Transcripts For CSPAN3 Lectures In History Richard Nixon Henry Kissinger U.S. Foreign Policy 20240711

Had a broad streak of paranoia and mistrustful, and that sometimes worked against the instruments of government like the state department. In the end he ruined of self by bragging about his own catastrophic downfall in the watergate scandal of 1972 to 74. We are going to look at the good and bad side of the nixon presidency, and his partnership with National Security adviser kissinger. Im going to share this screens we can look at powerpoint pictures as we go through the sequence. First of all, here is nixon himself, he would be back in 1913 in california, grown up in a lower middle class family in california, went to the local college there. He graduated and went to Duke University law school and this was the worst years of the great depression, the mid 19 thirties. During the Second World War he joined the u. S. Navy, how the left you can see the photo of him as a young navy officer, he served with distinction, as a logistics expert getting the right equipment to the right place at the right time. He was given a series of accommodations from his commanders. He was also very talented poker player. Apparently he had a great ability to bluff, that is valuable quality to someone whos undertaking Foreign Policy at a high level. In 1946, after he had been demobilize from the navy, he ran for congress. On the right you can see his poster from his first election campaign. In 1946, and most full world war ii veterans were elected into congress and senate, one was nixon. Another was john f. Kennedy, another was joe mccarthy who is going to give his name to the era of mccarthy is some. In his early political career, nixon rose rapidly. He was an ardent anti communist, he worked very hard to understand communism and to understand why briefly, during the depression, Many Americans were attracted to communism. The house on american activities was dedicated to rooting out communist in high places. He understood that it was a good weapon to use against the democrats, a characteristic of rhetoric was the assures communists were at work and truman knew they were at work and was doing nothing to get rid of them. He ran successfully in a seat in the senate in 1950, bathing his opponent. In 1952, hes been in politics for six here, he was chosen by eisenhower to be his running mate. So a meteoric rise in 56 to the to be vice bespoke candidate. Because nixon won the election of 52, he was Vice President 53. That is the job he held throughout the eisenhower administration. In 1960 he was a republican candidate in the election against john f. Kennedy. Here the two candidates together. This was an election that he lost narrowly. One of the closest elections of the 20th century. To make matters worse, he then lost again in 1962 when he ran unsuccessfully for the governorship of california. In 1962 when he was in his late forties, it seemed as though his political career had now come to an end, he would sink back into the relative obscurity of the life of a new york lawyer. But they disastrous failure and the president ial campaign of 1964 which goldwater was Unsuccessful Republican running against Lyndon Johnson, this gave nixon a chance to revive his career. In 1968 he was back again, won the republican nomination and then one of nomination against hubert humphrey. By then the vietnam war was in full swing. This was the election in which johnson, although he had been entitled to run, had withdrawn from the race after the tenth offensive and being challenged inside the democratic primary by Jean Mccarthy and robert kennedy. Nixon comes into the white house, hes inaugurated in 1969. Now Henry Kissinger was the man he chose to be his National Security adviser, kissinger had been born in 1923 and he was born and raised in germany. He loves playing soccer as a kid, very good in school, but he was jewish. His family was jewish. As the nazi persecution of the German Jewish community escalated, the family eventually took the decision to emigrate, by doing so they certainly saved their lives. He was 15 when they came to the United States for the first time. He became a citizen during world war ii, he joined the army and because he was perfectly fluid in german, he was a valuable person for the american armies fighting in europe. He was involved in the battle of the bulge, the german counterattack in the winter of 1944 to 45, briefly as a private soldier he had the job of organizing a newlyliberated town in germany from the nazis. When the war had finished, kissinger went to college, first to harvards and then from harvard to graduate school where he wrote his dissertation on that is the man shown on the right. He was the senior politician in the austria hungarian empire. And he contributed to the pacification of europe at the end of the napoleon occurs in 1850. Kissinger wrote admiringly about him because he was somebody who perfectly understood the concept of the balance of power and the importance of using hard political realities, the kind of things that we read about, kissinger was a great believer in balance of power politics. There are no moral components, it just has to be up to date on current political realities. In 19 fifties, kissinger who by this time had a faculty and soon hand tenure, published a book called Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, he was interested in the kinds of questions the question of whether it is possible once you have Nuclear Weapons to actually use them in a way which prevents a catastrophic earth destroying apocalypse. At that point he was cautiously optimistic that it was possible to fight a limited nuclear war them. And in a relatively small way, this became a bestseller with the policy leads, and kissingers name was spread around washington from people who are looking for up incoming Foreign Policy advisers. During the early 1960s, he was advisor to rockefeller who is a moderate republican belonging to the opposite wing of the party from goldwater, in 1968 after nixon approached him with the possibility that he could become National Security adviser, he was perfectly willing to jump over to the nixon camp and sees the opportunity. Although i. C. E. Now or had been president in the fifties, he was a very bipartisan kind of politician. The democrats so in a way this was the first time the republicans had been in the presidency since Herbert Hoover left office back in 1932, it was not such a big pool of experience as there were democrats. One of the things that nixon and kissinger did together is revolutionize americas diplomatic posture with respect to the great the powers in the world. When was the soviet union and the other was china. The Nuclear Weapons rights have been going on since the end of world war ii with growing urgency since 49 when that russians tested their Nuclear Weapon for the first time. By 1969, the low population states of the great plains were honeycombed with missile silos and so where the planes of siberia. Each side ready to fire declare weapons against the other. Both sides gradually realize they had a common motive in trying to reduce the nature of an accidental exchange of weapons. They had a common interest in preventing nuclear war from ever taking place. Its destruction was so complete. They reached the idea of mutual controlled destruction. They could kill each others populations many times over. It was clearly a time to start rethinking how to understand the arms race and whether it made any kind of sense. Both sides had already appreciateds, when they signed the treaty in 1963 that they had a common interest in not testing these weapons in the atmosphere. By 69 they also recognized a common interest in trying to deescalate back from the brink of an accidental war. The photograph on the right shows Neil Armstrong walking on the moon, this took place in the first year of the Nixon Administration, summer of 69. An incredible achievement. But people who are interested in the world of weapons and military hardware understood perfectly that any rocket that can take people to the moon can also be packed with Nuclear Warheads and be fired against the other side. One of the characteristics of the missiles is that they are fired into space and then they come down at a super sonic speed out of space to attack their targets on the ground. A new wrinkle in weapons is what is called the mirv, instead of having just one warhead there would be nine or ten packed into the head of the rocket, they would be fire together but disperse in space and head four different target. Making the process of intersecting them that much more difficult that these were the conditions that nixon. Decided it was time for a new approach to the u. S. The soviet union. Heres a cartoon from the time showing that some of the paradoxes of Nuclear Weapons, two artist facing each other, both loaded with these enormously powerful bombs. You see the sign on one side says, on no account to be used. Because the enemy might retaliate. On the other side, on no account to be used because the enemy might retaliate. So they have reached a stand off, here they are firing bones and arrows at each others because they cannot use the most powerful weapon in their arsenal. One of the characteristics was not to use the regular channels, not to go through the state department, not to use the professional Foreign Policy staff who are trained to do exactly this type of work. Instead they opened back channels with the soviet ambassador in d. C. , incidentally regain themselves as a fascinating person. He first became ambassador to america in 1962 in kennedy was president , he remained there into 1986. He worked with president s kennedy, johnson, nixon, ford, carter and reagan. A long continuity of office overseeing the interests of the soviet union inside the u. S. He was charming and cultivated and incredibly knowledgeable all about these Foreign Policy first. So instead of through this state department, they began talking about the principle of detente with the soviet premier. That is bridging if, there is nixon talking to him, leaning in to make sure he gets the nuances of the translation right between them. Nixon was able to persuade him of the rightness of reducing their nuclear arsenals. Each side was spending too much money on these new color arsenals, each was increasing the danger of an accidental warm, therefore they have a mutual interest in deescalation. Negotiations began, with talks [interpreter] this eventually led in 1972 to the salt one agreement signing. One interesting aspect was depicted in the picture on the photograph of the right. The one on the right shows and antiBallistic Missile. One of the thoughts, that one of the defense planners had was this, if the enemy fires its Nuclear Weapons against us, we will surrender our cities with defensive missile bases. If our radar shows that missiles were coming toward us, we will fire antiBallistic Missiles which will intercept them. At first glance, that seems like a good idea. It makes the city safer, but as you know one of the characteristics of war planning and war gaming during the cold war was to think carefully about the way in which the enemy would interpret your actions. Its not enough just to have an intention, you have to make sure your intention is understood by the adversary. The american war planners the said this, if we build an anti Ballistic Missile system and surround our cities with it, with the enemy is going to think is this, that is a sign that the americans are planning a first strike against us. They will fire their missiles because by the time were able to retaliate they will shoot down or counter strike. The fact that theyre building this is an obvious sign that they are planning to strike us first. That is dangerous, it escalates the perception of threat. The question becomes, how do we reduce the danger . And the answer they came up with, we are not going to build these systems. We are going to leave ourselves defenseless because by leaving ourselves defenseless we are less likely to show that our intentions are misunderstood. The adversary will understand that and we know that if they launch against us, we are destroyed. But they wont do so because they know we can launch against them. In other words, each side a sense to the principle of making itself defenseless as a way of reducing the danger of nuclear war. It is a complicated way of thinking but it does have an internal logic which in the end pooped persuasive. At a summit meeting in 1972 that the soviets and the american leaders signed the treaty which went into effect from that time on. There were people in america who were horrified by this, old style anti communism, the toughest of them, the people like goldwater thought this was dismay. His view was that the russians were the not going to do it unless they believe that it could help them, if it helps them than it cannot possibly help us as well. In other words, people still said, whatever one side against the other side must lose. The alternative view was that this was a condition that both sides can gain because both can be reassured of the reduction of danger of nuclear war. Another part that made it painful, only the year before, in 1968, soviet tanks had rolled into prague, the checks in 68 just like that hungarians in 1966 had attempted to put some distance between themselves and soviet control. Even though the new government was not hostile to soviet union, it was not sufficiently subservient. The russians responded by sending tanks. Anti communism throughout america, it was one more sign that the soviet union was utterly untrustworthy. It was only because nixon had such strong anti communist credentials that he could get away with doing this in the first place. If a democratic president has tried this, it is almost certain that they wouldve won the opposition of the republicans and it would never come about. Nixon understood, he was in a position to do something about this. The other Great Development of the first Nixon Administration was the diplomatic opening to china. I mentioned earlier in the course, that he successfully completed the revolution in 1949, we on counters the chinese troops in the early days of the korean war when they attacked across the china north korea border after the win American Forces were moving north in north korea. Between 1940 and the early 1970s, the u. S. Did not have the medic relations with communist china. The u. S. Continue to recognize taiwan, the offshore islands in the pacific, to which he had led the treat nationalist chinese at the end of the Chinese Revolution in 1949. On the few occasions when an american diplomat needed to talk to a chinese diplomat they met in warsaw. By 70 and 71, nixon was thinking that theres something very odd about this situation. He had written an article and what she said this, taking the long view, we simply cannot afford to leave china outside the family of nations, theyre to nurture its fantasies, cherishes hate and threatens its neighbors. By 1969, it was also becoming clear that communism it was not monolithic. There were differences between russia and chinese communists. And even vietnamese coming us. It was possible to see some daylight between these different brands of communism. One of the central principles is the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Nixon and kissinger understood, if we can be friends with china, at least a chief diplomatic normalization, that is going to add pressure on the soviet union. How are we going to coexist with the soviet union . We dont give them an easy time. We are continuing to hope, way back in 46 along telegram that eventually the soviet system is going to fold up because of its own imperfections. This is maui in the foreground, the people in the background or karl marx, frederick angles, linen and stalin. He saw himself in this lineage of communism as the next of the great leaders. Affairs inside china are turbulence in between the Chinese Revolution and their rival on the scene of nixon and kissinger. A great leap forward was perhaps the most catastrophic policy decision ever made. This was to attempt china to have a five year plan to increase Grain Production in the countryside and a crash course of industrialization. Would actually happened was, the peasant firms were forcibly collectivized, you can see people in the photograph working on collective farms. The hope was that the rationalization, the fish and sea of largescale farms would lead to a sharp increase in green production. Would happen is that the resentful farmers, found less insensitive to work on such farms than they wouldve done if theyve been working on lands of their own. Productivity went down sharply. Mao, they had a cross course of industrialization. It is predicated on and industrial society. Marks have always thought the industrial working class where the revolutionaries. All over china, people had little blast furnaces and to bring all their metal goods and to melt them down in the hope that china could become a mass producer of steel goods. That is a complicated technology that cannot be done on a amateur scale. This is another policy initiative that failed drastically. To give you an idea of the scale of the calamity, the famine which began in china is regarded by most as the single worst famine in the history of the world. Literally millions, perhaps 50 million died of starvation in the years between 59 and 61. One of the many crazy policies was the program against the for a pass, rats, flies, mosquitoes in sparrows. There is something to say stamping out the first three, but when they try to get rid of all the sparrows, it was a natural predator against insects and it disappeared. It was almost immediately followed by a plague of locusts, the damage was on a biblical skill. It led to mass famine and led to the calling off of this crazy program. This graph shows you the damage, the green spike is the chinese death rate. You could see during the enormous upward jump, so many people died that it was followed by a sharp rise of birth rate as families struggled to replace the lost population. Them that led to the one child policy, that is controversial human rights issue that started then and is still finish. You another know where the policy was the cultural revolution beginning in 1966, the Chinese Revolution was becoming routine. The unicameral euphoria of 1950 had worn off. Class classification was beginning again. There is a lot of corruption. When he hoped to do is restore a sense of purpose inside china. With the use of the little red book, the booklet of mao own sayings, he said about trying to unsettle the stability which china had begun to achieve by the mid 1960s. This included the public denunciation of the intellectuals. Here is a common street scene in china, people who are being accused of intellectual deviancy from the strict path of malice communist. If you had the miss fortune to be one of those people you could be sent off to a labor camp. But ritual of public shaming like this. People that have been accused of being intellectuals. They are made to stand on chairs and the Public Square with placards around their necks. An incredible period when everybody was made to participate in the harvest. Late summer and early fall came about, an enormous urban depopulation took place as chinese officials who no longer work in agriculture were forced to go back to the land to work in the harvest, to keep alive the memory of the agrarian roots from which they came. Nearly all books from the west where band unless they are books of marxist orthodoxy. The cultural revolution is a horrible period of repression and mass persecution. As i mentioned earlier, this is a period with a lot of border incidents along the boundary between soviet union and china. It is becoming increasingly clear that though they are both communist, nevertheless, the poll see differences or political differences that are opening up between them. That offers an opportunity for Foreign Policy makers to create some distance between these two great rivals. One of the first times the icy distance began to diminish was when the two teams met in japan at a tournament and a couple of the american players have been talking and with some of the chinese players, the chinese political handlers understood or interpreted this as a diplomatic it advance from the American Government and invited them to play. The chinese were much better at pingpong than the americans, it was a massive win for the chinese team. That was good for their royal. The American Team said they had never seen the play it was a little crack in the armor. A moment suggesting that it is possible for us to talk. Would happen later that year is that henry cousin or went secretly to china to talk with mao. Here they are meeting. That is clearly a reference back to marco polo who visited the area previously. And one of the first locations where china start to be open up to the western world. He claims to have fallen ill and someone else impersonated him in as he recuperated, secretly he flew off to china and got into negotiations with mao about the principle of restoring normal diplomatic relations between the two. Potentially regarding china, and looking at taiwan as part of china. Nixon was eager for this to be done secretly, everyone was frozen out from it, so that the secretary of state did not even know that this it happens. But it worked, the welcome given given to kissinger opened nixons visit the following year. It would really be hard to overstate the shock, the photographs like this had to the american press. Richard nixon whose whole life until then have been based upon anti communism, shaking hands and making toast with leadership of communist china. It astonished the world and it had a revolutionary effect on diplomatic relations. On the same journey he visited china and the soviet union. And this was in 1972 which is a president ial election year. He understood that and he was likely going to get a lot of positive mile itch out of these two diplomatic a compliment shipments. Once again, anti communist like cold water, and Ronald Reagan who is the governor of california, they were horrified by this. They thought it was a betrayal of a longstanding principle. But nevertheless, this was the agreement that was made. From that time on, china and the u. S. Moved towards the normalization of diplomatic relations. As you know, in the decade since then they had very strong trade relations with. It is common now, the third of the families of america have relatives that took them to the great wall of china, but a photograph like this had been unimaginable since before world war ii, to see nixon with mrs. Nixon, and dignitaries from the chinese in American Government. It is really a spectacular an amazing sight. In 1973, the war between israel and its arab neighbors, something we will get into more detail led to the first gasoline crisis of the 1970s when the price went up sharply. Henry kissinger was right in the midst of negotiating a diplomatic solution to this crisis. He developed a technique called shuttle diplomacy, and it was his own plane going back and forth between israel and egypt. Hes speaking right now to the egyptian leader. Hes making periodic trips to saudi arabia to talk to the king, to damascus to talk about the syrian leaders. This kind of exhausting back and forth led the groundwork for the treaty which is going to be signed in subsequent administrations. The thought wouldve been unimaginable previously. Kissinger helped bring it about. Here is a typical cartoon from the time, it could be interpreted various ways. I think the way to interpret that cartoon is this, the middle east is like a bomb, very volatile, it is about to blow up, and suddenly like the genie coming out of the bottle, up pops Henry Kissinger to defuse the ball. That is the idea behind this. Thing about kissinger, he became very famous, normally the secretary of state is not the person of interest except for people who are very interested in politics. Kissinger became a celebrity even though he spoke english with the very thick german accident. He almost sounded like a cartoon german. Nevertheless, he was interviewed and people asked him about his girlfriends, they talk to him about power and aphrodisiac and so on. To give you an idea, he is the idea of newsweek magazine, this is at a time when nixon is about a month or two from resigning because of watergate. At the newsweek cover is comparing kissinger to superman. On the other hand, if you look at the picture on the right, this is a picture from the political left, the Anti War Movement, for whom kissinger was a devil figure. Nixon and kissinger came into office in 69, it was already clear that the americans had to find a way out of the vietnam war. To the Anti War Movement, it was disgraceful that four more years had gone by before the final american disengagement. Every one of those years, more americans were killed, more bombings took place. Tens of thousands of vietnamese people have died. The american incursion in cambodia had whiteness scope of the war. That it set off the cambodian genocide. One thing after another. All of which could be laid at kissinger store. He was extremely controversial figure. But he was a very significant one who played a big role in the rehabilitation of Foreign Policy at that time. Lets leave the pictures now and move on to the next stage of todays class which is the discussion of kissingers memoirs. This came out 1979 when he had been out of office for three to four years. The book is nearly 1000 pages long. If you want to know every single detail of kissingers work, sometimes literally hour by hour, this is the book for you to read. It is full of great stuff. Lets look at some of the things he talks about, particularly describing what it is like to be the position he found himself in. I wonder if you could go first, tell us about the relationship between Political Offices with the Washington Press corps. Sure, throughout the reading i would say that kissinger makes it clear that the press can be both your friend and your enemy if you hold Political Office or a member of the administration. On the one hand, there is the funny anecdotes about Lyndon Johnson saying if the press is saying good things about a member of your cabinet, you should fire them immediately. That was pretty funny. It is a good example of howiwm people who are lower in the administration, the press can serve as a good way to build their reputation by taking credit for things that go well and shifting blame for things that do not go well. They also have the sense that the press is almost at odds with the u. S. Government, especially the opposite of president because they are always trying to find out what the dirt is going on in the background. What is going on . Kissinger also will talk favourably about the intelligence and knowledge of people in the press corps, for example, on page 21 at the top of the page he says, i to was ignorant of the ways of washington and government when i claimed at the press Conference Announcing my new position that had have no dealings with the press. As soon as my appointment was announced, the press began to call and look me over. I was a little and who i was now meeting firsthand. I saw Walter Lippman and joseph all stop who were going to become personal friends. He goes on to say, i had the impression that he had suspended judgment actually that part is not so important, but he goes on the say these men know more about Foreign Policy than he did. That is right, people like lippman were famous since world war i. He was an american journalist, tons of experience which he took advantage of. And can you also read at the very bottom of the page about the votives. The journalist has motives with the context of the official, he must flatter the official because without his goodwill he will be trump deprived of information. He cannot let himself be seduced. The secret stream of both officials or he will lose his objectivity. A love hate relationship is inevitable. Thats the point. He realizes, their job is to exploit me and im supposed to exploit them right back. We i know youve had experience of reading a newspaper story and you cant help but suspect that there has been an informal quid pro quo. Say something nice about me, and i will give you access to the next secret. And he does have that access the. Having made that initial declaration, kissinger realizes that might work when im at harvard, its not going to work here in d. C. It is a very insightful little summer. It is also calibrated by positions of power. James, why did nixon choose the secretary of state and with what consequences . So nixon and rogers had a previous relationship win, they both worked in the eisenhower administration. Nixons main idea behind appointing rodgers was that he did not have any Foreign Policy experience which nixon saw as a great plus. It meant that rogers was not going to enforce the will of the state department and that Foreign Policy would be controlled by the National Security council. Nixon intended that the policy direction would remain in the white house. The consequences of this, where that kissinger enhance the influence of the state department and the press and actually sort of backfired because rodgers oftentimes was not a fan of nixons policies but tailored that attitude of congress in the attitudes of the press. Which oftentimes he supported the policies that actually contradicted nixons stances. They were sort of a power struggle that ensued between the state department in the white house, and there were very little cooperation, and nixon would exclude rodgers from negotiations, he had a lot of negotiations that went through the white house. That would typically be in back channels for diplomacy, but it became the standard for interacting in foreign governments. He did not keep rodgers in the loop. Kissingers secret trip to china that we talk about, rodgers did not know about that until kissinger was already on the way. That was interesting. The thing they would say Different Things to foreign actors, and he said that the soviet union wasnt even able to perceive that they werent on the same page. Thats right exactly, and rumor one point kissinger says, ideally the secretary of state should be someone within the president s very close circle, because its not the right kind of personal relation, its neutrally mutually supported i should say, and this is on page 31, and this is where as he gets into more detail, about his relationship or his relationship inside the government he admits that he likes his own look you know gets the better of him, sometimes he exploited nixons weakness in his own interest. Look at page 31 where it says the relationship was bound to deteriorate. Their relationship was bound to deteriorate, had both of us been we wouldve understood we would serve the country best by reinforcing each other. This would have reduced nixons temptation to manipulate tensions, that he will dreaded and fulfill. But all our attempts to meet regularly floundered. Rodgers was too proud, i intellectually to oregon and we are both too insecure to adopt a course that wouldve saved us much anguish and bureaucratic headache. Good so thats a place where nixon admits, and my problem was excessive arrogance and we dont disagree with that judgment and as a matter of fact it makes it more strongly than he did himself, then it wouldve been perhaps better if he had the wisdom and the broad minded needs to be able to say that i need to keep rodgers informed, and we need to work together. I think the mutual suspicions and that hothouse atmosphere of the Administration Made it impossible and. Lets get. Matt any whats made him the secretary of defense . I think he had a number of good qualities and just starting he had a lot of experience he had worked for approximately 16 years, on the defense subcommittee for the Appropriations Committee which meant that he also knew a lot of people like in washington yellow Strong Networks and partial connections and he knew the professional language in washington and he was extremely intelligent and it suggests he was good at solving daily problems as they arose and then more on the military tactician side. He was will unwilling to give up an advantage when he saw one because kissinger says on page 33, he did not believe in fighting losing battles. And on page 32, he liked to win. Unlike nixon, he had no pleasure from seeing someone else lose. But kind of juxtaposes you know the rigidness infighting for what he is believing in or his aims, but kind of like a sobering aspect of humility in the fact that he also like he wanted to win but he understood when people lost. He also sorry he also constantly look for ways to circumvent challenges that came up and he was very cunning and on page 33, kissinger says that he wanted to start a battle with layered, by closing off all his bureaucratic or congressional escape routes. So we had him boxed into a corner, to make sure if they were trying to get something done with them to make sure that he wouldnt look at something and with a new ankle. And then lastly also he was very much willing to, respect publicly respect the authority of the office of the president , though in private he was also like more than willing to offer dissenting opinions. As soon as a decision had been made, and it was finalized and they went public with it, he was always willing to stand behind it because he had unity in your defense presentation. Thats right and hes one of the relatively few people to which kissinger affords a hype measure of praise. Theres a line there, just after the when you wrote, he said there was some buoyancy and good humor, at made working with him as satisfying as it could on occasion as it was maddening. It was hard to dislike him, and he was a talented bureaucrat. He knew had to take an indirect route to getting his own way. Thats another member of his staff. And becca, lets talk about the joint chiefs of staff. Why the joint chiefs of staff, where are they more demoralized by 69. Yes hope kissinger attributes a great not to the chiefs of staff, and the military command at this time, and his psychological investment in the war. He said it was really easy for leaders to focus on only these sort of strategic goals, and aspects of preparing for war. There was not enough emphasis placed on the concepts of fundamental values and he describes this as saying the military themselves design weapons on the basis of abstract criteria. Hearing in strategies they did not believe, and conducting a war that they do not understand. He pointed out that they were too vulnerable to being enslaved by external ideas such as being swayed towards tactics that were not compatible with the sick shoe asian with they were actually facing. He also says that oftentimes we acquiesce to these ideas, but then have spoken resentment. So this would be make morale even more down. He also explains that there were internal battles between wanting to preserve old systems that move to new systems. And the confusion left there being no real clear cause to rally behind. Hes mentions that well wheeler had the intent of remedying let the had been making from the sixties, he made small adjustments and rarely that utilizes nixon. He had failure to the pact with nixon. So thats right, so it we want one of those world war ii veterans, who had gone on to an ex distinguished career and military life, but hes never been able to capture the euphoria of victory in world war ii. And that came along with the danger. Clearly at the end of world war ii, it was possible to say heres a victory. But first in korea, and then even more so in vietnam, victory was not even an option. It was a limited war. And a limited war of the most demoralizing kind. The Anti War Movement that homemade the army more and more unpopular, and many of the people fighting in the army were fighting reluctantly. The army itself was being taken over by these policy people call the systems analysts, which they had battlefield soldiers, and they didnt really believe in that. But as kissinger says, they didnt quite have the strength of mind to stand up against the transformation which is taking place around them. And you know theres a point where, kissinger says we sometimes have the idea, the armys defiant against the civil authorities. But occasionally thats true. Like douglas arthur. But much more often the army is specifically willing to fall in with what the civil authorities want. This is a case in point. Was contrary to some of the public mythology, they rarely challenge the commanderinchief. They seek for use they seek for reasons to support novels him. Another thing that kissinger and nixon understood perfectly well, was this very broad consensus, which had formed around containment. And that worked pretty well, from the late forties to the late sixties and that was now completely falling to pieces in vietnam. In fact thats next question. So is this passage on page 62, whats going wrong with the concept of deterrence. Yes sir. Starting at this policy of containment, was flawed in three ways. First our access can misconception of the balance of power, and its carly, so this was for a post war settlement, and the soviet union time to consolidate it gave it time to consolidate, and to redress the nuclear imbalance. So looking back on this, he is saying unfortunately containment but it wasnt, it wasnt effective at preventing the soviet development of the Nuclear Weapon which consolidated the soviet position. And the bottom of that paragraph, our relative strength was never greater, in what soontobe came was called the cold war. Secondly, the nature of the military technology was such that the balance of power could no longer be thought of as uniform. Nuclear weapons were so clouds cataclysmic, that they proved yes less and less useful to just down to three. Thoroughly thoroughly, we could never have an adequate response to the ideologies the communist ideology. It poses challenge the balance of power through domestic upheavals. Good can you paraphrase that one. Basically, he is saying that the the policy of containment that he outlined back in i think early fifties late forties, wouldnt work now just because these conflicts are not simply like wars anymore, like with germany it was a direct conquest of territory. I think back in world war ii, where now it is more conflict between the, ideologies like communism versus capitalism essentially. So youre saying it wouldve worked better if the adversary had been the British Empire for example . Where the valleys were comparable, and it was a straight path. Im not sure if i would say that, but that. Let me just put it to you this way, why was the vietnam war so unpopular . After all it was containment in action that. There was no real angle, they dont want to push forward and go to vietnam to expel the communist from there they just wanted to prevent the north vietnamese from invading, self yet numb. And keep the communist out of self vietnam. So is it because you know in other words, it doesnt meet the psychological test. It is not gratifying. Like it doesnt seem like theres an end goal in sight. It feels like, the soldiers are just fighting a war that seems unwinnable essentially. Right and of course, the incentives of the americans each particular american in vietnam, are lower than the incentive of each of the enemies, especially those who believe in the rightness of expelling the imperialist panelists. So kissinger realizes, the consensus which has held us together up to this point, isnt really good enough anymore, we have to start thinking about a new way of going towards this. So over to you, now whats balance does kissinger strike between morality and power considerations. So kissinger presents himself with his own support interest, and thats pretty applicable and this is when most evidence where he refused to hire people that were promised positions in the government and he like created a standard of within his administration. After hes been elected nixon, he didnt take issue because they work for the campaign. Kissinger looks at them and says these people are not good enough. Yes. Because he wanted to test his hes pretty self aware, that he strong and opinionated, so you wanted to test that against the most intelligent men and women he could find. But this doesnt exactly, translate in his respect to like the chain of command, because he realizes that largely its an ineffective secretary of state that you need a strong connection, with the president. And you have confidence because he recognizes the failure of previous secretaries of state. That competed with the president and lost their influence. Okay so let me stop you there for a minute, im thinking not so much of his personal position, as his policy position, so in other words whats the role of morality, in the actual policy theyre going to pursue . The okay. Well let me ask you to read this passage, on page 55. Have you got it there . Okay, look at the first four paragraph on 55, and read it there of history teachers. If history teaches us anything, there could be no peace without equilibrium, and no justice, i believe it no nation can define, its choices without a moral compass, and set a course through the ambiguities, of reality and thus made sacrifices meaningful can you paraphrase that . I think he is basically saying that decisions in leaders, they have to have some sense of moral judgments because if they are in a position of power they need to be good without power. It is not just for themselves. That is right. In other words, you have got to make, you inherit a situation and things happen and you have to respond, you cant respond in the abstract, if you respond in the particular world situation. And the temps you to do hardhearted things in the way that allies did not come to the rescue of poland at world war ii and, then he goes on to say that he goes on completely contemptuous, with, because of the moral questions, the willingness to walk this fine line. The willingness to walk this fine line, is the difference between academics, and the the out cider thinks an absolutes, for him right and wrong are defined in their conception, the political leader does not have this luxury. He rarely can reach his goal except for in stages, any partial step is morally imperfect and morally cannot be consummated without it. Keep going . A bit more. The philosopher is the reasoning behind this, the statement test is dot fully exultation of his goals of the catastrophic catastrophe of the universe. That is right. In other words, politicians, statesman find themselves in a position of having to answer questions like this, shall i use this at a bomb and the knowledge that it will kill 100,000 people. So sometimes that answer can be yes even though it is very hard to imagine a philosopher answering the question of killing 100,000 people. He is making a comparison of philosophers who can look at them in abstract and statement who look at them in context. Even the statesman, even the politician cant be completely oblivious. And he has got to be aware of many more factors than someone thinking about these in the abstract would be. Obviously, we look at that example when truman could make the justified use of the adam bomb, it would abbreviate the war it saved the lives of many more. I think kissinger is just getting back to that point, isnt he . Hes also reflecting on the fact that he has come back to academic life where like me, in this respect only, he was an academic history professor who spends his time teaching and thinking about it and speculating about the principles. Chatting about it with gifted and intelligent students like you guys, easy, calm, safe. And certainly pitched into a world where there is this terrifying war in vietnam is going on them. There could be in a potential nuclear exchange, he has to make decisions. Therefore he has to get clear in his mind what is permissible for me to do and what must say absolutely not to. I think that paragraph on 55 is one for you to put a huge red circle around and a big gastric and i will see you quoting it in paper later on. , them so they were a lot, i think broadly speaking kissinger saw the u. S. It is fractured, he says the Nixon Administration was the first one that you how to conduct Foreign Policy without consensus, different factions domestically were disjointed and thats presented a host of problems in terms of Foreign Policy specifically in regards to the fact that kissinger saw a very different world than the one prior. Complications and uncertainties were being played out of a global scale. A post war period was the first time the world was interacting and communication and in terms of directing that context, i think kissinger makes it clear that he thinks a world with more decisions needed to happen. In that sense, the u. S. Could not be fully responsible for holding up the helm of the communist world, instead we need to cultivate relationships, meaningful, effective relationships with other non communist powers throughout the global sphere. Secondly, he claims that ending the war was the utmost priority. The Dickson Administration was laying a foundation of a long term strategy, both an indochina and in regard to changing the policy, and building off of that he thought that its the soviet union especially in the fact that Nuclear Weapons in their shadow which got cast in a dark shadow, and thirdly he mentions reinvigorating a relationship with new world industrial democracies. He mentions de gaulle of france, i dont know if he sees other rising industrial democracies as a threat, but he thought we had to coop relationships with them. And like i said earlier, not be the single non communist country in the worlds. He says both, doesnt he. On one hand he says its very important to cultivate these other nation and join us and leadership. But what he is thinking about is france, west germany, britain, and increasingly japan. On the one hand he is reaching out to them, on the other hand hes hugging everything to himself and excluding the people who are around him. Obviously, one of the implications of sharing the leadership is having less power and being willing to say, here is an area that we cannot get our own way. And although he was an incredible negotiator, he found the most maddening place the middle east because the leader see a counter there were even more stubborn than he was and would not do what he wanted. Lots of things going on there for him to unravel. On the one hand he says, it is not enough for us to deal with immediate crisis as they come up, day after day, weve also got to have our long term approach for the middle distance into the future if we are going to create conditions of stability. This is also a chronic problem in policy making, what is the appropriate time scale for thinking . Because america is a democracy, it is very tempting to think only as far as the next election. Particularly for every member of the house when they are up for election every two years, every president is up for election over four years. So to get them to think about an issue which will play out over 100 years, it is almost impossible. That is a great problem with the politics of Climate Change today. Climate change happens very gradually, the people who are going to suffer most from the warming planet have not even been born yet or still in their infancy. It is hard to divert political resources into that solution of problems with their daybyday problems right in front of us. To get a good impression of him . In a sense, as a moral judgment or in terms of what i think of his personality generally . You probably already knew about him. Did reading this improve your judgment of hit . Did it worsen . It i think it did, i think a lot of times he gets a bad rap, i dont know enough about his policy to make a judgment on that, but you can see at least through the Second Chapter that he does care about morality to some degree. Well he might not live that out in every single policy, at least he states that there is room for moral judgment in determining the choices governments need to make. I think that gets lost when you read about surface things on kissinger in history. The right. For issues of time, we are looking at the course and looking more about kissinger and his actions in the 19 seventies. And also, one of the things we are going to be focusing on later on is the fact that after 1977, when carter came into the white house to replace gerald ford, kissinger them and even until that the 30 years, he kept on hoping he would be called back to some Senior Administration point. But each republican president looked at kissinger and thought about it and then said, no, no i dont think we will. He has written some great books since then. He is never been allowed back into the center of power making. That might Say Something revealing about him. Thank you very much everyone. We will see you again next week. We had a Vanderbilt University professor Thomas Schwartz talks about his book Henry Kissinger and American Power a political biography after his top he will take questions from a panel of Foreign Policy scholars. The Wilson Center and the National History Center Hosted this event and provided the video