The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

For the week of November 16th - November 22nd, we are reading Chapters Sixteen through Eighteen of One Man Against the World: The Tragedy of Richard Nixon.

The fifth week's reading assignment is:

Week Five - November 16th - November 22nd
Chapters Sixteen through Eighteen

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 November 16th.

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 November 16th - November 22nd, we are reading Chapter(s) 16 - 18 of One Man Against the World: The Tragedy of Richard Nixon

The fifth week's reading assignment is:

Week Five - November 16th - November 22nd
Chapter(s) Sixteen - Eighteen - pages 163 - 200

Chapter Overview and Summary:

Chapter 16: “From one extreme to another”
Nixon goes to China. Hanoi’s leaders plan a military campaign against the United States.

Chapter 17: “This is the supreme test”
The Vietnam War continues. Kissinger visits Moscow. Nixon battles with his military leaders. The president heads to Moscow.

Chapter 18: “Palace Intrigue”
Nixon meets with Brezhnev and returns home on the eve of a break in.

Folks, we are kicking off the fifth 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.

We are now moving into the second half of our reading. Vietnam is raging on.

Question: What choices does Nixon see that he has for ending the war?

It was very interesting the different approaches that Nixon felt he needed to take in dealing with China vs the approach with Russia. Much more ceremonial and careful with China and with Russia, straight forward and show no weaknesses. Yet, inevitably, neither of these negotiations accomplished what it needed to.

David wrote: "It was very interesting the different approaches that Nixon felt he needed to take in dealing with China vs the approach with Russia. Much more ceremonial and careful with China and with Russia, st..."

Well said, David. Very different dynamics between the two.

Discussion Questions

1. Why did Nixon meet with Prime Minister Zhou En-Lai and Chairman Mao?

2. How did their meeting affect the war in Vietnam?

3. When Nixon appointed L. Patrick Gray as acting director of the FBI, he had offered him some advice, "Never, never figure that anyone's your friend...". What was the purpose behind this message?

4. During a summit meeting with Nixon, Brezhnev discussed sending one of their highest leaders to Vietnam to discuss an end to the war. Nixon mentioned later that it was the most startling moment of the summit. Why do you think he felt that way? (see page 198)

A couple of thoughts as we progress through these chapters, one after reading Teri's discussion questions:

My first thought is about how badly Kissinger comes off in these chapters. During the historic visit to China, Kissinger misses a key text on Taiwan that forces him to go back Zhou En-Lai before the end of the visit to get the language changed. Not only is that embarrassing, but what I think was just as embarrassing was that Sec. of State Rogers, a guy who both Nixon and Kissinger had shunted to the side for years and had ignored during the China visit, was the one to catch the mistake. I wonder if Rogers caught the mistake because he had access to a bigger staff and bigger pool of experts than Kissinger?

Then Kissinger goofs again in the negotiations over SALT I. His oversight about MIRVs in the final treaty ends up increasing the arms race, a fact that Kissinger later regrets. Once again, was this because Kissinger didn't have access to as much expertise on the issue than Sec. of State Rogers might have had? These two goofs just goes to show that even a grand strategist like Kissinger may not be as good about the details.

One thing that Teri's questions made me think about is how badly Nixon and Kissinger's strategy of triangulation, balancing foreign policy between the Soviet Union and China, failed at its main goal: ending the Vietnam War. Both China and the Soviet Union gave Nixon an earful about Vietnam and about how neither country could really help the U.S. end the war. That just goes to show how badly the U.S. had mischaracterized the Vietnam War as a Great Power proxy war, not the post-colonial independence fight the Vietnamese saw it as. Just goes to show how badly applied the domino theory was and how wrong we were about the monolithic nature of global communism.

Teri wrote: "We are now moving into the second half of our reading. Vietnam is raging on.

Question: What choices does Nixon see that he has for ending the war?"

Bomb, bomb, and bomb away. Yes, he does try to court China and Russia into helping the US make a peace treaty with Vietnam, but how much he talks about bombs I think he felt if all else failed he could bomb them into submission.

These chapters talk about when he unleashed all the B-52's onto North Vietnam. I think Nixon felt this was his ace card to get them to the table. And they wouldn't walk away from it for fear of another onslaught. Nixon sounded gleeful to unleash the torrent, asking Haig if the ground shook when the B-52's unloaded their ordnance, to which Haig replied the whole ground shakes (p.174).

Christopher wrote: "A couple of thoughts as we progress through these chapters, one after reading Teri's discussion questions:

My first thought is about how badly Kissinger comes off in these chapters. During the his..."

Great comments, Christopher. I'm glad these questions have you thinking (and I hope others too).

Yes, their goal with Russia and China failed. Nixon didn't seem to even trust Kissinger, when Henry went to his meeting with Brezhnev.

Nixon's actions when he ordered the B-52's to bomb was almost creepy.

Radio News Report on President Nixon's Speech Concerning the Vietnam War: April 26, 1972

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DQub...

Walter Cronkite Report on the Death of J. Edgar Hoover

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEqjC...

Christopher,
Excellent comments, especially how Nixon misjudged the Vietnamese War as primarily a proxy fight between the major powers.

I would like to make one small correction. At the disarmament talks Kissinger did completely miss the significance of the Soviet change to increase the size of land-based ICBM silo launchers by increasing the diameter of the silo by 15%, rather than the total size (p. 195).

However, Kissinger intentionally wanted the MIRV's (multiple warheads within a missile") left out of the agreement. As Weiner says on page 196: "Kissinger had snookered them all by keeping MIRV's out of the final agreement." He later expressed some regret about this decision.

Hydrofoil



In case you wondered what one looks like. See reference page 192.

Thanks for the clarification Ann.

Teri wrote: "Walter Cronkite Report on the Death of J. Edgar Hoover

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEqjC..."

Very interesting that Nixon says, "He's been one of my closest personal friends and advisors.", when Nixon couldn't wait to get him out of office because he wouldn't play along with Nixon's scrupulous games.

Some comments on these chapters

Chapter 17 - pg 175 para 2 Nixon overrules his military on details - shades of some of Hitler's failures.

Pg 179 para 4 - Nixon says "only American airpower could turn the tide of the war now"..............not in Vietnam and so far not against ISIS

Nixon's war plans to take out dykes and maybe kill 200,000 people - without input of Secs of State & Defense or CIA boss...... we count & dread the American dead so accurately and carefully.

Pg 186 back to air power again Helms says " the record of WW II, Korea and Vietnam up to 1965 strongly suggest that bombing alone unlikely to defeat a determined enemy..." - so who is suggesting that we don't need ground troops to beat ISIS - (and after WWII we didn't give the German's guns - we took them away - in the Mid-East we seem to feel we can buy inspiration to patriotism with far less sophisticated politically peoples.

Pg 193 para 4 Brezhnev actually accuses Nixon of killing thousands of innocents in Vietnam - - about time someone did

Pg 193 last para - Kosygin continues on Brezhnev by questioning Nixon's morality as I read it - about time for that too. (wasn't done in a North American christian country - only in godless Russia?)

Pg 199 para 2 - in Iran the illustration of the dreaded military industrial complex following Ike's warning at his farewell address.

just some observations

Teri wrote: "Discussion Questions

1. Why did Nixon meet with Prime Minister Zhou En-Lai and Chairman Mao?

2. How did their meeting affect the war in Vietnam?

3. When Nixon appointed L. Patrick Gray as acting..."

Not to ignore

Discussion Questions

1. Why did Nixon meet with Prime Minister Zhou En-Lai and Chairman Mao?
I do believe that he wanted to get them to help with settling Vietnam as the primary reason – maybe his primary reason for much of what he did.

2. How did their meeting affect the war in Vietnam?
I think not at all really – the war was directed from Hanoi for the North

3. When Nixon appointed L. Patrick Gray as acting director of the FBI, he had offered him some advice, "Never, never figure that anyone's your friend...". What was the purpose behind this message?

I think it was Nixon’s galloping paranoia – people should obey Nixon – trust no one (but if they were smart I guess they put Tricky Dickie at the top of the don’t trust list)

4. During a summit meeting with Nixon, Brezhnev discussed sending one of their highest leaders to Vietnam to discuss an end to the war. Nixon mentioned later that it was the most startling moment of the summit. Why do you think he felt that way? (see page 198)

I can only imagine that after the lack of support that he got and after the comments of both Brezhnev and Kosygin that he would think there was little hope for support for a solution that he, Nixon, would accept. I also think that Nixon did not seem to seek an “American” solution but rather a “Nixon” solution.

Vincent wrote: "Teri wrote: "Discussion Questions

2. How did their meeting affect the war in Vietnam?
I think not at all really – the war was directed from Hanoi for the North"

Regarding #2 above. Perhaps not, but what was Zhou En-Lai's warning to Nixon and how did Nixon respond (i.e. say to Kissinger) after the meeting in China?

Teri wrote: "Vincent wrote: "Teri wrote: "Discussion Questions

2. How did their meeting affect the war in Vietnam?
I think not at all really – the war was directed from Hanoi for the North"

Regarding #2 above..."

Yes Nixon was warned but I think he ignored Zhou - I think maybe I should have said it was directed from Hanoi for the North and Nixon for the Americans and the South.

Nixon was going to lean on bombing it seems - regardless of the cost of human life. When it was happening I noticed less the numbers and innocence of civilian casualties - maybe my "youth" -today I cringe whenever I think of us hurting civilians but in this age of drones and unacceptability of American casualties it seems we are less and less civilized.

Personal note - if,as in WWII, civilian casualties were followed with the required manpower and force to make the incident a one time deal mostly to eliminate the enemy (evil enemy we hope)- today we do it and re-arm the people left behind we don't know who and then - often it seems have to go back again and inflict more hurt on the same population who are not protected anyway afterwards.

I have not finished reading this section. However, I am interested in what others are thinking about here. I am even more convinced that we should have gotten out of Vietnam sooner rather than later. Of course we can say that now. But it seems to me that Nixon expanded the dynamic of the war by attempting to pressure both China and USSR to pressure the North Vietnamese. And in the end the agreement that they would get was no better than the agreement that they could have had in 1968. I would like to see if others feel the same way. I don't think this plan aided in the end of the Vietnam war for America. And I don't think we really could have "won" the war in Vietnam even if we had used Nuclear weapons? What are other people's thoughts on this?

Mike wrote: "I have not finished reading this section. However, I am interested in what others are thinking about here. I am even more convinced that we should have gotten out of Vietnam sooner rather than late..."

I agree with you, Mike, that Nixon was not getting a better deal than what Johnson could have gotten in 1968. Nixon made this all about him. He wanted the ending of the Vietnam War under his belt so that he would look like the greatest president ever. In being so narcissist, he did nothing more than send a lot more soldiers to their graves. About your statement on winning the war even with Nuclear weapons, this would depend on your definition of "winning". Dropping the bomb on Japan certainly ended WWII, but look at the devastation it did to that country. Do you really call that winning when you take so many innocent lives? I don't think so.

Patty wrote: "Mike wrote: "I have not finished reading this section. However, I am interested in what others are thinking about here. I am even more convinced that we should have gotten out of Vietnam sooner rat..."

Replying both to Patty & Mike -

First there is little question that we could have 'won the war" in Vietnam if w had committed tofu use of force I think. The nuclear option could have been used as part of this overall strategy. However what is winning?

Our goal there was to establish a non-communist government in South Vietnam. In WWII the goal was to stop the enemy from threatening our existence as we knew it. The second goal does not preclude destroying the country of the enemy the first, ours in theory in Vietnam, does and that makes "winning" more complicated.

Winning during Vietnam was also to stop the "dominos theory" that as one state would fall or turn to communism other contiguous states might/would/could follow.

There is no question that we could have gotten out of Vietnam sooner but our administrations involved did not find ways that were satisfactory to them. There was certainly enough civilian US resistance to the war to make it politically achievable.

I come back to Patty on the bomb to Japan in a bit.

Patty wrote: "Mike wrote: "I have not finished reading this section. However, I am interested in what others are thinking about here. I am even more convinced that we should have gotten out of Vietnam sooner rat..."

Hi Patty -

So I just wanted to check something before commenting on your observation on the atomic bombing of Japan.

If you did not now that the Russians were our ally in the war maybe you do not know how difficult it was defeating the Japanese in the Pacific theater of operations. Their emperor was their God and the soldiers died for him - not so many surrenders. The fighting was vicious. The estimate was as I recall over 200,000 American casualties to take the mainland. The Japanese were training civilians to fight with sharpened bamboo sticks. The peoples the Japanese had conquered or captured had suffered incredible atrocities.

The Rape of Nanking, Delivered from Evil, and With the Old Breed are referenced below as possible books you might want to read. "Delivered from Evil" - a book about the struggle of WWII - no such title exists for any other war I can think of. Regardless of costs and losses no one calls our Civil War an "evil" war.

The fact that there was no previous experience with an atomic weapon also is a reason that the "horror" of it was not so readily seen. So Patty if you look at WWII you may see that the "horror" of the atomic bombings was not exceptional in that war - and I have not even mentioned the Holocaust. And if you think of the American lives saved and the responsibility of Truman it becomes more reasonable.

Iris Chang

Robert Leckie

Eugene B. Sledge

Folks always good to add books to the bibliography thread too.

Vincent wrote: "Patty wrote: "Mike wrote: "I have not finished reading this section. However, I am interested in what others are thinking about here. I am even more convinced that we should have gotten out of Viet..."

Thank you Vincent for all of that information on WWII. I had a similar conversation with my husband and son last night after I wrote this. They both said there was no other way to stop the Japanese in WWII, other than dropping the atomic bomb on them. I was only thinking of the destruction reaked on Japan because of the atomic bomb & not the reason it was dropped. From that perspective, maybe it would have been a good idea to drop the atomic bomb on North Vietnam. It certainly would have ended that conflict a lot sooner. I just hate to see any nation resorting to the use of the atomic bomb. I certainly don't understand history as well as some of you so I appreciate the information and the books you've suggested. I'm certainly learning a lot.

Nixon met with Prime Minister Zhou En-Lai & Chairman Mao to mainly try and settle the conflict in Vietnam. I had to read other sources, outside of this book, to understand that. Nixon hoped by meeting with the leaders in China, that the USSR would also agree to meet with him, which they did 3 months later. By establishing relationships with the 2 most powerful communist countries, Nixon hoped to put pressure on North Vietnam to seriously negotiate. Nixon also hoped to get China & the USSR to slow down their aid to North Vietnam, which would in turn put pressure on North Vietnam to negotiate. Nixon was also looking to settle relations between China & Taiwan.

This meeting did not have any affect on the war in Vietnam. Zhou & Mao had no intention of helping Nixon resolve the war. Mao said to Nixon, "It is all right to talk well and also all right if there are no agreements." Pg 166 Zhou told Nixon, "Why not give this up? You should adopt a most courageous attitude and withdraw." Pg 167

Nixon offered Gray this advice, "Never, never figure that anyone's your friend..." because he wanted Gray to keep his mouth shut. He never could trust Hoover to do whatever Nixon wanted him to do. Nixon must have been more than happy that Hoover died so he was free to hire someone like Gray who was "fiercely loyal to the president".

Nixon was startled by Brezhnev offering to send one of his highest leaders to Vietnam because up until that point it seems that Brezhnev did not want to get involved with the North Vietnamese negotiations. The night before Brezhnev lectured Nixon for three hours on Vietnam. It sounded like Brezhnev wanted Nixon to simply stop the bombing and walk away. I might be wrong on that, but that's the way it sounded to me.

Vincent wrote: "Patty wrote: "Mike wrote: "I have not finished reading this section. However, I am interested in what others are thinking about here. I am even more convinced that we should have gotten out of Viet..."I agree with you totally. Let us not forget the attacks on Pearl Harbor and California by Japanese bombers. This was the time when the word "kamikaze" originated.
I do believe the North Vietnamese were indoctrinated with the same needle, considering the Chinese were backing them in Vietnam.
Now we know the "horror" of the nuclear option and the button is not easy to push.
The overall thought in Japan(WWII) and in Vietnam was "we can last forever because we have so many people at our disposal." Just as Joseph Stalin starved his own people in WWII, the Vietnamese and Chinese were seen as disposable.
Communism was perceived as a huge threat.

Patty wrote: "Vincent wrote: "Patty wrote: "Mike wrote: "I have not finished reading this section. However, I am interested in what others are thinking about here. I am even more convinced that we should have go..."

about atomic weapons in Vietnam I have to agree with Gwennyth that we by then knew the horror of it so using it would not have been so easy or correct.

But the Chinese were willing to help Nixon facilitate an end to the war - Zhou told him to back down and withdraw which Nixon failed to agree to. In the end instead of backing down and withdrawing we had to run away.

The Japanese did not feel they had so many people - they felt it disgraceful to surrender - In Vietnam too it was not that they had so many people but that they were so determined.

I don't know that Stalin staved the Russians in WWII but I am sure he directed resources to where he thought they would do the most good. Before and after the war were different pictures.

Communism was a large threat (especially Russian) - ask the Germans who fled west hoping to be captured by the Americans or Brits.

Mike wrote: "I have not finished reading this section. However, I am interested in what others are thinking about here. I am even more convinced that we should have gotten out of Vietnam sooner rather than late..."

Indeed. It didn't help, but Nixon had his own agenda.

I've been watching this interesting conversation on the parallels between WWII and Vietnam. I think you said it well, Vincent, that with Vietnam, they were very determined. I don't know that they would have had the disgrace feeling like Japan did, but they were very determined.

Also, to comment on Patty's thoughts around using the a-bomb and other responses. Not long ago we did a buddy read here at HBC on a book titled Hiroshima Notes by Kenzaburō Ōe. The author talked about how those affected (either survivors or members of survivor's family) not so much blamed the US for using the bomb, as they blamed their own government for putting their country in a position that the a-bomb had to be used. It is sad the human loss in any war. You have to hope that those in charge, making the decisions would consider the loss of life in using such weapons vs. the lives they are saving by doing so. Peace is hopefully the goal for all.

by Kenzaburō Ōe

Patty wrote: "Teri wrote: "Walter Cronkite Report on the Death of J. Edgar Hoover

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEqjC..."

Very interesting that Nixon says, "He's been one of my closest personal friends an..."

I chuckled when I heard that comment. That was a schmuck comment.

In addition to the comments already made regarding the use of atomic weapons. In Japan, by the time the two bombs were dropped, many of our bombing raids were incendiary raids because of the building materials used in Japan. It is interesting to compare the loss of life between these bombing raids with the use of the two atomic bombs. What would the loss of life been had we continued the war conventionally. With regard to using the atomic bomb in Vietnam. Where would you drop it? Much of the industry and even population if I remember correctly had been scattered by this time. The major cities may not have held the vital targets one might think.

With regard to the reading I have been learning a lot about Nixon that I did not know. I had known that Watergate was a big scandal and that it resulted in the resignation of Nixon. I did not know about a lot of these other issues in the man's presidency; so I find my opinion of Nixon changing. Being born in 1964 the first president I really remember is Ford and not all that well. It is obvious from this read that more than being an isolated incident Watergate was the tumor that allowed a cancer of illegalities at the top of the government to be uncovered. I am having to rethink many things as a result of this book.

Michael wrote: "In addition to the comments already made regarding the use of atomic weapons. In Japan, by the time the two bombs were dropped, many of our bombing raids were incendiary raids because of the buildi..."

Hi Michael

Just a little side comment if I could on the atomic bombing of Japan.

First I think that if we had continued conventionally they would have continued also conventionally to fight us - the atomic bombs were so terrifying I am sure.

The other comment is that we only had the two bombs - so we had to move with the second before they would, if they could have?, beef up their anti aircraft ability. When they surrendered they did not know that we had no more available A bombs.

Anyway American troops after Europe were getting ready to go to the Pacific - home alive to go against the more barbaric Japanese. I think
Truman did the right thing for him in his time in that situation.

Michael wrote: "With regard to the reading I have been learning a lot about Nixon that I did not know. I had known that Watergate was a big scandal and that it resulted in the resignation of Nixon. I did not know ..."

What has been the most surprising thing that you have learned?

We haven't spent much time talking about the SALT agreement. Kissinger was able to keep restrictions with MIRVs out of the agreement.

Question:
How was this important? What was the affect of this oversight to the US?

Teri wrote: "We haven't spent much time talking about the SALT agreement. Kissinger was able to keep restrictions with MIRVs out of the agreement.

Question:
How was this important? What was the affect of this..."

I think I mentioned this in my previous comments, but it is worth repeating. The whole point of SALT I was to start limiting the number of nuclear warheads each country could have. But MIRVs mean that one missile could have several nuclear warheads that can target different targets, making them far more dangerous than your standard ICBM. By limiting everything but MIRVs, as Mr. Weiner notes in his chapter on SALT I, this had the effect of actually increasing the nuclear arms race between the US and the Soviet Union. In short, this was a HUGE mistake.

I've only read Chapter 16 about the visit to China so far, but once again, it reminds me of the book The Presidents Club: Inside the World's Most Exclusive Fraternity by Nancy Gibbs. That book is about the friendships between the ex-presidents, including between people who ran against one another and said some horrible things about each other. The reason for the friendships is that sitting in the Oval Office, commanding such power, is a unique experience that can only be understood by the people who've done it. I read Nixon's banter with Mao in exactly that way. They may have been enemies, but they could joke about power, elections, cover-up girls, etc. Because they were both power elite, they had more in common with each other than they did with the people they were ruling.

Citation:

by Nancy Gibbs

I agree with Mike. There is a lot about Nixon that I am learning from this book, and, for me at least, none of it is good. Watergate was just one small facet of his paranoia and megalomania.

I have also been shocked by Nixon's policy of leaving the State Department and Defense Department out of the loop.

To give just one example, on May 4 Nixon discussed a major escalation of the war in Vietnam involving massive bombing and the mining of Haiphong harbor. Kissinger, Haldeman, Haig and Connally were present He said he would make a major public address about this on May 8. Weiner writes, "The secretary of defense and the secretary of state knew nothing of his plans." p. 180

As president, Nixon certainly had the right to make the final decisions, but these departments had a lot to offer in terms of knowledge and expertise and it is a shame that they were so often ignored.

Weiner points out a couple of the bad repercussions of ignoring these departments. Nixon almost ended up signing a communique with the Chinese which would have unintentionally undermined our longstanding relationship with Taiwan. Fortunately, Rogers and the State Department belatedly got wind of this and prevented it. (pp. 167-170).

Also, Kissinger and the president were not fully informed when they negotiated with Brezhnev on arms control because they did not work well with the official U.S. Salt negotiators. (Chapter 18)

Regarding the Salt agreement, Terri asked:
How was this important? What was the affect of this oversight [not limiting the MIRVS] to the US?

I am disillusioned, although at this point I don't know how I could still be so naive. At the time, I had thought those arms agreements really meant something. Now it just looks like a feel good publicity stunt.

Kissinger got what he wanted: no limitation of MIRVS and no meaningful limitation on nuclear weapons.

As Kissinger himself said in 1974, "Not one U.S. program was stopped by SALT..Indeed several U.S. programs were accelerated [and] the warhead advantage of the U.S. doubled. p. 196

Ann wrote: "I agree with Mike. There is a lot about Nixon that I am learning from this book, and, for me at least, none of it is good. Watergate was just one small facet of his paranoia and megalomania.

I hav..."

I am dismayed by Nixon leaving key people out of things as well. It seems that Kissinger was always involved tho and that's what makes me think that Kissinger was just as sleazy as Nixon.

Teri wrote: "I've been watching this interesting conversation on the parallels between WWII and Vietnam. I think you said it well, Vincent, that with Vietnam, they were very determined. I don't know that they w..."

Thanks Teri! I've added your book & those that Vincent suggested to my wish lists on Amazon & OverDrive.

@Patty.....I would also recommend another book regarding the atomic bomb and its use upon Japan.

by Peter Wyden

The only way Nixon could get us out of Vietnam, at least in his mind, was to bring China and/or Russia into the fray as a "partner" with the US. It would then appear that this was not our fight but one that involved the major world powers. China/Russia had their own agenda and were not about to assist although they may have given it lip service. I think Nixon was desperately trying to find a way to attain the "greatest president" position in history for himself and really couldn't have cared less about the mortality rate of our armed forces. It was all about him and he foolishly did not listen or even share information with key people who knew the situation much better than he did.

Ann made an excellent point regarding the SALT talks.....a publicity stunt. Again we are seeing lip service to something that was not at all what it appeared. As we learn more in this book about those negotiations and other events that happened during the Nixon presidency, it is becoming clearer (at least to me) that most (or all) of the information that was known to the public was not true.

(Let me apologize, Teri, for being absent from the discussion for a couple of weeks but as you know, I have been unavailable due to unforeseen circumstances.)

so now I state again that I think that Nixon caused the greatest Constitutional Crisis we have faced short of the Civil War and wars with foreign powers as far as the originally specified systems of the Constitution. Does anyone agree?

And if one does do we think that the way in which Gerald Ford conducted his presidency reestablished the power of the presidency as the writers of the Constitution envisioned it?

Jill wrote: "@Patty.....I would also recommend another book regarding the atomic bomb and its use upon Japan.

by [author:..."

Thanks, Jill! I see I have a lot of reading to do after I'm done with the current 2 books that I'm reading.

Jill wrote: "The only way Nixon could get us out of Vietnam, at least in his mind, was to bring China and/or Russia into the fray as a "partner" with the US. It would then appear that this was not our fight but..."

No apology necessary. ;-)

Great points. It was all a smoke screen to me and Nixon certainly told the public what he wanted us to hear, not necessarily the truth.

Vincent wrote: "so now I state again that I think that Nixon caused the greatest Constitutional Crisis we have faced short of the Civil War and wars with foreign powers as far as the originally specified systems o..."

I agree with you, but I'm not sure about Ford. I don't know enough or remember enough from his time to have an opinion.
Would love to hear what others think.

So to restate Vincent's question to all:

Questions:

Did the way in which Gerald Ford conduct his presidency reestablish the power of the presidency as the writers of the Constitution envisioned it?

Did Ford help rebuild trust in the presidency?

Like Teri, I don't remember much about Ford's presidency to have an opinion. I don't mean to be disrespectful but he seems like a cipher. The only thing that stands out is the fact that he gave Nixon a full pardon which wouldn't help rebuild the public's trust.