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