Statesman or war criminal? Why not both?

It was the political fashion in the 1970s to overlook K's atrocities in Cambodia, etc. and depict him as an all-seeing, Jill St. John-dating diplomatic superstar holding the Western world together. And it's fashionable now to crucify him as a monster, a cynical chess-playing death merchant. (You hear this in especially strident / absolute terms from younger people, e.g. Reddit progressives, who also have trouble recalling who was president before Reagan.)

Both valid views. Two sides of a coin. The whole truth doesn't lend itself to mean tweets. Future historians will appraise Kissinger more objectively and generously than today's fluffy young super-online liberal polemicists.

Expand full comment

Prof. Luttwak agrees. 'The two faces of Henry Kissinger: This nice Jewish boy was a natural liar' https://unherd.com/2023/12/the-two-faces-of-henry-kissinger/

Expand full comment

Correct. Kissinger can surely be both. This is the case in so many conflicts domestically and abroad. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Witness the horror in Israel and Gaza. One can condemn Hamas' deadly attacks without fully endorsing the Israeli response. Such nuance, however, is anathema to the TikTok junkies and the keyboard warriors of this world.

Expand full comment