All right everybody. Here we go. The big book. Kissinger. Time to get to know him. As I’ve said and you may know, he was Secretary of State for Ford and Nixon before that and National Security Adviser before that. Before that he was a civilian adviser to the White House in the Johnson and Kennedy years and such a bright shining light he was expected to have a position in the new incoming administration in 1969 no matter who won the 68 election. Before all of that he was born in Germany and was quite, and is quite, a soccer fan. His home team is SpVgg Greuther Fuerth and he played a bit himself but supports team USA more than the Germans.
He is also a man who expects you to know what Raison d etat means. He does not suffer fools. His effort here, to explain 20th century international diplomacy from his perspective, I find just fascinating. That three chapters are devoted to the American War in Vietnam suggests that that topic looms large, and it does, for that is what he won the Nobel Prize for, but is also what he is most vilified for.
Here he is setting up very broad strokes. The largest circle in the circles of causality. He really is teeing up his first few chapters which I will summarize for you later but basically its the story of the emergence of the “nation state” in Europe in the 17th and 18th century. That the person he finds principally responsible for this is Richelieu, a Cardinal in the Catholic church, underscores just how revolutionary this was. The nation, France in this case, was more important than the church, even for a Cardinal in the church.
Kissinger has a particular affinity for the Congress of Vienna, the subject of his PhD dissertation, and the 100 years of peace it enabled. His admiration of some, Bismark, Adenauer, will almost border on man-love. Others, like Wilson, are more complex. His disdain for some, Napoleon III, Kaiser Wilhelm II, are almost comical.
Anyway, take some time to get to know him. You’re in for a long journey.
ibhistorytopics 
I enjoyed reading Kissinger’s perspective on events and people and found the section about “balance of power” particularly interesting. On page 20 it states, “In each instance, by the time American got involved, the balance of power had already failed to operate, producing this paradox: that the balance of power, which most Americans disdained, in fact assured American security as long as it functioned as it was designed; and that it was its breakdown that drew America into international politics.” It’s interesting how America is scared of balances of power and Kissinger states that on page 22, “At no time in its history has America participated in a balance of power system,” which is a strange claim to make.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One of the statements that Kissinger recalled during chapter 1 of the book surrounding the Cold War was the way he looks at these “traditional concepts of power” had essentially been lost at the time. Throughout history, strength from nations could be seen through their militant power, political power, and economic power displayed altogether. Yet when reading this specific paragraph on page 23, Kissinger brings up the point that these displays of power being tied together became rather distinct to one another, using the Soviet Union as an example who, though showing immense military power, lacked in their economic power and still proved to be a major threat. I thought this example was an interesting way to view things as well as new way to view the balance of power during the Cold War.
LikeLike
I actually quite enjoyed reading this chapter. (Shocker) I rarely found myself confused or bored of it and I found a lot of interesting stuff to talk about, but a quote that really stood out to me was on page 21. Kissinger states, “Empires have no interest in operating within an international system; they aspire to BE the international system.” Power and balance are major themes in this chapter and this quote really speaks to the extremity of the hunger for power that people in this world have. Co-existing peacefully is never enough if your country or empire isn’t on top. People are willing to cause massive amount of deaths, debts, and more losses for this title and no amount of regulated balance will change this… unfortunately. It was really cool to read Kissinger’s mind about this matter though.
LikeLike
Kissinger writes, “When America entered the international arena, it was young and robust and had the power to make the world conform to its vision of international relations, (19).” I like how he sort of personifies America. For the first time, I am picturing America as a single entity, like an actual person who is going through their ups and downs. I was also really interested in two things Kissinger wrote on pages 20 and 21. Kissinger says that America confronted no power in need of being balanced by inhabiting a nearly empty continent. Going back to when we read our books about American Indians, I feel as though there was power in need of being balanced, but the American Indians power, as well as their rights, were stolen instead of compromise. He also quotes Madison, that the various political factions selfishly pursuing their own interests would forge a proper domestic harmony. Comparing this belief to our time, I would say it does the opposite of creating harmony.
LikeLike
In this chapter, I found it very interesting to read how Kissinger went into detail about why America’s and Europe’s opinions on the “balance of power” system are so different. America, not needing to balance any power as it takes over North America, contrasting with the whole of Europe, a group of many countries that are all equal in strength and felt the need for this system to be in place to handle their relations better. I also liked how Kissinger pointed out that for all of the hate that America has towards the “balance of power” system, it is that very system that allowed the US to enjoy its security for over a century. I want to explore more about Cardinal Richelieu in terms of his foreign policy, as well. Even though religion was still a big part of Europe in the 17th century, Richelieu did what he could to make France #1 by not caring the countries France aligned with. I’m interested in reading how all of this will further fit in with WWI!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I found Kissinger’s claim that there are two schools of thought on the United States interesting. He described that people either view the country as a beacon or a crusader, from the stance of an isolationist or missionary. A quote that stood out to me was, “for the first time, the United States can neither withdraw from the world nor dominate it.” He has an interesting perspective that the U.S. struggles with the dilution of power because it emerged as a global superpower so soon after its establishment, which is at contrast with European countries who’ve survived centuries of competition with their neighbors.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This chapter was particularly interesting in the explanation of America. Reading it through the first time, Kissinger almost made America come across as a very cocky nation which I do believe has some truth to it. It was very interesting hearing that in the context of the “balance for power”. On page 21 Kissinger explains this balance of power system and shares how its goal was not peace but stability and moderation which I found quite interesting in respect to the consistent want for world peace it was interesting how that wasn’t the goal of something so major. Overall I really enjoyed Kissingers discussion on why Europe and America are so different in their respected governmental institutions and his views on why they are so different.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A quote that stood out to me in this chapter was one explaining how political thinkers of the Enlightenment view the balance of power. Kissinger states “In their view, the universe, including the political sphere, operated according to rational principles which balance each other. Seemingly random acts by reasonable men would, and their totality, tend toward a common good, though the proof of this proposition was elusive in the century of almost constant conflict that followed the Thirty Years War.” This stood out to me because I like the comparison of this broad system with a singular person. I also found it interesting that the balance of power system existed in the past.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the book Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger a few quotes stood out to me. “IN 1945 35% of of the entire worlds economic production was American.” I found this really interesting, this was during the second world war. I would have anticipated that somewhere in Europe would of had the greatest production. I am curious what the United States was doing exactly at that time. I also found it intresting how important international relations are, empires wanted to be in control of it while other states confinded.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought, as a whole, the chapter was interesting. I thought Kissinger’s idea about rising “Great Powers” were pretty accurate, and his assertion that during the Cold War, the traditional definition of power broke down (usually that a state had to be militarily, politically, and economically powerful; Russia was powerful militarily but weak economically, still a major power). However, I find a couple of Kissinger’s points unsettling. On the first and second pages, he states that “No society has more firmly insisted on the inadmissibility of intervention in the domestic affairs of other states” and “No country has been more reluctant to engage itself abroad”, which I think is greatly untrue, especially considering the war in Vietnam had ended not too long ago (and Kissinger definitely played a role in it). It seems to me that the United States will readily intervene in the domestic affairs of other states as long as it can find justification for doing so; in the case of the Vietnam War, to prevent the USSR from expanding its influence. The Cold War gave the US much reason to exert its influence over other countries for the purpose of halting the spread of communism, sometime to an unreasonable extent.
LikeLike
Kissinger’s first chapter has a lot of interesting points, such as his predictions for the 21st century or how statesmen build what intellectuals analyze. What I found to be particularly intriguing was the way he wrote about Russia. He mentions that Russia will always be a global power, which I found interesting considering the ongoing war with Ukraine that has exposed a lack of order. Moreover, Kissinger criticizes Russia’s expansionism, which reminds me of WWII Japan, Manifest Destiny America, England, and more. At one point, he writes that “Russia is a cause waiting for an opportunity,” and I wasn’t really sure how to interpret that.
LikeLike
Kissinger provided a unique view of America’s role in international relations, and the furthering of democracy throughout the 20th century. I think that he brought up a number of contradictions between America’s self-imposed values, and that of its actions towards other countries. One specific thing that Kissinger kind of predicted, was the continual downfall of military power as a way to gauge international prowess. The US used to control 35% of the economic outputs in the international community, but now, it contributes less to that. Military funding has declined significantly since the Cold War, and is now used for more infrastructural things, and the attempt to rebalance the economics of the nation. Finally, I thought that America’s nonconformity with European systems of checks and balances was interesting. America is considered to have a highly efficient, amazing system of government, which has allowed it to spread and grow to an international superpower. Kissinger recognizes this, and says that America’s system is one of two historical functioning systems of “democracy” (America and (I think) Vienna). All in all, I found Kissinger’s writing different, and somewhat expressive of his own values. It is interesting to see how his viewpoints are different from that of Pipes. I’m pretty excited to read the rest of the book as well 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Every time we start a new book, it takes me a couple of pages to a chapter to adjust to the new voice, the new author. For Kissinger, his is one of American superiority, which is demonstrated by quotes such as, “No country has influenced international relations as decisively and at the same time as ambivalently as the United States” and “the first is that America serves its values best by perfecting democracy at home.” I am interested to see what criticisms Kissinger presents of his beloved country and how they are explored.
LikeLiked by 1 person
While reading this, I just thought how interesting some of his claims were and how they differed of were the same as today. This especially connects to when he talked about Russia and made the prediction that they would either revert back into their lost empire or participate more in Asian diplomacy. As we now, Putin is trying to revert Russia back into its old regime, which is just so interesting to live through. Additionally, I got the feeling that America tended to be insanely similar to how it is now: thinking it is the greatest country in the world and everyone else should follow its example. But Kissinger also talked about how the United States was sort of cut off from a lot of its enemies since it was surrounded by weak countries and the 2 oceans to protect it. Because of this (and other factors), the United States developed differently and was able to participate in the Cold War in a way no other country could have.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I found it interesting how Kissinger though that no states could have a balance-of-power. Kissinger had said that “either one state becomes so strong that it dominates all the others and creates an empire, or no state is ever quite powerful enough to achieve a goal.” I found this interesting because it shows how no matter how much we want equal power, it’s very unlikely that all states will ever be fully equal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This chapter is a really interesting start to the World War I unit, because even though he hardly touches on the war itself it still highlights the international relations that guided the war. Kissinger has a really interesting perspective on America, he emphasizes how powerful and different it is from other countries. Though he does acknowledge the imperialism of the US he still seems to have an overall admiration for the country. I found the idea of “the balance of power” to be a really interesting concept, but I found that it worked better as a theory than an implied system. In Europe it has somewhat worked, however, it makes it easy for an empire to take over as seen in World War II and the Cold War with the USSR. I was especially interested in the idea that the United States goes against the “balance of power” where they have dominated economy wise, military wise, and I would argue culture wise as well. In the West the US is the dominating empire. Russia also serves as a problem to the “balance of power” where they want their nation to be the dominating empire, as seen in the USSR regime and the Ukrainian war.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Something I found interesting about this book was basically the way Kissinger describes America in this book. He talks about how much of a role America plays when it comes to international relations/foreign policy, and talking about how its journey through it has been a triumph of face over experience. In fact, it seems like the country now plays so much of a major role to the point that Henry Kissinger describes how the U.S can’t withdraw nor really dominate it anymore. Also, his comparison between America’s and Europe’s “Balance of power” was pretty interesting, considering the fact that despite both countries being unique in their circumstances with their approaches to foreign policy. The difference was that the U.S saw the balance of power as a way off assuring American Security as long as it does its purpose, while Europe didn’t use this to regulate their relations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I found a quote regarding the US and its involvement in other countries, which I found really interesting. “[In regards to America’s attitude towards foreign policy} America serves its values best by perfecting democracy at home, thereby acting as a beacon for the rest of mankind;” This is the perfect way to describe the way in which America holds itself and compares itself to the rest of the world, though its, as I mentioned in class, a facade. America’s democracy, though maybe better than some others, isn’t a perfect model by any standards, though we like to parade ourselves as such. The way in which we try to spread our idea of democracy never really seems to work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s interesting how much Kissinger mentions Americans, or just America in general. He compares it to other states and situations, talking about it is either better or worse than it and why. Not only this, but his mention of the balance of power. He seemed to like to explain how important this balance is, and the impact it can have on any of the nations, as well as how they can achieve this balance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought this chapter, and Kissingers views, were really interesting overall. In particular, near the begining he talks a bit about the American view of how demoncracy was the best system, and how America ocillates between “isolationism and commitment.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I found that when Kissinger wrote about the two very controversial views on America to be really interesting. I wasn’t aware that the world basically either thought of our country as a beacon of democracy for the rest of humanity or that we’re just crusaders involving ourselves in business that we don’t have a right to intervene in. I also thought the idea that if everyone acts in their own way that it will all fit together and work out was naive and in a sense, weak. I mean, after all, we’ve had countless wars since the dawn of humanity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Something that I found very interesting was how Kissinger mentioned that at one point the United States was so powerful that at some point 35% of the worlds economic production was American, which was during the world war . The way he also talks about American view of democracy and the involvement that they had in different conflicts and they gained a lot of power in the process.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A quote I found really interesting from this chapter is “since no such system has ever existed, its evocation often appears to other societies as utopian, if not naive,” when talking about America as a beacon or crusader. I find it interesting that foreign countries often see America as this perfect place for opportunity, even though the idea of liberty and opportunity is rarely true. I wonder how this reputation for the United States came to be.
LikeLike
I thought it was quite interesting how Kissinger began his book talking about America. He states, “America’s journey through international politics has been a triumph of faith over experience.” This quote meant a lot to me as I went over this chapter because his reoccurring theme of how much America believes that most everyone is peaceful and that’s what we can rely on.
LikeLike