What do you think?
Rate this book
Kissinger: A Biography
亨利·阿尔弗雷德·基辛格（Henry Alfred Kissinger，1923年（癸亥年）5月27日—），德国犹太人后裔，美国著名外交家、国际问题专家，美国前国务卿），中国人民的老朋友。1971年7月，基辛格作为尼克松总统的秘密特使访华，为中美关系大门的开启作出了历史性贡献。他与毛泽东、周恩来、邓小平有过多次热情的会见。1973年1月，基辛格在巴黎完成了结束越南战争的谈判，并因此获得诺贝尔和平奖。2006年10月北京大学授予基辛格名誉博士学位。主要著作有《大外交》《美国需要外交政策吗》《白宫岁月》《复兴年代》等。这是全球第一部关于基辛格的传记全本。本书挖掘了这个复杂人物的性格和他所探索的外交政策之间的关系。全书内容基于对基辛格本人大量的采访和其他150多个信息来源，包括美国前总统和基辛格的生意伙伴，引用了基辛格本人许多私人文书和机密文件，全面讲述了一个美国人的传奇经历。这本书以亲切生动的叙述风格，令人惊奇的内容揭秘，将读者带入了这个色彩斑斓、叱咤风云的政治家的一生——他曾经在纳粹德国被迫害的童年，他主导一个超级大国的外交大略，他和总统尼克松痛苦的关系，以及其晚年作为经济顾问在全球各地奔走的经历。
960 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1992
890 people are currently reading
14174 people want to read
About the author
Walter Isaacson
131 books22.5k followersWalter Isaacson, a professor of history at Tulane, has been CEO of the Aspen Institute, chair of CNN, and editor of Time. He is the author of 'Leonardo da Vinci; The Innovators; Steve Jobs; Einstein: His Life and Universe; Benjamin Franklin: An American Life; and Kissinger: A Biography, and the coauthor of The Wise Men: Six Friends and the World They Made. Visit him at Isaacson.Tulane.edu and on Twitter at @WalterIsaacson
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 359 reviews
February 6, 2021
Let me state very clearly that when I give this book two stars it reflects only how I personally react to the book.
It is very well researched, and it is thorough. Too thorough for me, or let’s put it this way, I didn’t know enough before picking it up. This made it difficult to follow. Yes, I am glad I read it, but it was a chore. Keep in mind that I enjoy books of non-fiction. I have given Steve Jobs, Einstein: His Life and Universe and Benjamin Franklin: An American Life, all by Walter Isaacson, four stars. Furthermore, I want to point out that I do not need to like a person to like a book about them. Other complaints are stated below.
It follows Kissinger from his birth in 1923 in Fürth, Bavaria, Germany. There is not a lot about his parents or his sibling or his earliest years of childhood. There is very little about either his two wives or his two children. Momentum builds with his years in academia, continues with his political years with Nixon and Ford and finally concludes with his years as a world famous and sought-after business consultant, carrying the reader through the early 90s. The book was first published in 1992. It was in 1993 a nominee for a Pulitzer in biography or autobiography. Of course a very large portion of the book focuses on the Vietnam War, establishing regular contact with China, the "entente" with the Soviet Union and the shuttle diplomacy in the Middle East.
Here I am neither going to list his major accomplishments nor his failures. While I admire the man’s negotiating ability, his intelligence and his supreme mastery of semantics, his penchant for secrecy, his duplicity and his total disregard for polite comportment make him a person I would have difficulty calling a friend. Clearly many others do not have such difficulties. He was quite popular with the women and did have long lasting friendship with several male colleagues. After reading this book I do feel I understand his character. That is important to me.
It is very clear that the author has a negative view toward Kissinger. This makes me uncomfortable. In a biography, I want an unbiased presentation. Isaacson does acknowledge Kissinger’s accomplishments, but his subjective attitude is reflected in his choice of words. There is an excessive use of subjective wording. I wish the author had more often specified what exactly lead him to draw a particular conclusion. When a criticism is made I want background sources specified. Perhaps the paper book has detailed notes. There is no reference to notes in the audiobook.
One of Kissinger’s major achievements was his success in balancing Russian, American and Chinese power. Kissinger’s ability to shift what had been a bi-polar power structure toward a tri-polar field was cleverly maneuvered. The benefit to the US is clear, but nothing is said to explain how the Chinese were thinking.
The author stresses Kissinger’s preference for “realpolitik”, a German term, over morally motivated foreign policy. This theme is discussed from page one to the very end. I found it exaggerated. Reality is more diffuse.
I do not recommend choosing the audiobook. Malcolm Hillgartner reads too fast. This is a book of non-fiction with numerous academic and political terms that are often not clarified. One needs time to think. Furthermore, he employs a ridiculous German accent for Kissinger’s lines. This intonation makes Kissinger sound even worse than the author’s colorfully subjective wording.
I am glad I read the book, but I am very glad it is over. Phew.
It is very well researched, and it is thorough. Too thorough for me, or let’s put it this way, I didn’t know enough before picking it up. This made it difficult to follow. Yes, I am glad I read it, but it was a chore. Keep in mind that I enjoy books of non-fiction. I have given Steve Jobs, Einstein: His Life and Universe and Benjamin Franklin: An American Life, all by Walter Isaacson, four stars. Furthermore, I want to point out that I do not need to like a person to like a book about them. Other complaints are stated below.
It follows Kissinger from his birth in 1923 in Fürth, Bavaria, Germany. There is not a lot about his parents or his sibling or his earliest years of childhood. There is very little about either his two wives or his two children. Momentum builds with his years in academia, continues with his political years with Nixon and Ford and finally concludes with his years as a world famous and sought-after business consultant, carrying the reader through the early 90s. The book was first published in 1992. It was in 1993 a nominee for a Pulitzer in biography or autobiography. Of course a very large portion of the book focuses on the Vietnam War, establishing regular contact with China, the "entente" with the Soviet Union and the shuttle diplomacy in the Middle East.
Here I am neither going to list his major accomplishments nor his failures. While I admire the man’s negotiating ability, his intelligence and his supreme mastery of semantics, his penchant for secrecy, his duplicity and his total disregard for polite comportment make him a person I would have difficulty calling a friend. Clearly many others do not have such difficulties. He was quite popular with the women and did have long lasting friendship with several male colleagues. After reading this book I do feel I understand his character. That is important to me.
It is very clear that the author has a negative view toward Kissinger. This makes me uncomfortable. In a biography, I want an unbiased presentation. Isaacson does acknowledge Kissinger’s accomplishments, but his subjective attitude is reflected in his choice of words. There is an excessive use of subjective wording. I wish the author had more often specified what exactly lead him to draw a particular conclusion. When a criticism is made I want background sources specified. Perhaps the paper book has detailed notes. There is no reference to notes in the audiobook.
One of Kissinger’s major achievements was his success in balancing Russian, American and Chinese power. Kissinger’s ability to shift what had been a bi-polar power structure toward a tri-polar field was cleverly maneuvered. The benefit to the US is clear, but nothing is said to explain how the Chinese were thinking.
The author stresses Kissinger’s preference for “realpolitik”, a German term, over morally motivated foreign policy. This theme is discussed from page one to the very end. I found it exaggerated. Reality is more diffuse.
I do not recommend choosing the audiobook. Malcolm Hillgartner reads too fast. This is a book of non-fiction with numerous academic and political terms that are often not clarified. One needs time to think. Furthermore, he employs a ridiculous German accent for Kissinger’s lines. This intonation makes Kissinger sound even worse than the author’s colorfully subjective wording.
I am glad I read the book, but I am very glad it is over. Phew.
September 29, 2024
Where do I begin to review Kissinger: A Biography by Walter Isaacson? For as long as I remember, it was on the world stage that Henry Kissinger has had a larger-than-life presence with his international globetrotting, primarily during the Nixon and Ford years with his shuttle diplomacy. Praised and revered by many but also reviled and criticized by others, Kissinger was a polarizing figure. Walter Isaacson explores the relationship between this complex man's personality and the foreign policy he pursued with extensive research and interviews, as well as Kissinger's private papers and classified memos in telling this uniquely American story. It is the story of a young Jewish boy, Heinz Kissinger persecuted in Furth, Bavaria. His family fled Nazi Germany and the holocaust emigrating to America and settling in New York when he was fifteen years old. Although, Kissinger always maintained his experience under the Nazi regime had no effect on him, this intimate biography shows the possible impact on his life and world view.
One of the tragic times in American history was the Vietnam War and the toll of lives that were exacted. As this time is explored in the book the Paris accords and when there is a final withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam in 1973, Kissinger reflected that it had been ten years since the first American combat troops had waded ashore at Da Nang and twenty years since the French had pulled out the last of their units.
Probably Henry Kissinger is best remembered for his opening of relations with China in February 1972, as President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger met with Chairman Mao at his home inside the red walls of Beijing's Imperial City. There was even an opera, Nixon in China, beautiful. I know when we visited China a few years ago, we were told about how much they loved President Richard Nixon even though Americans may have conflicted feelings. In their museums there were many tributes to that historic meeting between these world leaders in the art and the gifts that were exchanged.
The book, first published in 1992, ends with Henry Kissinger trying to explain what he sees as the relationship between realism and morality at a Paris gathering of Nobel Prize laureates in 1988. Amid being attacked for his views, the room became hushed as Kissinger told of more than a dozen of his relatives that had been killed during the holocaust emphasizing that he knew something of the nature of genocide. This richly textured biography certainly confirms Henry Kissinger's place as one of the world's great international players.
"As a young academic, Kissinger once wrote of Bismarck and his era: 'The new order was tailored to a genius who proposed to constrain the contending forces, both domestic and foreign, by manipulating their antagonisms.' Much the same could be said of Kissinger and his era. And Germany in the 1930s was a good place for a sensitive and brilliant child to learn about contending forces and the manipulation of antagonisms."
One of the tragic times in American history was the Vietnam War and the toll of lives that were exacted. As this time is explored in the book the Paris accords and when there is a final withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam in 1973, Kissinger reflected that it had been ten years since the first American combat troops had waded ashore at Da Nang and twenty years since the French had pulled out the last of their units.
"All that the U.S. had left to show for the 58,022 dead were the shreds of credibility that came from having achieved a peace agreement that lasted long enough to disguise the American pullout. Neither the peace nor the honor that Kissinger claimed in January 1973 turned out to be long lasting. But the Paris accords had at least served the purpose of making America's abandonment of its commitment to Saigon, and the resulting loss of credibility, rather ambiguous--another case in which ambiguity was the best Kissinger felt could be achieved."
Probably Henry Kissinger is best remembered for his opening of relations with China in February 1972, as President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger met with Chairman Mao at his home inside the red walls of Beijing's Imperial City. There was even an opera, Nixon in China, beautiful. I know when we visited China a few years ago, we were told about how much they loved President Richard Nixon even though Americans may have conflicted feelings. In their museums there were many tributes to that historic meeting between these world leaders in the art and the gifts that were exchanged.
"So the Chinese happily agreed to help produce the televised spectacle. The handshake, the sight of Nixon on the Great Wall, a Chinese military band playing 'America the Beautiful' at a banquet in the Great Hall of the People--these video images instantly transformed China, in the minds of American viewers and voters, from a forbidding and foreboding land into an enchanting and inviting one, a feat that even the most elegant communique could never have accomplished."
The book, first published in 1992, ends with Henry Kissinger trying to explain what he sees as the relationship between realism and morality at a Paris gathering of Nobel Prize laureates in 1988. Amid being attacked for his views, the room became hushed as Kissinger told of more than a dozen of his relatives that had been killed during the holocaust emphasizing that he knew something of the nature of genocide. This richly textured biography certainly confirms Henry Kissinger's place as one of the world's great international players.
September 17, 2015
Returning to the wonderful world of political biographies, I chose to tackle another of Walter Isaacson's collection, looking at Henry Kissinger. Isaacson traces Kissinger's humble beginnings in Germany through to his meteoric rise through the American political stratosphere, concentrated in the Nixon and Ford White Houses. Throughout the book, numerous storylines present three distinct themes in Kissinger's life: the stellar academic, the megalomaniacal fiend, and the astute statesman. Isaacson offers a plethora of information and detailed accounts of Kissinger's life to date, which allows the reader a sensational look into some of America's formative years in the mid- to late-20th century. While his prominence has waned of late, Kissinger's impact on foreign policy and the historical footprint he's left will forever be seen in historical tomes. One of the most detailed biographies I have ever read, Isaacson goes above and beyond to bring Kissinger to life.
One key aspect to Kissinger's success in life traces back to his academic prowess. From an early age, Kissinger's aptitude for his studies were second to none. After fleeing Germany and the Nazi regime in 1938, a fifteen year old Kissinger and his family settled in New York with many of the others of Jewish descent. He scored the highest grades in his classes, even with the language barrier, and never sought to use these hurdles as a means of pity. While he had an early penchant for mathematics, an eventual passion for history turned Kissinger's academic focus to the liberal arts. Kissinger elevated his studies and headed to Harvard on scholarship, with a strong focus on international history. He could impress his professors with a passion for better understanding the nuances of the world through past historical events. He leapfrogged into graduate studies and eventually earned a doctoral degree with a dissertation examining the post-Napoleonic organisation of Europe through the role that Klemens von Metternich (the Austrian Empire's foreign minister) played in sewing up diplomatic relations, which would prove highly useful in understanding the world's development during the Cold War years. Turning to teaching at Harvard, Kissinger could formulate strong opinions that caught the eye of many in the upper echelons of government, especially his views on nuclear weapons armament, which ruffled the feathers of many liberals within the Harvard family. These sorts of studies not only earned him recognition in Washington, but exemplified his academic foundation, which would prove essential when he worked with Nixon and Ford in the White House, formulating foreign policy and negotiating with Cold War enemies.Isaacson shows Kissinger's passion for research and delving to the depths of the issue in order to extract core elements essential for a better understanding of the process, pulling in Metternichian ideas during numerous occasions.
Kissinger's brilliant academic foundation led to megalomaniacal tendencies, fostered by his superiority sentiment. As an academic, Kissinger utilised his position of authority to direct research of his graduate and doctoral students, going so far as to steamroll over their proposals, only to take the ideas for himself. In one instance, Isaacson illustrates how Kissinger quashed a publication option by one of his students, citing an earlier inclination to publish on the topic. Forcing the student to alter their research, Kissinger never got around to writing or publishing the contentious piece, though he never thought to apologise for the oversight. This only laid the groundwork for many other instances of power-hungry Kissinger pushing for control and domination over all around him. Isaacson portrays Kissinger as one who must always be within the inner circle of power, or at least around the discussion table. He would drone on to the likes of Kennedy, circumnavigating protocol and those within the inner sanctum, only to be rebuffed behind his back. Once Nixon brought him into the White House inner sanctum, Kissinger's megalomaniacal nature only flared, leaving him to step on the toes of his subordinates, equals, and superiors alike. In a highly-detailed narrative of Nixon's first term in office, Isaacson shows how Kissinger overstepped his position as the National Security Advisor to run large portion of the State portfolio while keeping the Secretary, Will Rogers, completely in the dark. One concrete example of this come in the secret mission to open up ties with China in 1971. Kissinger went to China to pave the way, after convincing Nixon that he was the obvious and only choice for the job. He dodged the bureaucrats and organised the mission without State's input, releasing the details only afterwords in a tightly-spun lie. These clashes only heightened the more time Kissinger remained in his position, fuelled by a somewhat passive (or enabling) Richard Nixon. Kissinger could not have climbed the ladder of control without the permission or support of Nixon, which Isaacson shows throughout the text. These two men, destined for complete power, rarely butted heads, but used one another to climb over all opponents in their way, as though they were a pair of hedonistic political juggernauts, happy only when the world turned to them in awe.
With strong beliefs and an indestructible sense, Kissinger's role as statesman was second to none. As mentioned above, he took the reins of lead statesman in Nixon's government long before the role was given to him. Nixon turned to Kissinger to diffuse many of the world events in which America had a vested interest. The China mission and secret talks with the Viet Cong remain two of the great events in which Kissinger was involved, though both commenced when he was not yet in the role of Secretary of State. Kissinger was seen to be long-winded and somewhat of a diplomatic bouncer for world leaders who hoped to bend Nixon's ear on issue. Indira Ghandi mentioned during her State Visit in 1971 that Nixon would demur to Kissinger's opinions and allowed him to lead the discussions surrounding the India-Pakistan War, which troubled her, but led to a quick end to the conflict. Kissinger was more than an academic, spouting the textbook approach to resolution in his realist perspective, which Isaacson cites throughout. Kissinger got results and helped move diplomacy in areas of the world stuck in stalemates for long periods of time, through duplicitous means, in Isaacson's view. The statesman would play both sides against one another by appearing to side with them in individual discussions and promising not stop at nothing to advocate for fairness. While handling statesman roles during Nixon's first administration, Kissinger could work in any sphere, save for those of a Middle East capacity (at least until crowned as Secretary of State in 1973). Isaacson indicates throughout the tome that Nixon felt Kissinger's Jewish background might prove to be too much of an impediment to successful negotiating. However, once Kissinger became Secretary of State, he utilised the Yom Kippur War to open a dialogue between Israel and Egypt, paving the way to successful advancements in the Middle East. For this, Kissinger must be lauded as he opened up key discussions that led to the famous Camp David Accords, under Carter's Administration. To call Kissinger a powerful statesman would undercut his abilities. The latter chapters, including those in the Ford Administration, show Kissinger forging new and never-ending attempts to settle the Cold War geo-political divisions within and between states, though his relationship with the Soveits would taint his ability to work with subsequent Republican administrations, including Reagan and both Bushes. Kissinger's statesman abilities surpass many of those who served as Secretary in America's history.
After taking a thorough examination of the book, including Isaacson's sentiments in the forewards offered, it is hard to determine Isaacson's tilt on the man. Much of the biography is supportive of his ability to change the world and America's place therein with a strong reliance on a political butterfly effect (an issue in one part of the world could have strong implications on those in another sphere).There are also segments that paint a highly negative or confrontational light of Kissinger, peppered throughout Isaacson's narrative. I did not leave this biography hating Kissinger, nor did I leave feeling that he was pure as the driven snow. Perhaps that is the hard part for Isaacson; finding that happy medium in a political period mired in conflicts around the world with Cabinet members and White House staffers so energised to make a difference. I did, however, take away a great deal of knowledge and insight from the book, which does not shirk on its details. Isaacson paints vivid pictures of the battles that developed and ensued, portraying Nixon (and Ford) as lapdogs to Kissinger's wiles, some of which were blatant violations of his role in the Cabinet. Any reader looking for a powerful insight into the shaping of politics in the 1960s and 70s need look no further than this biography to extract scores of concrete examples about America's role in shaping the Cold War world and steering it away from the communistic clutches of the Soviets.
Kudos, Mr. Isaacson for this wonderful piece of work. I was drawn in to this sensational biography and will recommend it to anyone with a political curiosity.
Like/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
One key aspect to Kissinger's success in life traces back to his academic prowess. From an early age, Kissinger's aptitude for his studies were second to none. After fleeing Germany and the Nazi regime in 1938, a fifteen year old Kissinger and his family settled in New York with many of the others of Jewish descent. He scored the highest grades in his classes, even with the language barrier, and never sought to use these hurdles as a means of pity. While he had an early penchant for mathematics, an eventual passion for history turned Kissinger's academic focus to the liberal arts. Kissinger elevated his studies and headed to Harvard on scholarship, with a strong focus on international history. He could impress his professors with a passion for better understanding the nuances of the world through past historical events. He leapfrogged into graduate studies and eventually earned a doctoral degree with a dissertation examining the post-Napoleonic organisation of Europe through the role that Klemens von Metternich (the Austrian Empire's foreign minister) played in sewing up diplomatic relations, which would prove highly useful in understanding the world's development during the Cold War years. Turning to teaching at Harvard, Kissinger could formulate strong opinions that caught the eye of many in the upper echelons of government, especially his views on nuclear weapons armament, which ruffled the feathers of many liberals within the Harvard family. These sorts of studies not only earned him recognition in Washington, but exemplified his academic foundation, which would prove essential when he worked with Nixon and Ford in the White House, formulating foreign policy and negotiating with Cold War enemies.Isaacson shows Kissinger's passion for research and delving to the depths of the issue in order to extract core elements essential for a better understanding of the process, pulling in Metternichian ideas during numerous occasions.
Kissinger's brilliant academic foundation led to megalomaniacal tendencies, fostered by his superiority sentiment. As an academic, Kissinger utilised his position of authority to direct research of his graduate and doctoral students, going so far as to steamroll over their proposals, only to take the ideas for himself. In one instance, Isaacson illustrates how Kissinger quashed a publication option by one of his students, citing an earlier inclination to publish on the topic. Forcing the student to alter their research, Kissinger never got around to writing or publishing the contentious piece, though he never thought to apologise for the oversight. This only laid the groundwork for many other instances of power-hungry Kissinger pushing for control and domination over all around him. Isaacson portrays Kissinger as one who must always be within the inner circle of power, or at least around the discussion table. He would drone on to the likes of Kennedy, circumnavigating protocol and those within the inner sanctum, only to be rebuffed behind his back. Once Nixon brought him into the White House inner sanctum, Kissinger's megalomaniacal nature only flared, leaving him to step on the toes of his subordinates, equals, and superiors alike. In a highly-detailed narrative of Nixon's first term in office, Isaacson shows how Kissinger overstepped his position as the National Security Advisor to run large portion of the State portfolio while keeping the Secretary, Will Rogers, completely in the dark. One concrete example of this come in the secret mission to open up ties with China in 1971. Kissinger went to China to pave the way, after convincing Nixon that he was the obvious and only choice for the job. He dodged the bureaucrats and organised the mission without State's input, releasing the details only afterwords in a tightly-spun lie. These clashes only heightened the more time Kissinger remained in his position, fuelled by a somewhat passive (or enabling) Richard Nixon. Kissinger could not have climbed the ladder of control without the permission or support of Nixon, which Isaacson shows throughout the text. These two men, destined for complete power, rarely butted heads, but used one another to climb over all opponents in their way, as though they were a pair of hedonistic political juggernauts, happy only when the world turned to them in awe.
With strong beliefs and an indestructible sense, Kissinger's role as statesman was second to none. As mentioned above, he took the reins of lead statesman in Nixon's government long before the role was given to him. Nixon turned to Kissinger to diffuse many of the world events in which America had a vested interest. The China mission and secret talks with the Viet Cong remain two of the great events in which Kissinger was involved, though both commenced when he was not yet in the role of Secretary of State. Kissinger was seen to be long-winded and somewhat of a diplomatic bouncer for world leaders who hoped to bend Nixon's ear on issue. Indira Ghandi mentioned during her State Visit in 1971 that Nixon would demur to Kissinger's opinions and allowed him to lead the discussions surrounding the India-Pakistan War, which troubled her, but led to a quick end to the conflict. Kissinger was more than an academic, spouting the textbook approach to resolution in his realist perspective, which Isaacson cites throughout. Kissinger got results and helped move diplomacy in areas of the world stuck in stalemates for long periods of time, through duplicitous means, in Isaacson's view. The statesman would play both sides against one another by appearing to side with them in individual discussions and promising not stop at nothing to advocate for fairness. While handling statesman roles during Nixon's first administration, Kissinger could work in any sphere, save for those of a Middle East capacity (at least until crowned as Secretary of State in 1973). Isaacson indicates throughout the tome that Nixon felt Kissinger's Jewish background might prove to be too much of an impediment to successful negotiating. However, once Kissinger became Secretary of State, he utilised the Yom Kippur War to open a dialogue between Israel and Egypt, paving the way to successful advancements in the Middle East. For this, Kissinger must be lauded as he opened up key discussions that led to the famous Camp David Accords, under Carter's Administration. To call Kissinger a powerful statesman would undercut his abilities. The latter chapters, including those in the Ford Administration, show Kissinger forging new and never-ending attempts to settle the Cold War geo-political divisions within and between states, though his relationship with the Soveits would taint his ability to work with subsequent Republican administrations, including Reagan and both Bushes. Kissinger's statesman abilities surpass many of those who served as Secretary in America's history.
After taking a thorough examination of the book, including Isaacson's sentiments in the forewards offered, it is hard to determine Isaacson's tilt on the man. Much of the biography is supportive of his ability to change the world and America's place therein with a strong reliance on a political butterfly effect (an issue in one part of the world could have strong implications on those in another sphere).There are also segments that paint a highly negative or confrontational light of Kissinger, peppered throughout Isaacson's narrative. I did not leave this biography hating Kissinger, nor did I leave feeling that he was pure as the driven snow. Perhaps that is the hard part for Isaacson; finding that happy medium in a political period mired in conflicts around the world with Cabinet members and White House staffers so energised to make a difference. I did, however, take away a great deal of knowledge and insight from the book, which does not shirk on its details. Isaacson paints vivid pictures of the battles that developed and ensued, portraying Nixon (and Ford) as lapdogs to Kissinger's wiles, some of which were blatant violations of his role in the Cabinet. Any reader looking for a powerful insight into the shaping of politics in the 1960s and 70s need look no further than this biography to extract scores of concrete examples about America's role in shaping the Cold War world and steering it away from the communistic clutches of the Soviets.
Kudos, Mr. Isaacson for this wonderful piece of work. I was drawn in to this sensational biography and will recommend it to anyone with a political curiosity.
Like/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
November 18, 2020
At first I was hesitant about reading a biography of Henry Kissinger because I was concerned about what kind of author could grasp the complexities of Kissinger’s times, his expertise in foreign relations, and personal nuances. However, after reading Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs, I decided to give him a chance. I was not disappointed.
Walter Isaacson has proved to be well up to the task of examining Kissinger’s decisions in the tactical, strategic, diplomatic, and moral context of his times.
Isaacson also closely examines his relationships with others including Nixon (of course), the media, and even the social circles that he frequented.
I would highly recommend this work as an all-encompassing view of the most of complex of men.
Walter Isaacson has proved to be well up to the task of examining Kissinger’s decisions in the tactical, strategic, diplomatic, and moral context of his times.
Isaacson also closely examines his relationships with others including Nixon (of course), the media, and even the social circles that he frequented.
I would highly recommend this work as an all-encompassing view of the most of complex of men.
March 15, 2024
Walter Isaacson's Kissinger is a judicious biography of America's most controversial statesman. Henry Kissinger, a Bavarian Jew who fled Nazi Germany in the '30s, emerged in the United States as a leading intellectual and policymaker, first as a Harvard political scientist, then as an informal adviser to Kennedy and Johnson, speechwriter for Nelson Rockefeller and finally as Nixon's National Security Adviser and, later, Secretary of State. Kissinger's reputation grew outsized as he came to power at a momentous period of American history: tasked with ending the Vietnam War, he and Nixon initially escalated it, with expanded bombings and attacks on neutral neighbors Cambodia and Laos designed to bring North Vietnam to the peace table. The Vietnam strategy was a mixed success, at best; Kissinger managed to ring a face-saving deal from negotiations with Le Duc Tho, which won the Secretary of State a Nobel Peace Prize but failed to save South Vietnam from Communist takeover. Kissinger gained more acclaim by negotiating Nixon's detente policies with China and the Soviet Union, and an improbable celebrity as a "secret swinger" whose dates with movie stars and witty repartee with reporters made him the Nixon Administration's leading light (to his boss's fury). After Nixon's downfall, Kissinger served Gerald Ford by continuing negotiations with the Soviets and navigating a variety of messy Third World conflicts. But a backlash against detente drove Kissinger's patron from office, even though the man himself remained an elder statesman in foreign policy circles.
Isaacson, best-known for his biographies of intellectuals and inventors (Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein, Steve Jobs) is a good fit for his subject, and the worst that can be said about this book is that he's sometimes overawed by Kissinger. Hardly an uncritical admirer of his subject, Isaacson nonetheless imputes him with more creativity and brilliance than his own book seems to merit. Kissinger's foreign policy writings in the '50s and '60s (including a poorly aged book advocating limited nuclear war) largely echoed the political consensus of the time. He gladly took credit for the opening to China which, in fact, Nixon had been pondering years before he met Kissinger ("Fat chance," Kissinger retorted when one of Nixon's aide first broached the idea). Indeed, Kissinger's concept of realpolitik can be interpreted either as a pragmatic response to unchanging events, or a reflexive effort to maintain the status quo. Hence Kissinger's unsavory actions, from backing Pakistan's brutality in Bangladesh to the coup in Chile and his efforts, with Orwellian logic, to bomb North Vietnam to convince the South to accept America's peace terms. And in his portrait of Kissinger's backbiting of his bosses, feuds with bureaucratic rivals at Harvard and the State Department, his helping to undermine the Paris Peace Talks and his fraught pas de deux with Nixon (stoking the President's paranoia and helping plant the seeds for Watergate), Isaacson shows a man who often placed power over national interest, let alone any sense of morality.
Kissinger's skill, Isaacson demonstrates (if perhaps not intentionally), was less in his ideas than his actions. For all his personal faults, he was a brilliant diplomat in the old-fashioned sense. He struck hard bargains with Communist leaders, engaged in shuttle diplomacy with Israeli and Arab statesmen, negotiated treaties that presented a major cooling in Cold War tensions. If he was more the instrument than the originator of his policies, Isaacson argues, he deserves credit at the very least for effectively executing them. But his very real achievements cannot be fairly mentioned without also evoking his demerits. Isaacson is solicitous in some of them (he argues that Kissinger's Vietnam policies, while misguided and destructive, were at least understandable in context) and damning on others (the "tilt" towards Pakistan during their 1971 with India undoubtedly enabled the former's genocide in Bangladesh, the reckless destabilization of Cambodia), while affairs like Chile, Cyprus and East Timor are only mentioned in passing. Isaacson wants us, ultimately, to see Kissinger as a flawed but brilliant statesman; readers can judge for themselves whether his "brilliance" can be praised without considering the ends towards which he practiced it.
Isaacson, best-known for his biographies of intellectuals and inventors (Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein, Steve Jobs) is a good fit for his subject, and the worst that can be said about this book is that he's sometimes overawed by Kissinger. Hardly an uncritical admirer of his subject, Isaacson nonetheless imputes him with more creativity and brilliance than his own book seems to merit. Kissinger's foreign policy writings in the '50s and '60s (including a poorly aged book advocating limited nuclear war) largely echoed the political consensus of the time. He gladly took credit for the opening to China which, in fact, Nixon had been pondering years before he met Kissinger ("Fat chance," Kissinger retorted when one of Nixon's aide first broached the idea). Indeed, Kissinger's concept of realpolitik can be interpreted either as a pragmatic response to unchanging events, or a reflexive effort to maintain the status quo. Hence Kissinger's unsavory actions, from backing Pakistan's brutality in Bangladesh to the coup in Chile and his efforts, with Orwellian logic, to bomb North Vietnam to convince the South to accept America's peace terms. And in his portrait of Kissinger's backbiting of his bosses, feuds with bureaucratic rivals at Harvard and the State Department, his helping to undermine the Paris Peace Talks and his fraught pas de deux with Nixon (stoking the President's paranoia and helping plant the seeds for Watergate), Isaacson shows a man who often placed power over national interest, let alone any sense of morality.
Kissinger's skill, Isaacson demonstrates (if perhaps not intentionally), was less in his ideas than his actions. For all his personal faults, he was a brilliant diplomat in the old-fashioned sense. He struck hard bargains with Communist leaders, engaged in shuttle diplomacy with Israeli and Arab statesmen, negotiated treaties that presented a major cooling in Cold War tensions. If he was more the instrument than the originator of his policies, Isaacson argues, he deserves credit at the very least for effectively executing them. But his very real achievements cannot be fairly mentioned without also evoking his demerits. Isaacson is solicitous in some of them (he argues that Kissinger's Vietnam policies, while misguided and destructive, were at least understandable in context) and damning on others (the "tilt" towards Pakistan during their 1971 with India undoubtedly enabled the former's genocide in Bangladesh, the reckless destabilization of Cambodia), while affairs like Chile, Cyprus and East Timor are only mentioned in passing. Isaacson wants us, ultimately, to see Kissinger as a flawed but brilliant statesman; readers can judge for themselves whether his "brilliance" can be praised without considering the ends towards which he practiced it.
November 24, 2009
Walter Isaacson, who has written esteemed biographies of Benjamin Franklin, The Wise Men, and Einstein, tackles the complex character of Henry Kissinger, academic, diplomat, and consultant. Kissinger is a difficult character to pin down, as Isaacson notes. He was devious, self-promoting, self-deprecating, intelligent, ambitious, and successful. The author interviewed over 150 people--including Kissinger himself--to gather information for this lengthy volume (767 pages of text).
At the outset, Isaacson says (page 9): "Three decades after he left office, Henry Kissinger continues to exert a fascinating hold on the public imagination as well as intellectual sway over the nation's foreign policy conversation." He was a well-known apostle of "Realpolitik," emphasizing doing what had to be done to advance the national interest, balancing power with power, concerned more with accomplishing things than getting caught up in ideology and morality. Again, a realist as opposed to an idealist. And this is the tension that is described throughout the course of this powerful volume (page 15): ". . .Kissinger had an instinctive feel. . .for power and for creating a new global balance that could help America cope with its withdrawal syndrome after Vietnam. But it was not matched by a similar feel for the strength to be derived from the openness of America's democratic system or for the moral values that are the true source of its global influence."
The book begins with a brief early biography of Kissinger, including the misery he experienced after the Nazis came to power and the departure of his immediate family from Germany when they came to understand how inhospitable that country was becoming for Jews. The book also notes that many of his relatives died during World War II, part of the Holocaust. There follows the tale of his adolescence, his military service, his graduate study, and his promising academic career.
But the major portion of this book focuses on his role as National Security Advisor and then Secretary of State under Richard Nixon's presidency and Secretary of State under Gerald Ford. There is a relatively brief discussion in several chapters of his life after Nixon-Ford, as consultant, commentator, intellectual-without-portfolio.
After having worked with Nelson Rockefeller as an advisor, it is somewhat surprising that he ended up serving one of Rocky's antagonists, Richard Nixon. The book traces the odd relationship between Nixon and Kissinger. Sometimes hard-edged and combative, sometimes oddly supportive of one another. The secretive Nixon and Kissinger as lone cowboy accomplished a great deal in foreign policy; however, their penchant for secrecy also created problems of its own. Kissinger could be viewed is devious (for telling different people things in such a way as for each to think that Kissinger was on his/her side), but he also earned the trust of many leaders as he invented "shuttle diplomacy." Leaders might become exasperated with his style and his deviousness, but he was effective in a number of key instances. Examples worth exploring and reflecting upon in the book include the negotiations with North Vietnam to extricate the United States from a quagmire of its own making; the effort to end the Yom Kippur War in a manner that would stabilize the Middle East; the opening to China; détente with the Soviet Union.
This is a biography that is worth investing time and energy into. It portrays Kissinger, warts and all, in a manner that illuminates this complicated individual. On some pages, one will think of railing against him; on other pages, one may well feel admiration for his strengths and accomplishments.
At the outset, Isaacson says (page 9): "Three decades after he left office, Henry Kissinger continues to exert a fascinating hold on the public imagination as well as intellectual sway over the nation's foreign policy conversation." He was a well-known apostle of "Realpolitik," emphasizing doing what had to be done to advance the national interest, balancing power with power, concerned more with accomplishing things than getting caught up in ideology and morality. Again, a realist as opposed to an idealist. And this is the tension that is described throughout the course of this powerful volume (page 15): ". . .Kissinger had an instinctive feel. . .for power and for creating a new global balance that could help America cope with its withdrawal syndrome after Vietnam. But it was not matched by a similar feel for the strength to be derived from the openness of America's democratic system or for the moral values that are the true source of its global influence."
The book begins with a brief early biography of Kissinger, including the misery he experienced after the Nazis came to power and the departure of his immediate family from Germany when they came to understand how inhospitable that country was becoming for Jews. The book also notes that many of his relatives died during World War II, part of the Holocaust. There follows the tale of his adolescence, his military service, his graduate study, and his promising academic career.
But the major portion of this book focuses on his role as National Security Advisor and then Secretary of State under Richard Nixon's presidency and Secretary of State under Gerald Ford. There is a relatively brief discussion in several chapters of his life after Nixon-Ford, as consultant, commentator, intellectual-without-portfolio.
After having worked with Nelson Rockefeller as an advisor, it is somewhat surprising that he ended up serving one of Rocky's antagonists, Richard Nixon. The book traces the odd relationship between Nixon and Kissinger. Sometimes hard-edged and combative, sometimes oddly supportive of one another. The secretive Nixon and Kissinger as lone cowboy accomplished a great deal in foreign policy; however, their penchant for secrecy also created problems of its own. Kissinger could be viewed is devious (for telling different people things in such a way as for each to think that Kissinger was on his/her side), but he also earned the trust of many leaders as he invented "shuttle diplomacy." Leaders might become exasperated with his style and his deviousness, but he was effective in a number of key instances. Examples worth exploring and reflecting upon in the book include the negotiations with North Vietnam to extricate the United States from a quagmire of its own making; the effort to end the Yom Kippur War in a manner that would stabilize the Middle East; the opening to China; détente with the Soviet Union.
This is a biography that is worth investing time and energy into. It portrays Kissinger, warts and all, in a manner that illuminates this complicated individual. On some pages, one will think of railing against him; on other pages, one may well feel admiration for his strengths and accomplishments.
December 15, 2024
Айзъксън е направил монументално документално проучване за Кисинджър. С еднаква лекота жонглира между вътрешни правителствени доклади и записки, статии от дипломатически списания, научни трудове и книги на самия Кисинджър, журналистически статии и анекдотични случки от проведени интервюта с очевидци. Книгата може да се чете и като своего рода курс за основни събития в американската външна дипломация в ерата на Кисинджър. Виетнамската война. Превратът срещу Алиенде в Чили. Войната от Йом Кипур. Размразяването с Китай.
Това, което обаче остава дълбоко затрупано под тоновете и тонове информация, е самият Кисинджър. Бежанец от нацизма в Германия, макар далеч не бедстващ и страдащ, той има необходимите психологически спусъци, които да го изстрелят в дипломатическа орбита. Маниакално желания за контрол, подмолни маневри и поверителност. Неувереност. Емоционалност. Липса на емпатия и човешки усет. Остра интелигентност. Желение да се хареса на силните на деня и на критиците си, съчетано с желание да стъпче всеки с по-малък интелект. Реалист. Циник, считащ идеалите за пречка. Амбициозен и неуморим в интелектуалната игра, която може да промени света. Гъвкав комбинатор и шармантен използвач. Качествата на Кисинджър са отчасти изредени, но човекът остава в сянка, размит и неясен. Силните на деня и техните маневри - включително самият президент Никсън - са представени дори още по-безлично и слабо запомнящо се. А камари��е добросъвестно изкълвани подробности за всяка дребна бюрократична схватка са по-успешно упояващи от което и да е приспивателно. Дрямката в средата на някой изпълнен с безброй повторения или безброй дреболии свръхдълъг абзац е гарантирана.
С риск да прозвуча еретично, смятам, че щеше да е по-добре Айзъксън да се беше въздържал да пише точно тази конкретна биография. Не му се е удала, и огромното усилие не му се е отплатило. Не бих стигнала чак дотам да кажа, че иначе антипатичният ми Кисинджър (оприличавам го на шармантна кобра) заслужава повече - но предвид неговата собствена насоченост повече към резултатите и по-малко към умозренията, моралните дилеми и досадните подробности - може накрая точно така да се окаже. Просто биограф и обект стоят на диаметрално противоположни полюси, което е в ущърб и на двамата, както и на читателя.
2,5⭐️
П.П. Чудесно издание, оформление и превод!
Това, което обаче остава дълбоко затрупано под тоновете и тонове информация, е самият Кисинджър. Бежанец от нацизма в Германия, макар далеч не бедстващ и страдащ, той има необходимите психологически спусъци, които да го изстрелят в дипломатическа орбита. Маниакално желания за контрол, подмолни маневри и поверителност. Неувереност. Емоционалност. Липса на емпатия и човешки усет. Остра интелигентност. Желение да се хареса на силните на деня и на критиците си, съчетано с желание да стъпче всеки с по-малък интелект. Реалист. Циник, считащ идеалите за пречка. Амбициозен и неуморим в интелектуалната игра, която може да промени света. Гъвкав комбинатор и шармантен използвач. Качествата на Кисинджър са отчасти изредени, но човекът остава в сянка, размит и неясен. Силните на деня и техните маневри - включително самият президент Никсън - са представени дори още по-безлично и слабо запомнящо се. А камари��е добросъвестно изкълвани подробности за всяка дребна бюрократична схватка са по-успешно упояващи от което и да е приспивателно. Дрямката в средата на някой изпълнен с безброй повторения или безброй дреболии свръхдълъг абзац е гарантирана.
С риск да прозвуча еретично, смятам, че щеше да е по-добре Айзъксън да се беше въздържал да пише точно тази конкретна биография. Не му се е удала, и огромното усилие не му се е отплатило. Не бих стигнала чак дотам да кажа, че иначе антипатичният ми Кисинджър (оприличавам го на шармантна кобра) заслужава повече - но предвид неговата собствена насоченост повече към резултатите и по-малко към умозренията, моралните дилеми и досадните подробности - може накрая точно така да се окаже. Просто биограф и обект стоят на диаметрално противоположни полюси, което е в ущърб и на двамата, както и на читателя.
2,5⭐️
П.П. Чудесно издание, оформление и превод!
December 1, 2024
Кисинджър – „най-известният държавник на съвременната епоха“: https://knigolandia.info/kissinger-a-...
Иска ми се да започна с цитат от книгата на Хенри Кисинджър „Възстановен свят“ от 1957 г., който е дотолкова актуален, че може да е написан вчера: „Всеки път, когато мирът в смисъл на избягване на война е основната цел на една сила или група от сили, международната система остава на милостта на най-безмилостния ѝ член.“ Именно заради този тип прозрения американският дипломат остава една от най-известните и влиятелни личности на миналия век, а точно тези дни четох и анализ, според който се наблюдават признаци, че неговият стил на realpolitik отново се прилага – но каква е точно тя, това може да опише като никой друг големият биограф Уолтър Айзъксън. До момента от него съм чел мащабните му животописи за Стив Джобс, Алберт Айнщайн и Леонардо да Винчи, а след като споделя този текст, ще започна и книгата му за Илон Мъск, но определено трябва да се отбележи впечатляващият размах и дълбочина, в които влиза той в историята си за живота на Хенри Кисинджър. Важно е все пак да се отбележи, че тази книга излиза в оригинал през 1992 г., в един много различен свят, така че сама по себе си тя е документ и на епоха, която от наша гледна точка изглежда наивна и оптимистична до глупост, когато се вярваше, че е дошъл краят на историята и големите световни конфронтации са вече в миналото. Но най-вече това е хроника на управлението на една държава и нейната противоречива външна политика – и може да се каже, че немалко от тези страници са смайващи с прямите описания на хаоса, дребнавостите и човешките слабости, които определят посоката на действие на една от двете свръхдържави в периода. И по-странно е, че до голяма степен тези действия са успешни според текущите предизвикателства – в крайна сметка очевидно оценката на историята в такъв случай би трябвало да е положителна.
Издателство Труд
https://knigolandia.info/kissinger-a-...
Иска ми се да започна с цитат от книгата на Хенри Кисинджър „Възстановен свят“ от 1957 г., който е дотолкова актуален, че може да е написан вчера: „Всеки път, когато мирът в смисъл на избягване на война е основната цел на една сила или група от сили, международната система остава на милостта на най-безмилостния ѝ член.“ Именно заради този тип прозрения американският дипломат остава една от най-известните и влиятелни личности на миналия век, а точно тези дни четох и анализ, според който се наблюдават признаци, че неговият стил на realpolitik отново се прилага – но каква е точно тя, това може да опише като никой друг големият биограф Уолтър Айзъксън. До момента от него съм чел мащабните му животописи за Стив Джобс, Алберт Айнщайн и Леонардо да Винчи, а след като споделя този текст, ще започна и книгата му за Илон Мъск, но определено трябва да се отбележи впечатляващият размах и дълбочина, в които влиза той в историята си за живота на Хенри Кисинджър. Важно е все пак да се отбележи, че тази книга излиза в оригинал през 1992 г., в един много различен свят, така че сама по себе си тя е документ и на епоха, която от наша гледна точка изглежда наивна и оптимистична до глупост, когато се вярваше, че е дошъл краят на историята и големите световни конфронтации са вече в миналото. Но най-вече това е хроника на управлението на една държава и нейната противоречива външна политика – и може да се каже, че немалко от тези страници са смайващи с прямите описания на хаоса, дребнавостите и човешките слабости, които определят посоката на действие на една от двете свръхдържави в периода. И по-странно е, че до голяма степен тези действия са успешни според текущите предизвикателства – в крайна сметка очевидно оценката на историята в такъв случай би трябвало да е положителна.
Издателство Труд
https://knigolandia.info/kissinger-a-...
December 3, 2023
When I came here in 1938, I was asked to write an essay at George Washington High School about what it meant to be an American. I wrote that . . . I thought that this was a country where one could walk across the street with one’s head erect.—from a Kissinger farewell speech as secretary
of state, January 1977
"The statement: Henry Kissinger is a war criminal, is a statement I've been making for many years. It's not a piece of rhetoric, not a metaphor, it's a job description." - Christopher Hitchens
"Kissinger’s Jewish detractors, nevertheless, have portrayed America’s first Jewish secretary of state as a cold-hearted manipulator, if not a “self-hating Jew” (Sheehan 1976: 173), who did not hesitate to sacrifice Israel’s security for goals and personal aggrandizement."
In: "A Jew for all seasons: Henry Kissinger, Jewish expectations and the Yom Kippur War"
by Gil Ribak
"Apart from the obvious that he was a monster, my only strong memory of Henry Kissinger is that I lost all respect for Zsa Zsa Gabor when she dated him."
Norman Finkelstein on X
(Today's Die Zeit edition)
Up to you to tell who he was.
Update
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united...
April 22, 2024
Gdyby Henry Kissinger był postacią literacką przez Georga R.R. Martina lub Joe Abercrombiego na pewno byłby ulubieńcem czytelników. Diablo inteligentny, błyskotliwy, czarujący, dowcipny, ale też dbający przede wszystkim o własny interes i kompletnie amoralny - wypisz wymaluj lord Littefinger z Gry o Tron. Niestety zły los sprawił, że Kissinger nie narodził się w wyobraźni żadnego pisarza parającego się fantastyką, a w niemieckim Furth w 1923 roku, co więcej prowadził politykę zagraniczną największego mocarstwa XX wieku.
Sama biografia jest ok, ale dla mnie zbyt amerykocentryczna, trochę zabrakło mi również podsumowania spuścizny Kissingera - efektów długofalowych jego polityki (co poniekąd tłumaczy fakt, że książka była wydana w latach 90' gdy był on aktywny zawodowo). Poza tym, jak to u Isaacsona, jest dokładnie, miejscami drobiazgowo, ale czyta się dobrze i lekko. No i polskie wydanie (Zyski i S-ka) to mistrzostwo.
Sama biografia jest ok, ale dla mnie zbyt amerykocentryczna, trochę zabrakło mi również podsumowania spuścizny Kissingera - efektów długofalowych jego polityki (co poniekąd tłumaczy fakt, że książka była wydana w latach 90' gdy był on aktywny zawodowo). Poza tym, jak to u Isaacsona, jest dokładnie, miejscami drobiazgowo, ale czyta się dobrze i lekko. No i polskie wydanie (Zyski i S-ka) to mistrzostwo.
August 19, 2019
This was an amazing book. It includes amazing detail that I thought would be lost to time. The writer is A+.
The topic was fascinating. This is another book I wish I had read when I was much younger.
I wanted to understand who Kissinger was. Both the extreme right and extreme left think he is a curse and war criminal. He is far from either, just a man responding to causes and conditions in his life. I find myself somewhat admiring him for his intelligence, craftiness, insight and expertise.
I greatly recommend this book for anyone interested in becoming a foreign service officer, intelligence analyst or politician.
The topic was fascinating. This is another book I wish I had read when I was much younger.
I wanted to understand who Kissinger was. Both the extreme right and extreme left think he is a curse and war criminal. He is far from either, just a man responding to causes and conditions in his life. I find myself somewhat admiring him for his intelligence, craftiness, insight and expertise.
I greatly recommend this book for anyone interested in becoming a foreign service officer, intelligence analyst or politician.
August 12, 2014
This book is sort of an introductory course in American foreign policy in itself. Isaacson delves into Kissinger's philosophy of international relations, its flaws and strengths. But, this book is not a dry academic text by any means. It is a riveting character study of Kissinger and also to a lesser extent of President Nixon. As Kissinger is quoted in the book as saying, personality shapes history. Nixon's and Kissinger's strange clashing and complementary relationship surely shaped history. As Isaacson writes it, it is fascinating, bizarre, disturbing, and even a little sweet. This book is a dynamic account of american politics and foreign policy. Even though I knew what would happen I still got caught up in the great scope and drama of it all. The opening of China, detente with the Soviet Union, the treaty between Israel and Egypt to end the Yom Kippur war, not to mention the bombing of Cambodia and the endless negotiations with the North Vietnamese. Isaacson has a great understanding of the forces that shape the foreign policy of the United States. I loved reading about the bureaucratic rivalries in the State Dept., the National Security Council, and with Congress, Al Haig and Kissinger's clashing, the elaborate system of wiretapping, political theater on Capitol Hill and at the UN. Kissinger is a fascinating man with a fascinating story that I will no doubt read more about in the future. I greatly enjoyed this biography and would recommend it it to anyone interested in American politics and history.
February 17, 2017
Walter Isaacson is an excellent writer, with the ability to be historically accurate, tell a good story, and provide reasoned and thoughtful analysis about the subject he is writing about. This definitely holds true for his biography of Henry Kissinger. Written in 1992, Isaacson was able to interview many of the major players (including both Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford) who worked with Kissinger while he was in office National Security Adviser and then Secretary of State.
One especially well-constructed chapter is when Isaacson takes September 1970 and reviews all of the crises that Kissinger was facing at that time: Vietnam, the Soviets trying to install missiles in Cuba, Chile, and Jordan. Isaacson shows how Kissinger is forced to juggle all of these issues simultaneously and that they do not occur in a vacuum. Here, as elsewhere, he makes extensive use of Kissinger's memoirs, as well as those of many other major players from that era. This helps to provide perspective on why Kissinger did certain things, or did not do them.
Kissinger's duplicity is well-known by now, and Isaacson makes no effort to hide it. Exceptionally thin-skinned and extremely arrogant make for a bad combination in a person's personality, and this is what Kissinger was. His staff had a high turnover and burnout rate, partly from the difficulty and importance of their work, but also partly from how Kissinger treated them (throwing tantrums, being duplicitous to everyone, being domineering). He even instituted wiretaps on several aides - they only found out much later, and even then Kissinger denied any involvement. Yet, Isaacson also notes that Kissinger intentionally surrounded himself with the best people he could get, and wanted to hear their ideas, indeed even wanted to be challenged by them because he knew that made him better at his job.
Another area that Isaacson delves into is Kissinger's relationships with Nixon, Ford, and other high political figures. His relationship with Nixon was just... bizarre. Both were paranoid and suspicious of the other - and everyone else. Isaacson cogently notes that they each tended to exacerbate the paranoia that came naturally to the other one. While there may be a tendency to assume that Nixon's deviousness influenced Kissinger to be this way, and this to an extent probably is true, Isaacson indicates that Kissinger behaved this way even with Ford - who was about as straightforward a president as America has had.
Isaacson ends the book with a short but analytical chapter about Kissinger's legacy, contrasting his best and worst qualities and putting them into perspective both professionally (global reach of his foreign policy) and personally (his duplicitous nature with people). The chapter serves as a fitting ending to the biography (with Kissinger being alive and active at the time that it was written). In the end, Isaacson readily acknowledges Kissinger's intellectual greatness and his ability to grasp complex geopolitical relationships unlike almost anyone else. But he notes that it came at an enormous cost - a basically amoral philosophy that paid little to no heed for human rights, and did not recognize how much stock Americans put in their morality. This kind of analysis is missing from so many biographies of political figures such as Kissinger, and seems especially to be missing from many presidential biographies.
While this book was re-released in 2005, and Isaacson does write a short, new forward to that edition, it would be nice to see him expand and update this book. Since its publication, Kissinger belatedly finished volume III of his memoirs, covering the Ford years. Surely Isaacson would be able to expan upon the chapters dealing with that time period by making use of this book as he has Kissinger's previous works. Also, he could update the chapters dealing with Kissinger's life following his tenure in office, as he has remained remarkably active during the ensuing forty years. And, with the further passage of time, he may be able to provide more context as to how some of Kissinger's policies have impacted the world in the longer term. All in all an excellent and balanced biography of one of America's most controversial political figures.
Grade: A
One especially well-constructed chapter is when Isaacson takes September 1970 and reviews all of the crises that Kissinger was facing at that time: Vietnam, the Soviets trying to install missiles in Cuba, Chile, and Jordan. Isaacson shows how Kissinger is forced to juggle all of these issues simultaneously and that they do not occur in a vacuum. Here, as elsewhere, he makes extensive use of Kissinger's memoirs, as well as those of many other major players from that era. This helps to provide perspective on why Kissinger did certain things, or did not do them.
Kissinger's duplicity is well-known by now, and Isaacson makes no effort to hide it. Exceptionally thin-skinned and extremely arrogant make for a bad combination in a person's personality, and this is what Kissinger was. His staff had a high turnover and burnout rate, partly from the difficulty and importance of their work, but also partly from how Kissinger treated them (throwing tantrums, being duplicitous to everyone, being domineering). He even instituted wiretaps on several aides - they only found out much later, and even then Kissinger denied any involvement. Yet, Isaacson also notes that Kissinger intentionally surrounded himself with the best people he could get, and wanted to hear their ideas, indeed even wanted to be challenged by them because he knew that made him better at his job.
Another area that Isaacson delves into is Kissinger's relationships with Nixon, Ford, and other high political figures. His relationship with Nixon was just... bizarre. Both were paranoid and suspicious of the other - and everyone else. Isaacson cogently notes that they each tended to exacerbate the paranoia that came naturally to the other one. While there may be a tendency to assume that Nixon's deviousness influenced Kissinger to be this way, and this to an extent probably is true, Isaacson indicates that Kissinger behaved this way even with Ford - who was about as straightforward a president as America has had.
Isaacson ends the book with a short but analytical chapter about Kissinger's legacy, contrasting his best and worst qualities and putting them into perspective both professionally (global reach of his foreign policy) and personally (his duplicitous nature with people). The chapter serves as a fitting ending to the biography (with Kissinger being alive and active at the time that it was written). In the end, Isaacson readily acknowledges Kissinger's intellectual greatness and his ability to grasp complex geopolitical relationships unlike almost anyone else. But he notes that it came at an enormous cost - a basically amoral philosophy that paid little to no heed for human rights, and did not recognize how much stock Americans put in their morality. This kind of analysis is missing from so many biographies of political figures such as Kissinger, and seems especially to be missing from many presidential biographies.
While this book was re-released in 2005, and Isaacson does write a short, new forward to that edition, it would be nice to see him expand and update this book. Since its publication, Kissinger belatedly finished volume III of his memoirs, covering the Ford years. Surely Isaacson would be able to expan upon the chapters dealing with that time period by making use of this book as he has Kissinger's previous works. Also, he could update the chapters dealing with Kissinger's life following his tenure in office, as he has remained remarkably active during the ensuing forty years. And, with the further passage of time, he may be able to provide more context as to how some of Kissinger's policies have impacted the world in the longer term. All in all an excellent and balanced biography of one of America's most controversial political figures.
Grade: A
May 24, 2023
I am not fond of biographies. Some time ago I read Walter Isaacson's book about Steve Jobs, which was quite nice, but the topic of Kissinger looked much more challenging. Nevertheless, I liked this book a lot. Firstly, it was very informative and very critical about the actions of Henry Kissinger, showing how the same person can act so differently in various situations. Also, I liked that author is very reflective, and does not hesitate to show his thoughts and feelings about Kissinger, but at the same time, these insights do not overshadow the main narrative of the book. I often had the thought that I was watching the House of Cards tv series, only that similar events happened in reality during '70's. All in all, I enjoyed this book and would recommend it to others.
November 13, 2018
Short, insecure, a swinger, a global power and protege of Rockefeller that coached Donald Rumsfold. Basically, Nixon strategy found the best player and partner but not sure about who actually gave the call on the Watergate scandal. So much preoccupied with leaks, one could say that was a master of Makiaveli strategy and o global diplomacy
August 20, 2015
Kissinger was meretricious, obsequious, craven and amoral, a sociopathic liar and an egomaniac. So how did he become a celebrity, an idol, even a sex symbol? Today, accustomed to anodyne and anonymous DC wonks, we can't even imagine a "superstar diplomat".
I think the reason lies in the palpable climate of fear of the Cold War-gripped 1970s. The USSR was, for all people knew, very close to conquering the world, resulting in either nuclear apocalypse or totalitarian slavery. Into that milieu stepped Kissinger, with his radiant self-confidence, professorial genius and diplomatic savvy, and became something of a Messiah.
One shouldn't understate his actual achievements. His ability to butter up the press and foreign leaders allowed him to conduct Machiavellian intrigues, often with some success. But if we credit him with those successes, we must also hold against him the prolongation of the Vietnam War, the destabilisation of Cambodia and resultant Khmer Rouge terror, and many other horrific failures.
Today, people either pillory him (Christopher Hitchens and others on the left), or ignore him. That is fitting - without the threat of nuclear war, we can see more clearly through his bluster and lies. Attention would only feed his overstuffed ego. Kissinger was not exceptional or interesting, except as a self publicist.
I came into this book knowing very little about him, and was surprised by the antipathy I developed as I read it. Politics today are still full of prevarication. Even the "experts" usually just hide crystal ball reading behind some trendy jargon. But happily, the prophets of international relations are less revered nowadays than once they were. As for Kissinger himself: knowing how to cling to powerful people might earn column inches, and inspire War and Peace-sized bios like this one, but it doesn't - or shouldn't - earn respect.
I think the reason lies in the palpable climate of fear of the Cold War-gripped 1970s. The USSR was, for all people knew, very close to conquering the world, resulting in either nuclear apocalypse or totalitarian slavery. Into that milieu stepped Kissinger, with his radiant self-confidence, professorial genius and diplomatic savvy, and became something of a Messiah.
One shouldn't understate his actual achievements. His ability to butter up the press and foreign leaders allowed him to conduct Machiavellian intrigues, often with some success. But if we credit him with those successes, we must also hold against him the prolongation of the Vietnam War, the destabilisation of Cambodia and resultant Khmer Rouge terror, and many other horrific failures.
Today, people either pillory him (Christopher Hitchens and others on the left), or ignore him. That is fitting - without the threat of nuclear war, we can see more clearly through his bluster and lies. Attention would only feed his overstuffed ego. Kissinger was not exceptional or interesting, except as a self publicist.
I came into this book knowing very little about him, and was surprised by the antipathy I developed as I read it. Politics today are still full of prevarication. Even the "experts" usually just hide crystal ball reading behind some trendy jargon. But happily, the prophets of international relations are less revered nowadays than once they were. As for Kissinger himself: knowing how to cling to powerful people might earn column inches, and inspire War and Peace-sized bios like this one, but it doesn't - or shouldn't - earn respect.
June 26, 2018
Balanced coverage of the great monster, including his meteoric rise from penniless immigrant German Jew to a permanent spot in the highest caste of global influence; his academic conceit (the longest-ever thesis at Harvard), and his ceaseless inveigling and brown-nosing. (In case you don't know, Kissinger is probably the greatest war criminal in American history.) Res ipsa loquitur:
There's not a lot of editorial from Isaacson. He respects Kissinger's single-mindedness and intellectual clout, while giving us plenty of his egotism and blandly evil wonkishness:
Isaacson soft-pedals the mass chaos and death Kissinger gave rise to. And much more has come to light about Kissinger's personal responsibility for it, since Isaacson published this.
Dr Strangelove wasn't based on Kissinger, but I find it impossible not to think of Peter Sellars (or Woody Allen) when reading about the tragic success of this erotomaniacal egomaniac.
Hitchens' Trial of Henry Kissinger is much more salient.
Whenever peace — conceived as the avoidance of war — has been the primary objective of a power or a group of powers, the international system has been at the mercy of the most ruthless member of the international community. [A more proper goal is] stability based on an equilibrium of forces.
If I had to choose between justice and disorder, on the one hand, and injustice and order, on the other, I would always choose the latter.
There's not a lot of editorial from Isaacson. He respects Kissinger's single-mindedness and intellectual clout, while giving us plenty of his egotism and blandly evil wonkishness:
Here was an example of what would become a pattern in Kissinger’s diplomacy: his attempt to mediate a dispute by finding a semantic formulation to finesse differences. In this case it was devising a phrase that linked the bombing halt to the negotiations, without sounding like a condition. Later, at the end of the war, he would search for ambiguous phrases about the demilitarized zone and South Vietnamese sovereignty that could be read differently in Hanoi and Saigon. Sometimes these word games paid off. But usually they opened Kissinger up to accusations that he had left important disagreements unresolved by talking out of both sides of his mouth.
[during the 1970 election, R v N ] At the convention, the Rockefeller forces, with little to lose, sent Kissinger to talk to the Iowa delegation. “It was so novel to me,” he told a reporter at the time. “I’d never met working politicians before. I didn’t attempt to talk their language. I just talked what I knew.” The Iowa delegation voted overwhelmingly for Nixon.
Isaacson soft-pedals the mass chaos and death Kissinger gave rise to. And much more has come to light about Kissinger's personal responsibility for it, since Isaacson published this.
Dr Strangelove wasn't based on Kissinger, but I find it impossible not to think of Peter Sellars (or Woody Allen) when reading about the tragic success of this erotomaniacal egomaniac.
Hitchens' Trial of Henry Kissinger is much more salient.
August 10, 2013
My impression of Henry Kissinger has long been that he was an incredibly manipulative and cold man who conducted foreign policy with a ruthless disregard for morality. Sideshow by William Shawcross that I read recently only reinforced that view. Walter Isaacson's biogarphy helps to put the man in perspective, and though Kissinger doesn't quite come out here as an an angel of peace and mercy, his accomplishments as a statesman get equal footing with his shortcomings as a decent human being and political leader. Shallow, manipulative and insecure, Kissinger found in Nixon a politician with much the same failings as his own and they reinforced each other's paranoia. The biography is detailed, well researched and seemingly fair. It comes to many of the same conclusions on Cambodia as does Shawcross in Sideshow. Much to my surprise, this biography is really funny, both because of Nixon's nutty behavior and Kissinger's bizarre obsession with secrecy. The former Secretary of State's wit gets a lot of airtime as do his incisive pronouncements on realpolitik. Recommended.
April 17, 2019
While the book comes out to be subjective assessment of Kissinger by Walter Isaacson, the reason for me picking it was to see what is it that makes Kissinger. It is at times extremely critical of Kissinger an his actions. But his actions are also part of his philosophy as has been discussed in the book, of realpolitik. Totally loved the book. Look forward to pick another biography by the master. Going to pick 'Kissinger - The negotiator' next.
February 21, 2024
As an avid reader of geopolitics and a fan of Walter Isaacson’s biographies, I’m disappointed to report that Kissinger biography was a drag despite being at the intersection of two worlds I enjoy. Unnecessarily long and overly detailed, the book never really gained the momentum like in Isaacson’s other works. For context, I’ve rated Steve Jobs 5 stars, and gave 4 stars to The Code Breaker, Einstein, and Elon Musk.
Read
January 13, 2025I finished this finally, dragging myself across the line. I didn't care this much why did I commit? But I kept thinking two things throughout it. Firstly, you could come from some far flung corner of the world and an American state department man could've changed the trajectory of your country, your family, your life and you won't even get a mention in their bio. And secondly the US has lost so, so much ground to Israel. Should've just finished Diplomacy and been done with it.
March 5, 2014
Aside from a gnarly chapter on US-Soviet nuclear reduction programs, it's required reading for pretty much anyone interested in international diplomacy and power dynamics.
June 10, 2021
This book is a 1991 bio of Kissinger by Isaacson that was re-released in 2005. I have been interested in diplomacy and diplomatic history since the time when Kissinger was first practicing his craft with Nixon. His life and accomplishments have been chronicled by many, including HK himself. Given his prolific writing and the importance of his tenure, I wondered whether there was value in reading Isaacson’s bio nearly sixty after his entry into prominence during the Vietnam war. I think there is, although it is not an obvious case. Issacson’s bio is quite good and provides a lot to think about and reflect upon even today when the Cold War has ended, the world political order has moved in troubling directions, and even the potential for power politics and personal diplomatic brilliance seems dubious at best, especially since 2016.
Some issues to consider include:
1) Was Kissinger as skillful as all the accounts suggests? Yes, and the results he was associated with have proven valuable and lasting (somewhat). He would certainly tell you that but others would too.
2) Was Kissinger indispensable to the Nixon/Ford accomplishments and more important than the other actors? HK certainly thought so but perhaps not. The presidents were critical actors. The US counterparts in other nations had something to do with the success, as did the support staff, columnists, and other popularizers. The move away from Maoism by Deng and others has lifted more out of poverty than the US even did and HK cannot claim that credit. The other leaders had more than a little skill of their own.
Besides, the situation/context in which even limited peace was brokered needed to fit with and be conducive to the power political strategies of HK. It helped for there to be a Cold War (and there to have been WW2) and a generally understood view of the world into which clever US strategies could fit. The fundamental attribution error suggests that it was not just Kissinger and that context really mattered in how US diplomacy worked out.
3) Is Kissinger’s legacy still relevant today? Again, tactical details are nice to remember and self-confidence/arrogance will get individuals a long way, but … the world has changed! Balance of power politics/realism suggests a plan of working to restore equilibrium through the resolution of crises in pursuit of national interests. But what if the underlying world system changes such that a very different equilibrium (or even no equilibrium) is reestablished. Could Kissinger strategies work in a non-ergotic world system?
4) What does Kissinger’s legacy mean in a world of populist governments and Executive actors that eviscerate the State Department and the Intelligence Agencies? What happens when experts are distrusted and vilified while the informational basis of policy is degraded; and truth is negotiable?
5) While Nixon/Kissinger/Ford enjoyed good results in their foreign policies, is there a risk in reifying those policies because of their positive results? How does one craft a US foreign policy today in a fractured but interconnected world where the importance of physical place can be questioned relative to networked systems that can be hijacked and corrupted? Sure, I have to hope that productive policies are plausible, but this is not the same environment in which HK rose to fame.
6). It would have been good to have more consideration of the consequences of the reemergence of moralism over pragmatism under Reagan and subsequent administrations. The odd inversion of war and politics during the Gulf War under the neocons also deserved some discussion - although the timing on that was not fortunate even given the rerelease? We have just left an Administration for which ethics and principles were completely foreign, so just establishing some relationship between power, politics, and principles will be a nice accomplishment for Biden’s team. Revisiting the relationship of Kissinger and ethics at any level is likely a bridge too far right now but there is always the possibility for hope, right?
Kissinger’s notorious neglect of economic issues received little attention in the book and technological issues would likely join economic ones in a more thorough rethink. There is much more to discuss. Isaacson’s book is fine as far as it goes but prompts more questions today than it did when it was released. His book on Doudna was superb, but HK poses different intellectual issues than does gene editing in the time of COVID-19. Still, Isaacson’s book is certainly worth a read if you have some time on your hands.
Some issues to consider include:
1) Was Kissinger as skillful as all the accounts suggests? Yes, and the results he was associated with have proven valuable and lasting (somewhat). He would certainly tell you that but others would too.
2) Was Kissinger indispensable to the Nixon/Ford accomplishments and more important than the other actors? HK certainly thought so but perhaps not. The presidents were critical actors. The US counterparts in other nations had something to do with the success, as did the support staff, columnists, and other popularizers. The move away from Maoism by Deng and others has lifted more out of poverty than the US even did and HK cannot claim that credit. The other leaders had more than a little skill of their own.
Besides, the situation/context in which even limited peace was brokered needed to fit with and be conducive to the power political strategies of HK. It helped for there to be a Cold War (and there to have been WW2) and a generally understood view of the world into which clever US strategies could fit. The fundamental attribution error suggests that it was not just Kissinger and that context really mattered in how US diplomacy worked out.
3) Is Kissinger’s legacy still relevant today? Again, tactical details are nice to remember and self-confidence/arrogance will get individuals a long way, but … the world has changed! Balance of power politics/realism suggests a plan of working to restore equilibrium through the resolution of crises in pursuit of national interests. But what if the underlying world system changes such that a very different equilibrium (or even no equilibrium) is reestablished. Could Kissinger strategies work in a non-ergotic world system?
4) What does Kissinger’s legacy mean in a world of populist governments and Executive actors that eviscerate the State Department and the Intelligence Agencies? What happens when experts are distrusted and vilified while the informational basis of policy is degraded; and truth is negotiable?
5) While Nixon/Kissinger/Ford enjoyed good results in their foreign policies, is there a risk in reifying those policies because of their positive results? How does one craft a US foreign policy today in a fractured but interconnected world where the importance of physical place can be questioned relative to networked systems that can be hijacked and corrupted? Sure, I have to hope that productive policies are plausible, but this is not the same environment in which HK rose to fame.
6). It would have been good to have more consideration of the consequences of the reemergence of moralism over pragmatism under Reagan and subsequent administrations. The odd inversion of war and politics during the Gulf War under the neocons also deserved some discussion - although the timing on that was not fortunate even given the rerelease? We have just left an Administration for which ethics and principles were completely foreign, so just establishing some relationship between power, politics, and principles will be a nice accomplishment for Biden’s team. Revisiting the relationship of Kissinger and ethics at any level is likely a bridge too far right now but there is always the possibility for hope, right?
Kissinger’s notorious neglect of economic issues received little attention in the book and technological issues would likely join economic ones in a more thorough rethink. There is much more to discuss. Isaacson’s book is fine as far as it goes but prompts more questions today than it did when it was released. His book on Doudna was superb, but HK poses different intellectual issues than does gene editing in the time of COVID-19. Still, Isaacson’s book is certainly worth a read if you have some time on your hands.
January 11, 2024
A fascinating book, on a complex individual, Walter Isaacson’s, Kissinger is a full life biography on Henry Kissinger. At 855 pages of text followed by archival family and professional photos, this is not a short book, but it is an outstanding presentation on a complex man.
Henry Kissinger’s family escaped Nazi Germany, and he later served as soldier in World War II in Europe in counter intelligence. Henry Kissinger was educated and earned his doctorate at Harvard and later served as a professor at Harvard. A Nelson Rockefeller Republican and conservative he went to serve in both the Nixon administration and later the Ford Administration, first as Nixon’s National Security Adviser and later served as both his National Security Adviser and Secretary of State simultaneously and later continued to serve Gerald Ford as Secretary of State relinquishing his role as National Security Adviser..
Kissinger was an old school European pragmatic who served to advance the interests of the United States as a nation rather than as a moral crusader, although he believed in the long term the pragmatic approach could serve both means. Henry Kissinger was decried by the conservatives as to liberal and by the liberals a too conservative. Neither a hawk nor a dove, he espoused whichever would best achieve his goals.
He worked tirelessly to extricate the United States from Vietnam but endorsed an escalation in the bombing North Vietnam as well as Cambodia and Laos to further his goal and ultimately was able to negotiate and sign the Paris Peace Accords which earned him Nobel Peace Prize and allowed for a 2 year gap between the signing of the accords and the military conquest of South Vietnam by North Vietnam.
Among his other accomplishments were his and Richard Nixons restarting relations with Communists China and achieving detente with the Soviet Union. He also served to stabilize relations in the Middle East between Israel, Egypt, and Syria in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War. He often engaged in duplicitous behavior to achieve his goals and would often tell half truths to make each side believe he supported their agenda.
It would be hard to find Henry Kissinger as likable, but he was certainly an intriguing and complex individual who ranks with Dean Acheson and George Marshall among the most influential and important Secretary of States of the 20th century. He was it able to balance the isolationist and interventionists to maintain a period of peace in the post Vietnam years.
An incredible 4.5 to 5 star book in a fascinating individual.
Henry Kissinger’s family escaped Nazi Germany, and he later served as soldier in World War II in Europe in counter intelligence. Henry Kissinger was educated and earned his doctorate at Harvard and later served as a professor at Harvard. A Nelson Rockefeller Republican and conservative he went to serve in both the Nixon administration and later the Ford Administration, first as Nixon’s National Security Adviser and later served as both his National Security Adviser and Secretary of State simultaneously and later continued to serve Gerald Ford as Secretary of State relinquishing his role as National Security Adviser..
Kissinger was an old school European pragmatic who served to advance the interests of the United States as a nation rather than as a moral crusader, although he believed in the long term the pragmatic approach could serve both means. Henry Kissinger was decried by the conservatives as to liberal and by the liberals a too conservative. Neither a hawk nor a dove, he espoused whichever would best achieve his goals.
He worked tirelessly to extricate the United States from Vietnam but endorsed an escalation in the bombing North Vietnam as well as Cambodia and Laos to further his goal and ultimately was able to negotiate and sign the Paris Peace Accords which earned him Nobel Peace Prize and allowed for a 2 year gap between the signing of the accords and the military conquest of South Vietnam by North Vietnam.
Among his other accomplishments were his and Richard Nixons restarting relations with Communists China and achieving detente with the Soviet Union. He also served to stabilize relations in the Middle East between Israel, Egypt, and Syria in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War. He often engaged in duplicitous behavior to achieve his goals and would often tell half truths to make each side believe he supported their agenda.
It would be hard to find Henry Kissinger as likable, but he was certainly an intriguing and complex individual who ranks with Dean Acheson and George Marshall among the most influential and important Secretary of States of the 20th century. He was it able to balance the isolationist and interventionists to maintain a period of peace in the post Vietnam years.
An incredible 4.5 to 5 star book in a fascinating individual.
January 11, 2025
Long live the biographer King Isaacson 👑
June 4, 2016
When Bernie Sander's ferociously challenged Hillary Clinton willingness to take input from Henry Kissinger, I was astonished. Bernie said "I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend," Sanders said angrily, when he raised the issue in the debate. "I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger." why? I have held the opinion that Kissinger was one of the most effective Secretaries of State and Foreign policy experts America has ever produced . What was Sanders talking about???
A quick google scan , showed some folks viewed Kissinger as a war criminal- they blamed him for (among other things) the murders committed by the Khmer Rouge because of the US secret bombing Cambodia in a time of undeclared war in Viet Nam when the policy was find those who are attacking us , no matter where they were. In my view , this was like blaming Abe Lincoln for the post war murders of the KuKlux Clan because Lincoln decided to pursue the Civil War.Sure sounded like a silly opinion held by unserious people.
I needed to know more. I turned to this book, because of my respect for Walter Isaacson, its author, he is a serious biographer with , in my view great integrity and credibility..Isaccson pointed out the wondrous and the awful of Kissinger.
Issacson made clear that Kissinger was brilliant, and he often used that skill when he lied, disobeyed the President and was generally un- Democratic in the pursuit many of his initiatives.Kissinger often acted in an infantile way, and had an ego that got in the way. He circumvented the State Department , and mis-led many of those he dealt with. Kissinger's central theme , per Isaccson ,that would recur throughout his career: tension often exists, at least in his view, between morality and realism. Survival, he noted, sometimes required a disregard for moral standards that was “inconceivable” to those who had led “sheltered” lives. Kissinger contrasted the cold realist, who survives, with “the men of high morals,” who, in brutal situations, have no chance ( Think Ned Stark in Game of Thrones)
Pick any Secretary of State and ask what they accomplished ( including Hillary?) His successes dwarf the acheivements of virtually all others Here is a partial Kissinger scorecard of achievements- brokered the First Strategic Nuclear Arms Limitation Agreement( SALT) , the opening of China for US relationships fron dialog to trade, a Berlin accord, a Moscow summit, and eventually a peace treaty for Vietnam. He also brokered as peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel -the triumph of October 1973 was that he was able to maintain good relations with the Soviets while simultaneously reducing their influence in the Middle East .Kissinger and others helped to create a new global balance during the 1970s, one that preserved American influence By playing China and Russia off each other-he helped to preserve American influence in the post-Vietnam era and eventually contributed to the end of the cold war
There is more- In a Gallup poll in 1972, he had ranked fourth on the list of “most admired” Americans, after Nixon, Billy Graham, and Harry Truman; in 1973, he ranked first (Nixon had fallen to third after Graham, and Truman had died). He achieved an unprecedented nine-to-one ratio between those who viewed him “favorably” versus those saying “unfavorably.” Congressman Jonathan Bingham proposed a constitutional amendment to allow foreign-born citizens, such as Kissinger, to run for president. He became the most popular political figure at Madame Tussaud’s wax museum in London, and the contestants in the Miss Universe pageant overwhelmingly voted him “the greatest person in the world today.”
The book is an in depth documentary, my summary is incomplete. My conclusion Kissinger was a flawed man who did great things. I think he shares that with most of the Giants of history.
A quick google scan , showed some folks viewed Kissinger as a war criminal- they blamed him for (among other things) the murders committed by the Khmer Rouge because of the US secret bombing Cambodia in a time of undeclared war in Viet Nam when the policy was find those who are attacking us , no matter where they were. In my view , this was like blaming Abe Lincoln for the post war murders of the KuKlux Clan because Lincoln decided to pursue the Civil War.Sure sounded like a silly opinion held by unserious people.
I needed to know more. I turned to this book, because of my respect for Walter Isaacson, its author, he is a serious biographer with , in my view great integrity and credibility..Isaccson pointed out the wondrous and the awful of Kissinger.
Issacson made clear that Kissinger was brilliant, and he often used that skill when he lied, disobeyed the President and was generally un- Democratic in the pursuit many of his initiatives.Kissinger often acted in an infantile way, and had an ego that got in the way. He circumvented the State Department , and mis-led many of those he dealt with. Kissinger's central theme , per Isaccson ,that would recur throughout his career: tension often exists, at least in his view, between morality and realism. Survival, he noted, sometimes required a disregard for moral standards that was “inconceivable” to those who had led “sheltered” lives. Kissinger contrasted the cold realist, who survives, with “the men of high morals,” who, in brutal situations, have no chance ( Think Ned Stark in Game of Thrones)
Pick any Secretary of State and ask what they accomplished ( including Hillary?) His successes dwarf the acheivements of virtually all others Here is a partial Kissinger scorecard of achievements- brokered the First Strategic Nuclear Arms Limitation Agreement( SALT) , the opening of China for US relationships fron dialog to trade, a Berlin accord, a Moscow summit, and eventually a peace treaty for Vietnam. He also brokered as peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel -the triumph of October 1973 was that he was able to maintain good relations with the Soviets while simultaneously reducing their influence in the Middle East .Kissinger and others helped to create a new global balance during the 1970s, one that preserved American influence By playing China and Russia off each other-he helped to preserve American influence in the post-Vietnam era and eventually contributed to the end of the cold war
There is more- In a Gallup poll in 1972, he had ranked fourth on the list of “most admired” Americans, after Nixon, Billy Graham, and Harry Truman; in 1973, he ranked first (Nixon had fallen to third after Graham, and Truman had died). He achieved an unprecedented nine-to-one ratio between those who viewed him “favorably” versus those saying “unfavorably.” Congressman Jonathan Bingham proposed a constitutional amendment to allow foreign-born citizens, such as Kissinger, to run for president. He became the most popular political figure at Madame Tussaud’s wax museum in London, and the contestants in the Miss Universe pageant overwhelmingly voted him “the greatest person in the world today.”
The book is an in depth documentary, my summary is incomplete. My conclusion Kissinger was a flawed man who did great things. I think he shares that with most of the Giants of history.
March 4, 2016
It is too bad this book was written in 1995....would have liked to read of Isacson's take on Kissinger's view of the aftermath of 9/11 but that of course can undoubtedly be gleaned elsewhere.
This book still represents a remarkable work attempting to take on one of the most enigmatic characters of recent years. This exhaustive and plainly well documented book leaves me a bit awed by Isacson's research capabilities. It is at times a bit redundant and perhaps 'preachy' in advocating various points of view (perhaps even Mr. Isacson's) but still quite an enjoyable book.
It is frankly amazing that someone like Kissinger came along when he did--for good and for ill. Isacson's avoids the trap of many bibliographers of "falling in love" with their subjects. This book seems fairly balanced in viewing the Kissinger mystic and what may have propelled him. The audacity at tomes of ordering the bombings in Cambodia, negotiating with the Soviets, Chinese and Vietnamese etc.--often without consulting the president( (let alone any Congressional members) was tenuous at best but given that most of these dealings were during the Nixon presidency an argument can be made that such actions were necessary? Frankly, once the book gets beyond the Nixon years and Kissinger initially seems more relieved in dealing with a "saner" man in Gerald Ford the book gets boring. But then the issues of real politik that Kissinger advanced and the need for so-called "transparency" (before that word came more recently in vogue) and need to view foreign policy in light of "human rights" began to clash. Isacson's advances the idea that Kissinger looked more to what was good for the United States and--for the most part--the rest of the world be damned. But of course that is short sighted and not a full telling of the story. Kissinger felt that our foreign policy should not be impacted by how a foreign country treated its own citizenry...our interests must seemingly come first...be it in dealing with the Soviets in restricting Jewish passage to Israel or the Chinese in treating protestors in Teneman Square. This all began to unravel in dealings in Africa most famously in Angola and Rhodeshia.
Isacson's also dwells a bit too much on the salacious aspects of the Kissinger mystic....once Ford was defeated and Kissinger relegated to "a private life" Isacson's relentless litany of companies Kissinger's consulting group represented and people who attended his countless cocktail parties seemed rather ridiculous and time consuming. However, in dealing with the political aspects Isacson has a fine ear....one telling story is in negotiating with the Soviets Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft went on "a hunting expedition" with Leonid Brezhnev. This also included a visit to the Communist General Secretary's dacha and a hydroplane ride. During this interlude Brezhnev asks Kissinger what the hydroplane would cost in the U.S. Kissinger too quickly responds, "$400,000." Scowcroft picks up on Brezhnev's downcast eyes and quickly leaps in, "No, it is more like $2 million!!!" It is one of the few instances in the book where Kissinger didn't mind being corrected by "an underling." He and Scowcroft later commented with rich Communists like this...these were plainly people they could do business with...perhaps a valuable lesson still valid with other regimes today.
This book still represents a remarkable work attempting to take on one of the most enigmatic characters of recent years. This exhaustive and plainly well documented book leaves me a bit awed by Isacson's research capabilities. It is at times a bit redundant and perhaps 'preachy' in advocating various points of view (perhaps even Mr. Isacson's) but still quite an enjoyable book.
It is frankly amazing that someone like Kissinger came along when he did--for good and for ill. Isacson's avoids the trap of many bibliographers of "falling in love" with their subjects. This book seems fairly balanced in viewing the Kissinger mystic and what may have propelled him. The audacity at tomes of ordering the bombings in Cambodia, negotiating with the Soviets, Chinese and Vietnamese etc.--often without consulting the president( (let alone any Congressional members) was tenuous at best but given that most of these dealings were during the Nixon presidency an argument can be made that such actions were necessary? Frankly, once the book gets beyond the Nixon years and Kissinger initially seems more relieved in dealing with a "saner" man in Gerald Ford the book gets boring. But then the issues of real politik that Kissinger advanced and the need for so-called "transparency" (before that word came more recently in vogue) and need to view foreign policy in light of "human rights" began to clash. Isacson's advances the idea that Kissinger looked more to what was good for the United States and--for the most part--the rest of the world be damned. But of course that is short sighted and not a full telling of the story. Kissinger felt that our foreign policy should not be impacted by how a foreign country treated its own citizenry...our interests must seemingly come first...be it in dealing with the Soviets in restricting Jewish passage to Israel or the Chinese in treating protestors in Teneman Square. This all began to unravel in dealings in Africa most famously in Angola and Rhodeshia.
Isacson's also dwells a bit too much on the salacious aspects of the Kissinger mystic....once Ford was defeated and Kissinger relegated to "a private life" Isacson's relentless litany of companies Kissinger's consulting group represented and people who attended his countless cocktail parties seemed rather ridiculous and time consuming. However, in dealing with the political aspects Isacson has a fine ear....one telling story is in negotiating with the Soviets Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft went on "a hunting expedition" with Leonid Brezhnev. This also included a visit to the Communist General Secretary's dacha and a hydroplane ride. During this interlude Brezhnev asks Kissinger what the hydroplane would cost in the U.S. Kissinger too quickly responds, "$400,000." Scowcroft picks up on Brezhnev's downcast eyes and quickly leaps in, "No, it is more like $2 million!!!" It is one of the few instances in the book where Kissinger didn't mind being corrected by "an underling." He and Scowcroft later commented with rich Communists like this...these were plainly people they could do business with...perhaps a valuable lesson still valid with other regimes today.
November 19, 2021
Kissinger
This biography main,y focuses on his government work, especially in the Nixon Administration. It contains a lot of information but I thought it was pretty dull in its writing. Kissinger still remains an enigma.
This biography main,y focuses on his government work, especially in the Nixon Administration. It contains a lot of information but I thought it was pretty dull in its writing. Kissinger still remains an enigma.
July 5, 2018
Lots of information to unpack in this one. I didn't enjoy it as much as Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs, but I don't know if that's because I found the subject matter less interesting, or didn't relate to it as much because the events were before my memory, or just that his writing style improved and developed in the twenty years between the books... or more likely, a combination of the three.
I knew very little about Kissinger, other than the name and that he was influential in politics at some point. I didn't know he was a Holocaust refugee, or which administrations he'd been involved with, or even what his actual position was.
Isaccson appears to try to balance out the opinions of the man Kissinger was, taking interviews and documentation from friends and enemies/rivals alike, and sifting the information through what must have been a laborious process. He admits that trying to find the truth in the reams of documents created by and about the man is very difficult, considering that misleading information was something at which Kissinger was very adept. Whether his assessment of the man is accurate, who knows, but he seems to have made an attempt to give as honest a perspective as possible. I'm sure historians for decades will waffle over whether he had a positive or negative effect on American and world politics, and most likely will decide he was a combination of both, much like Isaacson.
I knew very little about Kissinger, other than the name and that he was influential in politics at some point. I didn't know he was a Holocaust refugee, or which administrations he'd been involved with, or even what his actual position was.
Isaccson appears to try to balance out the opinions of the man Kissinger was, taking interviews and documentation from friends and enemies/rivals alike, and sifting the information through what must have been a laborious process. He admits that trying to find the truth in the reams of documents created by and about the man is very difficult, considering that misleading information was something at which Kissinger was very adept. Whether his assessment of the man is accurate, who knows, but he seems to have made an attempt to give as honest a perspective as possible. I'm sure historians for decades will waffle over whether he had a positive or negative effect on American and world politics, and most likely will decide he was a combination of both, much like Isaacson.
November 6, 2022
As an avid reader of both history and Walter Isaacson somehow this splendid biography of Kissinger sat unread on my bookshelf for decades. This is so I think because of both an intuitive bias against Kissinger and a view that historical examination of an era needs at least 50 years distance. Recently I’ve been on a Nixon binge having read Garrett Graff’s new biography a few months ago which brought Kissinger to my attention. Graff cited Isaacson’s book and l found it on my bookshelf. It provides powerful insights into the politics of the 1960s and 1970s. I lived through this tumultuous period in college and then as a law student. I thought I was well informed but took away a good deal of knowledge and insight from this book. In the end I found Kissinger to be a loathsome figure. Undoubtedly brilliant but vain, devious, insecure, paranoid, conspiratorial and worst amoral. These personality traits reinforced and encouraged Nixon’s dark suspicions and worst biases setting the stage for wiretaps, Watergate, the secret bombing and then invasion of Cambodia, the Christmas bombing of Hanoi, the destabilization of Chile, genocide and massacres in Bangladesh and much more. Highly recommended.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 359 reviews