Port Vale Devil
Full Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 3,406
- Supports
- Port Vale
Decent video on this cockroach
I would posit that the 80s, especially 80-85, were more turbulent than the 70s.From a nationalistic perspective he did his country much more good than bad and from a global perspective it could be argued the same applies as the 70s was truly a turbulence time in cold war history , only behind the cuban missile crisis and the Korean War segment of it all so he may have helped massively averting it going hot.
He was a great man of history in how he helped shape and mould the geopolitics of such a turning point in history, now whether he was a just individual or the opposite is another question and the sentiment here seems to heavily favor a certain side.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Niall Ferguson and Jeremy Surri are renown historians who wrote serious history works on life of Henry Kissinger. They paint much different picture than this grotesque simplistic “war criminal” nonsense. To be exact, Ferguson is still working on Volume II.You most likely have the opposite view because I assume you live in a Western country and have never had to deal with Kissinger's actions. His actions have led to the deaths of so many people in those countries above.
I don't know what you're talking about with those people towards the end.
The hits just keep coming!Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I suppose it depends on how you define great, he certainly left his mark.I would posit that the 80s, especially 80-85, were more turbulent than the 70s.
He was an influential man in history, not a great man of it.
He lived in Wales for a while. So if you are referencing to this period, your skepticism might be spot on.If Niall Ferguson wrote that the sun was shining I would ensure I double checked by looking out the window.
My interest is in his work on Empire and Britain's past. My problem is not just the attempt to rehabilitate Empire - historians can do this. My problem is his writing which slips into contrarianism and partisan points without being clear with the reader as to what he is doing. He also has criticised fact checkers and historians who have questioned his claims as politically correct, and used that to almost grift a living as being a silenced conservative being attacked by the 'left'. Anyway I still read him, but treat his work as apologia and with caution. Anyways that's a debate for another thread.He lived in Wales for a while. So if you are referencing to this period, your skepticism might be spot on.
I know who they are and have read quite a bit of Ferguson too. Your continued attempts to paint any criticism of Kissinger as grotesque is so odd. Most of us living in/ from the Global South despise him I'd wager. He is genuine scum.Niall Ferguson and Jeremy Surri are renown historians who wrote serious history works on life of Henry Kissinger. They paint much different picture than this grotesque simplistic “war criminal” nonsense. To be exact, Ferguson is still working on Volume II.
Christoper Hitchens is probably the most renown critic of HK. But he is not a historian and book he wrote does not meet the most basic criteria of historiography, like sources and so on.
I did not read biography written by Isaacson, so cant comment on that. Maybe some who did can.
Everybody has opinion on Kissinger. He seems like the most powerful man to ever live. But if you would ask them, who e.g. McNamara was…I doubt that would ring any bells.
I like the most War of the world, where I guess he did wonderfull synthesis. Kissinger was just a masterpiece. But I dont know what happend to him then. Network, Doomsday and the whole issue with University in Texas…I completely agree with you. His pose of being silenced conservative thinker - It is just silly.My interest is in his work on Empire and Britain's past. My problem is not just the attempt to rehabilitate Empire - historians can do this. My problem is his writing which slips into contrarianism and partisan points without being clear with the reader as to what he is doing. He also has criticised fact checkers and historians who have questioned his claims as politically correct, and used that to almost grift a living as being a silenced conservative being attacked by the 'left'. Anyway I still read him, but treat his work as apologia and with caution. Anyways that's a debate for another thread.
Vietnam was never going to foment into a hot war with the Soviets, they were content with advising the North Vietnamese & having very little skin in the game while watching us descend into the utter morass that was the war (we did similar during their Afghan escapade). Oil shock was tough, but didn’t make any geopolitical issues. On retrospect, the USSR was on its way to its demise, but that’s doesn’t take away from the issues & incidents during the early 80s.I suppose it depends on how you define great, he certainly left his mark.
80 to 85 was quite turbulent as well but overall on a international scale I'd say the 70s were more turbulent with so much going on from Vietnam and the oil shock to the wholesale changes in the middle east not to mention the us being in a much more precarious position in the 70s making confrontation much more likely while with hindsight the soviet union was already on its way toward perdition in the 80s.
But I never said he is prone to any criticism. He was a very complicated person with many inner moral doubts as demonstrated in quote from a letter to his parents, which I posted earlier. What I criticized is the way how criticism of him is reduced to simple category of good and evil, popular one-liners and foul language. That I find grotesque and unnecessary. I accept this is an internet forum and nobody is going (or is expected) to provide deep historical analysis. I also fully accept and respect your personal historical memory, although I profoundly disagree with that point of view.I know who they are and have read quite a bit of Ferguson too. Your continued attempts to paint any criticism of Kissinger as grotesque is so odd. Most of us living in/ from the Global South despise him I'd wager. He is genuine scum.
I also have my share of disagreements with some of Ferguson's views. Especially lately on.Ferguson, while a fiercely competent historian, also......has some controversial views its fair to say. Not sure Ferguson thinks 'the West' has done anything wrong in the past few centuries other than fighting themselves and/or allowing migration from Muslim countries.
There’s a few of us on here that truly appreciate Coach.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
He's always so spot on.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
they have a secretPlenty of examples with the CCP ruling class.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
What do you think about his actions and influence on American actions in Chile, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Vietnam?But I never said he is prone to any criticism. He was a very complicated person with many inner moral doubts as demonstrated in quote from a letter to his parents, which I posted earlier. What I criticized is the way how criticism of him is reduced to simple category of good and evil, popular one-liners and foul language. That I find grotesque and unnecessary. I accept this is an internet forum and nobody is going (or is expected) to provide deep historical analysis. I also fully accept and respect your personal historical memory, although I profoundly disagree with that point of view.
I also have my share of disagreements with some of Ferguson's views. Especially lately on.
At least we know now he isn't actually immortal.Yea, this is pretty much the only sentiment I can get behind. I really don't get people acting like a war criminal dying of old age is some sort of a victory.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date