← Back to context

Comment by anigbrowl

2 years ago

Certainly, but lots of terrible people are also interesting. Kissinger strikes me as a prime example of Lord Acton's dictum at how power corrupts; by any reasonable standard he committed absolutely egregious acts, but because they inured to the USA's strategic benefit, there has never been any political will to hold him accountable. It's like how the US promotes the idea of a 'rules based international order' but habitually diminishes the UN, refuses to participate in the International Criminal Court and so on.

32 comments

anigbrowl

Reply
protocolture  2 years ago

Theres a semi apocryphal story that one of Kissingers friends warned him before he started working under clearance, that once he had access to "Intelligence" that other people didn't have, he would lose his humanity to the spooks, and assume he was smarter than the people without clearance. Which seems to be sort of what happened.

  • reducesuffering  2 years ago

    > assume he was smarter than the people without clearance

    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.

    • jrflowers  2 years ago

      > meme-ing with little actual specific policy substance behind it.

      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

      16 replies →

    • unethical_ban  2 years ago

      Should a country overthrow the democratically elected government of another country because of non-life-threatening business losses? (Chile)

      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.

      3 replies →

    • Mainan_Tagonist  2 years ago

      Thanks for pointing this out, his book title Diplomacy was very enlightening.

      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.

      1 reply →