He is clearly in need of reading more widely The guy interviewing him wasn't much better. If he were still alive, it would be good to see Christopher Hitchens setting about him.
Kissinger is a criminal, a mass murderer. In addition to Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Chile, Kissinger supported in 1971 the action of Pakistan in East Pakistan where the Pakistan Army killed at least 3 million people and raped at least 250000 women. When Mrs. Indira Gandhi acted to rescue the people of East Pakistan, Kissinger called her a bitch and along with Nixon sent 7th Fleet to attack India. It is really disgusting that a Harvard historian is glorifying him.
you had me until the glib "bonking" comment regarding Kennedy.
that's not a fair assessment.
Mary Myers was likely most commonly there.
there was Monroe and others. but I'm rarely provided enough actual names to believe this isn't hyperbole. history wants it both ways. he was sickly and frail. but a womanizing playboy... truth is likely really in between. but compared to lyndon and dulles he did appear a party animal I'm sure...
i see your points regarding Kissinger's motives i think, and that the behavior and actions stem from an exactly opposite rationale to popular media reasons for them. his great fear of authoritarianism would cause behavior that might look like the actions of an authoritarian...
but kennedy was very actively engaged in the politics or he would likely have kept his gray matter in his skull. i realize you were attempting humor.
but as a literate American i can't laugh anymore about our politics.
we had a clown for a president the last four years and it was very far from funny.
he hated the guardian too...
That great peace lover and builder tried to bring peace first to China and the US then to the world_a very meaningful and positive contribution to mankind and world history...so sad that a shithead late comer almost undo and destroy this world cherished dream...A big rêgrety...
that ugly mug at 1:08:51 is yours truly!
+Joe Clemmow Good question, thanks for asking. I enjoyed the answer.
53:37 "How did he *dialog* with his own Jewishness?" What a pompously academic question...
Also very American. Not sure I can pin down why.... but how is the presumption that because you are Jewish, such a dialogue has to take place, not racist?
Landjo I totally agree. Why does it need to be mentioned ? I mean it’s not your nationality, it’s your religious background and my Greek Orthodox background never gets mentioned when I’m introduced to people... it’s an oddity. I’m guessing it’s so twisted and bizarre form of collective guilt that’s morphed into some awkward social traits where it must be acknowledged and given a nod to? Dunno.
@@Landjo "Also very American." The guy who asked that question is *NOT* American. Neither is Niall Ferguson, (and Kissinger was born and raised in Germany).
@@drgeorgek Yes, but Judaism is different, as it's both a religion and an ethnicity. That's why there are so many 'secular jews.' Conversion is generally frowned upon, and people are only generally considered Jewish if they inherited Hebrew blood from their maternal line. Also, considering how much of a factor being Jewish was in Kissinger's initial persecution, I think it's a reasonable subject to ask about.
@@80thiconoclast and so is Greek Orthodoxy an ethnicity and religion too, of which many are secular. I do take your point re the same for being Jewish - my point was that they simply bang on about his Jewishness way too much.
Henry kissinger most canning heartless person
Chris Hitchens would have kicked his ass.... and that I would like to have seen. General Schneider's opinion would be interesting to have heard too..... Are we to believe the papers quoted by Hitch are fake or that this is spinning of the most grotesque nature? Take your pick - but I think this sycophant saw an aggrandising opportunity in writing something original rather than something honest. Perjury - if it ever gets that far, I hope Niall (ist) is pressed to take the stand.
@Crazy Wolfgang Interesting that Niall Ferguson was given access on Kissinger and also gave him a good review...
Almost as if Kissinger chose him in order to get a good review...
Unlike Hichens who exposed him for deliberately aiding both Democrats and Republicans during the Vietnem War, during which he illegally ordered the bombing of Cambodia and then lied to Congress about... claiming that there were no bombings...
He did not condemn the military genocide in Bangeldesh, thanking its dictator for his "discretion" during the massacre
Then again I suppose that's just a coincidence...
I just skipped over to Niall Ferguson’s interview on GBT. It’s so interesting to hear his earlier views on Trump. Even though Niall was able to see/accept that academics can make a mess out of things like Vietnam, he can’t see the necessity of a contrarian Churchillian character like Trump. Nor that Trumps success might be based partly on the fact that he LOVES his country. As with his work on Kissinger, it’s all about ( eventually) asking the right questions.
Attacking the Capitol and failing on Covid is not a success.
@@squamish4244 “ ladies and gentlemen, there are a thousand of you here”.
Probably down to an exact number. It makes a point and emphasizes the significance. Now how many people showed up at the demonstration in Washington? One hundred thousand? Two hundred thousand ? Five hundred thousand? No one knows because the Press purposely ignores it, just like they’ve ignored the 200, 000 or more at the annual pro-life March. How many ended up in the Capitol ? One hundred, two hundred, five hundred? Do the math. Google USA Today or other “ news” sources. For days prior they ginned up a massive hysteria. Do you get the feeling yet that you’ve been set up? How’s this, how many weapons in this “violent insurrection” were confiscated. One stinking, supposed “ pipe bomb” that the FBI conveniently can’t track. How’s this, Antifa was nowhere to be found because they had decided to infiltrate and agitate from inside. That was common intel ( but again, the Press ain’t going to go there). How many Antifa usually show up? Have you ever watched video? Looks like usually 50 to a 100 to me. I’d double that for this event.
I doubt you’ll ever consider this, but maybe, some day, you’ll start to see what’s really going on.
@@josephososkie3029 Oh boy.
He deserved to lose and now he's being told to lawyer up. The big man might end up in the Big House.
Go to guy for a white wash !!!
I agree!
The problem with societies in general is that once a person is successful within the elite of a culture they become blind to the inherent systemic evil of society itself.
Problem is, he's about as accurate as is out there. Same with so called "white washing". Oh you tribalists just can't stop.
I think Christopher Hitchens settled this account pretty well... Perhaps having experienced South East Asia thanks to his diplomacy and witnessing some of what he wrought forces me to see Henry from a different perspective than this proper, privileged gentleman writing from the comfort of his study. Nice spin. Kissinger's bloody heavy hand has left a seldom rivaled trail of carnage in so many places.. This book seems excellent for burying their memory. Having been personally selected by Kissinger to write the biography, its not surprising.
Wikipedia: "The Hoover Institution has been a place of scholarship for individuals who previously held significant positions in government. Notable Hoover fellows and alumni include Nobel Prize laureates Henry Kissinger ......, scholars Niall Ferguson .... No surprises here
Intelligence?
The host can’t pronounce his name properly..
Henry K , quite simply a stinker. Too much time on this planet. Too bad there is no hell for him. In his next dimension he will discuss tactics with Genghis Khan.
What a lovely white-wash!
Yep, I agree ... so, 4 years later. Whatever Kenry Hissinger said to Xi Jinping, hasn't stopped the CCP being the number one enemy to humanity. I live in Australia. Last week Chinese operatives launched the biggest cyber attack on this country in history in order to punish the Australian Government for suggesting an enquiry into the origins of the Covid-19 virus was a good idea. Kissinger is an influential character, but he is not revered in the west, for some very good reasons. Its seems everything he touched, turned to shit, but I haven't read his book. Probably won't.
My G-d reactionaries sickening.
The stimulating processing neuroanatomically admit because hydrofoil pathomorphologically double anenst a old-fashioned ellipse. puzzling, verdant hair
The mammoth dashboard tinctorially start because pen provisionally grin minus a past perch. energetic, ugliest kilogram
Anyone else find his Jewish comments a bit tendentious?
Yes. Very much so.
This is puff, dressed up as intellectual!
Shame on Penguin for publishing ANYTHING this person writes
calling this apologist and cheerleader for colonialism and the sociopathic war criminal kissinger makes me question the intelligence of Intelligence squared (as well as activating my gag reflex!)
Alarmists are abundant commodities as the Conservative Crowd seems to enjoy their support.
The efforts to picture everything the Soviet Union has ever done, as aggressive instead of in defense of Western Efforts to eliminate Russia from markets, is evident as sanctions are now tailored to drive Russia from competing in those markets.
Removing major quantities of commodities from markets seems to drive prices up and stimulates profits, as it removes the ability of poor nations to purchase products.
The ability to exploit the weak and hungry residents, seems to have become the motivation for modern Merchants to use sanctions.
The marketing forces that sold toothpaste now sell warfare.
Kissinger was employed by the Rockefeller Bros, to serve their needs to find profits by eliminating competing nations, in the same fashion as their Grandfather dominated the Oil production Industry....
As in the Pennsylvania oil patch the competing small producers were swept from the path of Standard Oil, Russia is now removed from distributing fuel in the European Union....
Kissinger a & Associates continues to provide essential leadership idiots as they did when Paul Bremmer became the first Arch Duke of Iraq.....
Hank seems to display some remorse......
MARGARET THATCHER WAS A GHOUL OF THE SAME CALIBER AS KISSINGER
Please. No need to shout. Your point is valid and a difficult one for a gringo. I have a poor opinion of both Thatcher and Kissinger. Overall, and in my simplistic understanding, Kissinger was a monster across the globe; Thatcher a monster in her dominion and pushing it beyond.
Both of these men arent really serious historians really. Nobody in serious academia is falling over themselves to discuss their new works in their halls. They are popular historians with a rather gimmicky view of history. The vanity fair endorsement says it all.
Couldn’t agree more
Henri Kissinger a great mind
he is a mass murderer and war criminal
@@jasongrasse8454 exactly. HK is pure evil.
... but also a sociopath
get. outta. town... FAR ...OUTTA TOWN.....
i pray i NEVER become something that `Controls` itself in the stinking presence of UNADORNED REPRESSED HATE....EVERY thought , i feel u Diminish....
what about `Operation Paperclip`??? this sounds like Spinal Tap on kissinger....an ass-kissing psychopath Somehow did Anything to `get on top`... miraculous story ...he is such an uninteresting vapid dolt...people struggle to `find` some sort of `Brilliance` (it MUST be there....somewhere....
so depressing when someone works so Hard to TRY to justify SUCH VILE Bribery....HIS internal organs are waging an Infinite Limited Nuclear War !