The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

For the week of October 26th - November 1st, we are reading Chapters Five through Seven of One Man Against the World: The Tragedy of Richard Nixon.

The second week's reading assignment is:

Week Two - October 26th - November 1st
Chapters Five through Seven

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

This book was kicked off on October 19th.

We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, local bookstore or on your Kindle. This weekly thread will be opened up October 26th.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Bentley will be preparing for this discussion and Assisting Moderator (T) Teri will be moderating on a weekly basis.

Welcome,

~Bentley

TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

by Tim Weiner

REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.

Notes:

It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.

Citations:

If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.

If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Also the citation thread:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Introduction Thread:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Table of Contents and Syllabus

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Glossary

Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Bibliography

There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in his research or in his notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please. We will be adding to this thread as we read along.

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts - SPOILER THREAD

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

by Tim Weiner

Directions on how to participate in a book offer and how to follow the t's and c's - One Man Against the World - What Do I Do Next?

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

All, we do not have to do citations regarding the book or the author being discussed during the book discussion on these discussion threads - nor do we have to cite any personage in the book being discussed while on the discussion threads related to this book.

However if we discuss folks outside the scope of the book or another book is cited which is not the book and author discussed then we do have to do that citation according to our citation rules. That makes it easier to not disrupt the discussion. Thought that I would add that.

Everyone, for the week of October 26th - November 1st, we are reading Chapter(s) 5 - 7 of One Man Against the World: The Tragedy of Richard Nixon

The second week's reading assignment is:

Week Two - October 26th - November 1st
Chapter(s) Five - Seven - pages 43 - 78

Chapter Overview and Summary:

Chapter 5: “The center cannot hold”
Nixon asks Kissinger to take responsibility for stopping leaks. Nixon tries to control the state department. Nixon addresses the nation about Vietnam.

Chapter 6: “Madman”
Nixon cancels a commencement speech due to rising tensions on college campuses. Nixon meets with South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu and the National Security Council.

Chapter 7: “Don’t strike a king unless you intend to kill him”
North Vietnam builds a larger concentration in Northern Laos. Kissinger meets with Le Duc Tho in Paris. The president leads a full-scale National Security Council conclave at the White House.

Folks, we are kicking off the second week of the book discussion on former President Richard Milhous Nixon - we welcome you to this discussion which will last for a few months. There is no rush and we are happy to have all of you with us. I look forward to reading your posts in the months ahead.

Hi everyone. Just a reminder of the reading assignment for this week:

Week Two - October 26th - November 1st
Chapters Five through Seven

Discussion Questions

1. Had you ever heard of the term "Vietnamization? What are your thoughts on this plan of Nixon's to change the focus of the war?

2. What was Nixon's reasoning behind ambassadorships for purchase?

3. On page 61 and 62 a meeting with Nixon, Kissinger and the Joint Chiefs was held to discuss the options for American policy and strategy in Vietnam. Nixon felt that American support would hold until October. He later decided that they should put a bombing strategy in place. What is significant about the date he chose to bomb?

4. What was Nixon's point to the comment "don't strike a king unless you intend to kill him?"

For those interested in reading Nixon's "Vietnamization Speech," here is the link to the text:

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/...

Nixon was desperately trying to get out of Vietnam, so his approach of "Vietnamization" was put forth.....turn the war over to the South Vietnamese and get out. We shouldn't have been there is the first place but that is a moot point...now how did we retire without total loss of "honor". I think the problem with that approach is that although a country might wish to be independent, that does not necessarily mean that it wants democracy as its form of government. The USA continues to make that mistake....independence does not necessarily translate to democracy. The government of S. Vietnam was anything but democratic, so surely Nixon could see that the approach of Vietnamization was not workable for the US stated purpose. But did he care?....probably not since he just wanted to be the President that got us out of Vietnam.

Yeah Jill, I think Nixon knew the war was lost, so he had to figure out how to save face for a country.

I just thought the speech was very interesting, now that we know what we know. Making it sound like they made no headway in the Paris Peace Talks (whose fault was that) and oh...I did some secretive stuff before I was elected but it was to get us out of this war. Of course, now we know that wasn't really why, it was to get him elected.

I just finished the reading and wanted to take some time to answer the discussion questions:

1. I had never heard of "Vietnamization". It sounds like a good idea from the US perspective, but I'm not sure if even back then I would have thought we could pull it off.

2. I was completely shocked to read about ambassadorships for purchase. I can't believe that a president or a government would even consider such a thing. Its not morale. I'm ashamed that my country did this and those that participated should also be ashamed of themselves.

3. He chose the date, because of its historical importance according to the author, its when LBJ had stopped bombing N. Vietnam a year earlier. But the more important date was the fact that in two weeks from that date there were already planned demonstrations to take place. In my opinion this was just another poor decision my the Nixon administration.

4. I think the saying don't strike unless you intend to kill meant that he wanted everyone to think they were a friend as long as possible. And he is was going to be an enemy, he would not beat around the bush he would just completely wipe them out. Can't say I disagree with the thinking politically there.

I spent most of the Nixon years studying the past in college and graduate school and am embarrassed to admit that I didn't pay near enough attention to what was going on in the present. I do remember "Vietnamization," however.

In message 8, Jill explained the fallacies behind this policy very well. She wrote: "The USA continues to make that mistake....independence does not necessarily translate to democracy."

We have seen the United States make the same kind of mistake in Afghanistan and Iraq. Right now we are trying very hard to "train" the local forces in both countries to take over the fight against our presumably common enemies. This is the current version of "Vietnamiaztion." It is not working out well.

From what I have read about the South Vietnamese government, it was extremely corrupt and dominated by a group of Catholic Vietnamese who discriminated against the large Buddhist majority. Nixon and Kissinger weren't concerned with these "details." They cared only about beating the Communists and raising their own political status.

Nixon was all about self-aggrandizement......as you say, Ann, the "details" about Vietnamization did not concern him........the Vietnamese people were secondary in his opinion. He (and Kissinger) wanted to be recognized for getting us out of Vietnam with honor and felt that the end justified the means.

But do you think Nixon/Kissinger were effective in not showing their disregard to the public? i.e. do you think Nixon's Vietnamization speech was believable to the public? I was too young to remember.

Here's the video of the speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXYAg...

The speech is very business-like, not crafted well.

You don't expect someone who understands grand strategy not have a war ending plan coming into office. I guess you have a dilemma: you know South Vietnam will fall if you pull American troops out. Yet public opinion wants the troops out. How do you work this out? Hard issue.

I see the author used a little dramatic license. He refers to Dick Cheney laughing in his oral history, talking about Rumsfeld and domestic policy: "He didn't know anything about the war on poverty." (p. 56) Well, the laughing didn't happen. I know the author couldn't get access to the recording. It is just a transcript. Small thing, but a red flag came up.

http://millercenter.org/oralhistory/i...

I'd like to say I was shocked over the ambassadorships, but I'm not sure that I was. Sad, indeed, that they were handed out this way.

Jason wrote: "I just finished the reading and wanted to take some time to answer the discussion questions:

1. I had never heard of "Vietnamization". It sounds like a good idea from the US perspective, but I'm n..."

Very interesting catch, Bryan.

Bryan wrote: "The speech is very business-like, not crafted well.

You don't expect someone who understands grand strategy not have a war ending plan coming into office. I guess you have a dilemma: you know Sout..."

Good stuff, Bryan. Thanks.

Ambassadorships?......look around today or even in the past 30 years and see who the ambassadors are/were......"selling" those positions has not been an unusual practice, often a "reward" to people who were big donors to a presidential campaign. In fact you can go way back to see that practice....FDR appointing Joseph Kennedy to the Court of St. James...an Irishman who didn't like the English. Odd choice, don't you think?

Here's a list of Ambassadorships:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...

I rest my case (smile). I use the Court of St. James (England) as an example, since it is the most prestigious of the ambassadorships.
So I don't think that Nixon giving out ambassadorships for money/contributions/support was a practice that was unusual and was certainly not the worst of his activities.

I didn't mean to take the discussion off course but it was brought up by one of the members. I am not pointing a finger at any of our Presidents....it is just something that appears to be SOP.

What really struck me about these chapters was just how early in the administration Nixon, Kissinger, and others had turned to deviousness. In 1969, he was already discussing lying to the Congress and public about the extent of US involvement in Cambodia.

Teri wrote: "But do you think Nixon/Kissinger were effective in not showing their disregard to the public? i.e. do you think Nixon's Vietnamization speech was believable to the public? I was too young to rememb..."

I watched the video (I was not born when Nixon made the appearance) and I have to say it was believable to me. Even after knowing what a liar he was it still came across believable to me. Sure, if he pulled out when he became President the South Vietnamese would be overrun (and it would not look good for the US to walk away). But he may have scored a lot of political points and could have pointed to his predecessor's bad decision in the first place when the South Vietnamese got overrun. Whether those political points would have stayed in the long-run is debatable though. The American public might have had second thoughts after seeing the South Vietnamese get clobbered by the North.

So when he contrasted his ability to pull out versus staying the course that's what made it more believable to me.

For some reason I don't remember Vietnamization, I do remember hearing/reading "Hearts and Minds" but I believe that may have been LBJ. As others have stated, it seems like a face saving measure by a foreign power once they realize they are in over their heads.

As far the ambassadorships are concerned I would agree with Jill, these types of "rewards" happen all the time, although I always thought of them as a reward for loyalty not tied to a specific dollar amount contribution.

I found this quote in Chapter 5 page 54 very interesting;
"This country could run itself domestically without a President," Nixon told the most prominent presidential biographer of the era, Theodore White. "You need a President for foreign policy."

I have always felt this way about the Nixon presidency in regards to his seeming lack of interest in domestic issues I never realized he actually said it himself.

1. I had heard of Vietnamization before, and not just specifically to Vietnam. The concept of "turning over the day-to-day operations of the war over to" whichever country we're operating the war. We've just done Vietnamization in Iraq, and Afghanistan, the British did it in India during Partition, and before the French turned Vietnam over to the U.S. they tried to Vietnamize Vietnam. It is a concept preferred by leaders in charge of an unpopular overextended war on the cheap. It is honorable on its face and dishonorable in fact.

2. Cronyism. Sending your political allies off to remote embassies is a system long in place. You would send your career diplomats to influential countries like Britain or France or China, and you would send your friends to small warm countries with sandy beaches and your enemies to cold windy remote countries. It's been done since Darius, at least.

4. What was Nixon's point to the comment "don't strike a king unless you intend to kill him?"
It seems to me that Nixon was using this statement to mean two things: first that due to his status as president that he was protected from any fallout due to his choice of policy, and second that the US was untouchable by the Vietnamese because it is so big. I think that as a citizen of a democracy his comparison of his elected office to kingship is fairly disturbing and reflects on his misuse of the office.

I am starting to wonder if Nixon did anything right during his presidency. Weiner presents a pretty damning case.

Thanks for the transcript of the Chenney oral history interview from the Miller Center, Bryan. I don't like Weiner's dramatic license (message 15) regarding the non-existent "laughing."

I found it very interesting that Chenney said he was very intent on not leaving a paper trail during his long government service. This was such a contrast to Richard Nixon, who wanted everything recorded and saved. Was it because Nixon was so convinced that he was a great man that he felt bound to supply history with all the documentation? This man had a tremendous ego.

Could someone please explain to me Nixon's strategic goals in bombing Cambodia? I understand there were communists there, and they are Vietnam's neighbor. I understand Nixon believed in bombing people till surrender. But why would bombing Cambodia make Vietnam want to surrender? Was it to scare the Russians and/or Chinese?

Good question Kressel - one that folks here might want to tackle but also a question you might want to ask Tim

Kressel, it was their hope to disrupt the Ho Chi Minh trail that ran through parts of Laos and Cambodia. In theory cutting off the enemy supply lines is a classic military strategy but it never really worked in this situation.

Kressel wrote: "Could someone please explain to me Nixon's strategic goals in bombing Cambodia?"

There was a route between North and South Vietnam, which the North Vietnamese used to invade the South, and to move materiel, called the Ho Chi Minh Trail. A successful bombing campaign (under Johnson, I think) severed the trail in Vietnam. The Viet Cong moved the trail into neighboring Cambodia in the hopes that the rules of engagement and sovereignty would stop the US from harassing them. Nixon bombing Cambodia was a response to the Ho Chi Minh Trail moving over the border.

This part was briefly described in the book, but I think readers were expected to have some previous information in order to really get the passage. (This isn't a criticism -- I understand space limitations.)

I haven't read the CIA book by Mr. Weiner, but I imagine that there are more details of America's really quite despicable actions in Cambodia during Nixon's presidency. Perhaps someone who has read the book could confirm.

Ctgt wrote: "Kressel, it was their hope to disrupt the Ho Chi Minh trail that ran through parts of Laos and Cambodia. In theory cutting off the enemy supply lines is a classic military strategy but it never rea..."

Okay, now that actually makes sense. But why with such force? Funny that Clinton was the one to reveal that to the American people. According to The Presidents Club: Inside the World's Most Exclusive Fraternity, he actually grew close to Nixon during his own impeachment.

by Nancy Gibbs

See pages 38 and 39 for that brief discussion on Cambodia.

I get the impression that at least for Nixon and I suspect Kissinger, too, they were a bit devious before this administration. I think that Nixon might have been working some underhanded things as VP and/or Governor.

Nick wrote: "What really struck me about these chapters was just how early in the administration Nixon, Kissinger, and others had turned to deviousness. In 1969, he was already discussing lying to the Congress ..."

Cambodia, whew, what a mess. The bombing and North Vietnamese invasion helped destabilize the country and bring in the Khmer Rouge.

Because of Nixon, no one in the White House keeps a diary, tapes, or writes meeting notes. One reason why presidential oral history is important.

I didn't realize the long term effects on the paper trail were that strong. I would think it would be hard to get by without meeting notes.

I do think he was good at speaking to the public. Most Presidents are. In our current times, though, the media/news journalists are quick to dispel any inaccuracies or create more. In Nixon's era, the media storm was not so prominent, so I agree that the public was more apt to believe him.

Christopher wrote: "Teri wrote: "But do you think Nixon/Kissinger were effective in not showing their disregard to the public? i.e. do you think Nixon's Vietnamization speech was believable to the public? I was too yo..."

Teri wrote: "I do think he was good at speaking to the public. Most Presidents are..."

I think that there is a historical perspective at issue here as well. My parents really didn't like Nixon, and their distaste colored their faith in most elected officials. Whereas, my grandparents, both the republican set and the democrat set seemed to trust elected officials more naturally. I continue in my parents' footsteps and mostly don't trust officials. That trust must be earned, and it doesn't take much to loose it. I'd draw this to a close by tying my great-grandparents into it, but they are a very mixed bag!

I think that the cold war officials really burnt that bridge.

What does everyone think about the plan to make the Soviet Union think Nixon was a "madman" in order to nudge them into cooperating with the U.S. in ending the Vietnam War? Too close to the truth?

I have a little trouble following Nixon's logic. He was an anti-Communist from way back and believed that foreign Communists were behind the anti-war movement. And yet he also thought that he could somehow corral the Soviets and China into pressuring the North Vietnamese to give up. I guess then the great powers were all supposed to establish this new balance of power system with the U.S.(personified in Nixon) as its head.

Does that make sense to anyone? Did Nixon show any understanding of the cultures and goals of the countries involved in this quagmire?

Ctgt wrote: "For some reason I don't remember Vietnamization, I do remember hearing/reading "Hearts and Minds" but I believe that may have been LBJ. As others have stated, it seems like a face saving measure by..."

For anyone interested in learning more about the Hearts and Minds strategy - there is a 2 hour documentary on it that can be found on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d2ml...

Shannon wrote: "It seems to me that Nixon was using this statement to mean two things: first that due to his status as president that he was protected from any fallout due to his choice of policy, and second that the US was untouchable by the Vietnamese because it is so big. I think that as a citizen of a democracy his comparison of his elected office to kingship is fairly disturbing and reflects on his misuse of the office."

And Weiner suggests that this attitude is a big reason Nixon used "brutal force" to bomb Cambodia.

Ann wrote: "I am starting to wonder if Nixon did anything right during his presidency. Weiner presents a pretty damning case."

Be sure to check out the Q & A thread for Tim's comment on this. He did do some right things, but often for the wrong reason.

Ann wrote: "What does everyone think about the plan to make the Soviet Union think Nixon was a "madman" in order to nudge them into cooperating with the U.S. in ending the Vietnam War? Too close to the truth?
..."

I would say it is close to the truth. Did Nixon learn this tactic (at least to a point) from his tenure with Eisenhower? i.e. the New Look defense policy.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

There are a lot of great questions that are being posted as open ended. I think it is great to stimulate back and forth but remember Tim Weiner is with us and make sure to go to the Ask Tim thread and ask him if you have an open ended question as well.

Also if you feel that at any time that something written was not from your sources what you felt it might mean or should mean - it is always good to give anybody the benefit of the doubt and ask the author what he meant or what source revealed whatever you are calling into question or have questions about.

If you still disagree by all means - everybody is entitled to their opinion and their beliefs.

But the Ask Tim thread is a great opportunity.

One of the things I am surprised about (having lived through it, I remember Vietnamization - if not the term, the fact, and as Jill mentioned, Ambassadorships have been bought and sold forever) is the surprise that Nixon wanted control of the State Department. Isn't the state department the international arm of the Presidency? The Constitution gives the president responsibility for the nations foreign policy, and the State Department is the presidents right arm. Why is it surprising that the president would want control of his own right arm? Once again, it is a case of this having been done forever, and continues to be done. Why are we surprised that Nixon did it? Solely because he was an unpleasant person?

You raise some interesting points G. I always thought that the State Department was the President's right arm and the Secretary of State worked for the President.

So why the surprise about Nixon wanting control. It does appear he wanted control about a lot of things but for whatever reason I do not find this unusual either.

Interesting question. Didn't George W. Bush ignore the State Department in planning for the aftermath of the Iraq Invasion? Doesn't seem to work out too well.

It does seems that the State Department though ostensibly important has been used both ways.

Might be a question for Tim.

Teri wrote: "Ann wrote: "What does everyone think about the plan to make the Soviet Union think Nixon was a "madman" in order to nudge them into cooperating with the U.S. in ending the Vietnam War? Too close to..."

This part really stuck out to me as well. It was very scary, because the reality of him being a madman was much closer than he realized. Terrifying to know that this man was so close to opting to go nuclear.

G wrote: "is the surprise that Nixon wanted control of the State Department. Isn't the state department the international arm of the Presidency? The Constitution gives the president responsibility for the nations foreign policy, and the State Department is the presidents right arm. Why is it surprising that the president would want control of his own right arm? Once again, it is a case of this having been done forever, and continues to be done. Why are we surprised that Nixon did it? Solely because he was an unpleasant person?..."

In history, presidents have relied on their secretaries of state to help advise and even guide them in foreign policy decisions. Some presidents relied a little less, like McKinley, but the Secretary had impact. They were part of the decision-making process for a president to come up with a policy or move.

Now, Nixon comes in and wants to give no power to the secretary. All the power of policy and decision making has been centralized to Nixon & Kissinger. Rogers is really a bureaucrat. No wonder Kissinger becomes Secretary of State later on.

However, Nixon could never control the State Department. It is too big, and he always felt the State Department was filled with enemies, anyway.

I hope this helps.

I am interested in what other people are thinking concerning the paradox that Nixon established. He advocated an honorable way to end the war in 1968 and has a "secret" plan to do so. Clearly, he did not. And he had the advantage of following the mistakes of LBJ. Yet, at the end of he day, he chooses to expand the war despite the fact that the Defense Department clearly tells him that to win the war it will take much more involvement. So, why did he fall into the same conundrum as his predecessors? We can win this, just one more bombing, expand the war into nations not involved. What are other people's ideas on this.

Hi, Everyone. I've enjoyed reading everyone's discussion of this week's material. I'll answer the discussion questions, but first, my ideas on Mike's question above.

From Mike: So, why did he fall into the same conundrum as his predecessors? We can win this, just one more bombing, expand the war into nations not involved.

If I've learned anything from studying history, it's that people make the same mistakes over and over and over again. It dumbfounds me that leaders cannot go back to what happened, see where it led, and avoid the same mistakes. But I think one of the requirements of high-profile leadership is enough narcissism to believe one is above/better than/superior to the foibles of others. "If I do these things, surely things will turn out differently, because after all, I'm ME."

Someone else referenced Eisenhower above. By Vietnam, our military-industrial complex was firmly established. We also continue to make these 'mistakes' because so many people feed off of that machine. I know several millionaires who made themselves from military contracts. I never wonder why we can't seem to cut the defense budget.

All right. Enough of my jaded world view. Ha. As to Teri's questions.....

1. Had you ever heard of the term "Vietnamization? What are your thoughts on this plan of Nixon's to change the focus of the war?

I was a small child when Nixon was President. Weiner's book was my first exposure to the term. I think his plan was brilliant......for HIM. It gave him a way to tell the American people we'd be exiting an unpopular war without leaving the Vietnamese people in the lurch or ceding defeat. These plans almost never work, because other cultures aren't our cultures. Other governments don't have the same goals. Other military machines don't run as ours does, nor are they as well funded.

2. What was Nixon's reasoning behind ambassadorships for purchase?

To reward people for giving his campaign money or for getting big contributions to his campaign. I couldn't get too disgusted by this practice, given that it still happens. As long as money is connected to American politics, those who give money will get the most attention, the best positions, the heftiest contracts, and the most favorable legislation.

3. On page 61 and 62 a meeting with Nixon, Kissinger and the Joint Chiefs was held to discuss the options for American policy and strategy in Vietnam. Nixon felt that American support would hold until October. He later decided that they should put a bombing strategy in place. What is significant about the date he chose to bomb?

He didn't want the bad press from upcoming university demonstrations and wanted to put on a big show to head that off.

4. What was Nixon's point to the comment "don't strike a king unless you intend to kill him?"

If allowed to live, a deposed king can amass an army and attempt to reclaim the throne. A dead king can't reassume any position. I also find it disturbing that Nixon was really referring to himself, believing that no country would have the nerve to attempt to strike him dead.