Richard Nixon - The Invincible Quest

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

Just finished reading this absolutely superb biography of Nixon by Conrad Black.

 

Before anyone scoffs about one crook writing about another crook, let me say that it seemed to me to be an exceptionally fair and balanced biography.

 

When you look over Nixon's life and what he achieved, the highs and lows, he certainly leaves in his wake all the Presidents subsequent to him. His vision on China and detente with USSR as well as being the President who started up the Environmental Protection Agency, Medicare, welfare reform and the man who finally abolished segregation and of course the President that ended the Vietnam war.

 

I had the view of the Watergate and his sweaty face stating that "I am not a Crook" and his being the general bogeyman of American politics, well this biography really has changed my ideas on him.

 

Watergate seems now to be so mundane. Especially the revelations that Eisenhower, Johnson and Kennedy were upto to far more dirty tricks, only they were not caught. At the height of the Watergate scandal, Nixon could have pointed out and proved things that showed these past Presidents in a far worse light, but he was too honourable in that he did not want to demeen the office.

 

His rehabilitation as an elder statesman who was approached for advice from all his successors and foreign leaders was also revelatory.

 

1059 pages long and I have to admit there was barely a dull page as each stage in his life was described. Really, his life was the story of the post-war 20th century.

 

If you are interested in history and politics and prepared for some surprises, this book is essential reading.

[shaun.lawson]

Just finished reading this absolutely superb biography of Nixon by Conrad Black.

 

Before anyone scoffs about one crook writing about another crook, let me say that it seemed to me to be an exceptionally fair and balanced biography.

 

When you look over Nixon's life and what he achieved, the highs and lows, he certainly leaves in his wake all the Presidents subsequent to him. His vision on China and detente with USSR as well as being the President who started up the Environmental Protection Agency, Medicare, welfare reform and the man who finally abolished segregation and of course the President that ended the Vietnam war.

 

I had the view of the Watergate and his sweaty face stating that "I am not a Crook" and his being the general bogeyman of American politics, well this biography really has changed my ideas on him.

 

Watergate seems now to be so mundane. Especially the revelations that Eisenhower, Johnson and Kennedy were upto to far more dirty tricks, only they were not caught. At the height of the Watergate scandal, Nixon could have pointed out and proved things that showed these past Presidents in a far worse light, but he was too honourable in that he did not want to demeen the office.

 

His rehabilitation as an elder statesman who was approached for advice from all his successors and foreign leaders was also revelatory.

 

1059 pages long and I have to admit there was barely a dull page as each stage in his life was described. really his life was the story of the post-war 20th century.

 

If you are interested in history and politics and prepared for some surprises, this book is essential reading.

 

There's absolutely no doubt about Nixon's expertise in foreign policy, and some domestic policy too. However, it wasn't just Watergate, FWJ. What about him travelling to South Vietnam and deliberately torpedoing the peace for his own political ends on the eve of a Presidential election? And what about the role of Henry Kissinger and his administration in Latin America, most notably Chile?

 

Watergate was a crime, and utterly demeaned the office of President. And as with Clinton 24 years later, what made it worse was he lied about it. His was a tragic story in many ways, immortalised brilliantly by Anthony Hopkins in Oliver Stone's biopic - but he was a nasty, nasty individual, who stopped at nothing in order to win power, and ended up with much blood on his hands. Nothing the odious Conrad Black has written could dissuade me of this.

[Charlie-Brown]

Fletcher Prouty's 'The Secret Team' and his later 'Understanding Covert Operations' both of which are available free on-line give some good background to the shenanigans that many in the US Administrations were up to during Nixon & LB Johnson's era and Tricky Dicky was in it up to his neck.........his 'sack everyone except George Bush (snr) he will do everything for our cause' shows which camp (or pocket) he was in....Prescott Bush.

[Boris]

Sounds interesting.

 

I was reading a bit of Naomi Kleins, "The Shock Doctrine" and there were quotes attributed to this old Harvard professor type whose proteges were Rumsfield and neo-con types basically calling Nixon "a socialist".

 

Given McCain's bleatings about Obama, I found this quite amusing.

 

Also, as Shaun says

he was a nasty, nasty individual, who stopped at nothing in order to win power

but not as nasty or power hungry as Kennedy who beat him by a whisker in the 1960 Prsidential Election, courtesy of bought/bribed votes.

 

Foreign Policy wise there were some triumphs, the visit to China for example, but the US involvement in Chile was reprehensible, as was the regime they propped up. Yet no real different from anything Kennedy did in Vietnam.

 

I really don't get the whole Kennedy myth, or rather I do, I just wish the truth was the commonly held opinion about another odious President.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

There's absolutely no doubt about Nixon's expertise in foreign policy, and some domestic policy too. However, it wasn't just Watergate, FWJ. What about him travelling to South Vietnam and deliberately torpedoing the peace for his own political ends on the eve of a Presidential election? And what about the role of Henry Kissinger and his administration in Latin America, most notably Chile?

 

Watergate was a crime, and utterly demeaned the office of President. And as with Clinton 24 years later, what made it worse was he lied about it. His was a tragic story in many ways, immortalised brilliantly by Anthony Hopkins in Oliver Stone's biopic - but he was a nasty, nasty individual, who stopped at nothing in order to win power, and ended up with much blood on his hands. Nothing the odious Conrad Black has written could dissuade me of this.

 

I think your response to "Nixon" appears to be the standard response of many and I would have also have said that he was not a pleasant individual.

 

I watched the film "Nixon" recently and I am afraid that much of it was sheer rubbish. I also thought Hopkins appeared more like Humphrey Bogart than Tricky Dick.

 

Nixon came from a very loving family, not a cold dysfunctional one. His mother was a warm caring person and his father was not at all a "failure", he was very much a self made man and retired quite comfortably off.

 

The Democrats under Lyndon Johnson washed there hands of Vietnam and were ready to pull the plug in '68 because they had no idea how to end the war. Nixon promised "Peace with Honor" however he never really had a master plan and it was nearly 9 months into office before he started "Vietnamization". The Hanoi leadership were utterly odious and all they wanted was the South AND US humilation. They dragged out peace talks whilst Nixon reduced troop levels until he realised he was being taken for a ride and ordered the bombing.

 

When the last American left in 1973 the VC HAD been militarily defeated. (See "A Bright Shining Lie by Neil Sheehan). However Nixon new that unless he had contol of congress the South would last only 18 months on its own because a Democratic senate would not allow any more aid to be given Which is what happened. The Democratic party lost Vietnam. Not Nixon.

 

In Chile, Allende was toppled with CIA backing because the US did not want another Cuba. The Allende "government" was voted in by only about 37% of the people and they were as corrupt and vicious as Pinochet was.

 

Nixon was actually on a human basis a very kind and generous person. It was noted that he always left a decent impression on so-called "little people" waiters, minor staff and other low paid people. He said he was always decent to these people because he had once did jobs like that to earn a living. It is noted that the Kennedy's were particularly despised by these people as the adopted an arrogant manner with them.

 

Watergate was a crime, but it was caused by allowing cowboys to do a job that should never have been allowed in the first place. Nixon KNEW nothing of nearly all these ops but he could have handled the whole thing better.

 

The bottom line was that no one was harmed, no one was hurt.

 

Daniel Ellsberg stole classified White House documents, copied them and sold them to the press, was seen as a hero and was not prosecuted.

 

I have always been interested in Nixon and usually had an open mind on him. I am surprised at you Shaun, usually so erudite, to slag of Conrad Black without reading the book, taking a cinematic version of Nixon as gospel and coming out with the usual stock and tired responses about Vietnam and Chile and his "unpleasant" character.

[shaun.lawson]

Sounds interesting.

 

I was reading a bit of Naomi Kleins, "The Shock Doctrine" and there were quotes attributed to this old Harvard professor type whose proteges were Rumsfield and neo-con types basically calling Nixon "a socialist".

 

Given McCain's bleatings about Obama, I found this quite amusing.

 

Also, as Shaun says but not as nasty or power hungry as Kennedy who beat him by a whisker in the 1960 Prsidential Election, courtesy of bought/bribed votes.

 

Foreign Policy wise there were some triumphs, the visit to China for example, but the US involvement in Chile was reprehensible, as was the regime they propped up. Yet no real different from anything Kennedy did in Vietnam.

 

I really don't get the whole Kennedy myth, or rather I do, I just wish the truth was the commonly held opinion about another odious President.

 

Very true. Broward County in 2000 was delayed Republican justice for Cook County 1960, you might say. As with James Dean, and without trying to sound too facetious, the smartest thing JFK did was to die prematurely: that ensured his legend would always remain, even though the truly great Presidents - Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson (quite nasty himself, in his own way), FDR - were all about substance, rather than just style. And Kennedy, as you say, has a lot to answer for over Vietnam: but it was LBJ who reaped the whirlwind.

 

Call me a naive old romantic, but I'm genuinely hopeful Obama is in this for the right reasons: to govern for the benefit of the common good. An American leader who isn't a right nasty ******* is something of an exception; and an effective, successful one who isn't is even more so. Here's hoping, anyway.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

Sounds interesting.

 

I was reading a bit of Naomi Kleins, "The Shock Doctrine" and there were quotes attributed to this old Harvard professor type whose proteges were Rumsfield and neo-con types basically calling Nixon "a socialist".

 

Given McCain's bleatings about Obama, I found this quite amusing.

 

Also, as Shaun says but not as nasty or power hungry as Kennedy who beat him by a whisker in the 1960 Prsidential Election, courtesy of bought/bribed votes.

 

Foreign Policy wise there were some triumphs, the visit to China for example, but the US involvement in Chile was reprehensible, as was the regime they propped up. Yet no real different from anything Kennedy did in Vietnam.

 

I really don't get the whole Kennedy myth, or rather I do, I just wish the truth was the commonly held opinion about another odious President.

 

I think the view of Nixon is a generational one and as Kissinger said to Nixon, "history will be kind to you".

 

Remember also that Nixon would have been within his rights to challenge the result of the 1960 election. It WAS stolen from him. The 2000 election was unseemly and Nixon would nevr have allowed his country to be dragged throught that. That is why he was so shamed at Watergate. The OFFICE of President was shamed and that nearly killed him. He was that old school type.

 

What did JFK achieve? Virtually nothing except the missile crisis which would have been a averted just as succesfully by Nixon. JFK may or may not have prevented Vietnam, but Johnson definitley was responsible. Nixon had to clean up the mess that was no fault of his.

[shaun.lawson]

I think your response to "Nixon" appears to be the standard response of many and I would have also have said that he was not a pleasant individual.

 

I watched the film "Nixon" recently and I am afraid that much of it was sheer rubbish. I also thought Hopkins appeared more like Humphrey Bogart than Tricky Dick.

 

Nixon came from a very loving family, not a cold dysfunctional one. His mother was a warm caring person and his father was not at all a "failure", he was very much a self made man and retired quite comfortably off.

 

The Democrats under Lyndon Johnson washed there hands of Vietnam and were ready to pull the plug in '68 because they had no idea how to end the war. Nixon promised "Peace with Honor" however he never really had a master plan and it was nearly 9 months into office before he started "Vietnamization". The Hanoi leadership were utterly odious and all they wanted was the South AND US humilation. They dragged out peace talks whilst Nixon reduced troop levels until he realised he was being taken for a ride and ordered the bombing.

 

When the last American left in 1973 the VC HAD been militarily defeated. (See "A Bright Shining Lie by Neil Sheehan). However Nixon new that unless he had contol of congress the South would last only 18 months on its own because a Democratic senate would not allow any more aid to be given Which is what happened. The Democratic party lost Vietnam. Not Nixon.

 

In Chile, Allende was toppled with CIA backing because the US did not want another Cuba. The Allende "government" was voted in by only about 37% of the people and they were as corrupt and vicious as Pinochet was.

Nixon was actually on a human basis a very kind and generous person. It was noted that he always left a decent impression on so-called "little people" waiters, minor staff and other low paid people. He said he was always decent to these people because he had once did jobs like that to earn a living. It is noted that the Kennedy's were particularly despised by these people as the adopted an arrogant manner with them.

 

Watergate was a crime, but it was caused by allowing cowboys to do a job that should never have been allowed in the first place. Nixon KNEW nothing of nearly all these ops but he could have handled the whole thing better.

 

The bottom line was that no one was harmed, no one was hurt.

 

Daniel Ellsberg stole classified White House documents, copied them and sold them to the press, was seen as a hero and was not prosecuted.

 

I have always been interested in Nixon and usually had an open mind on him. I am surprised at you Shaun, usually so erudite, to slag of Conrad Black without reading the book, taking a cinematic version of Nixon as gospel and coming out with the usual stock and tired responses about Vietnam and Chile and his "unpleasant" character.

 

The Democrats were right to want to pull the plug: Vietnam was a monstrous disaster. And lest we forget, Nixon was only in the position to win the election because of Bobby Kennedy's assassination. "Peace with honour"? The deliberate torpedoing of a possible peace, and all the American troops who died as a result?

 

And as for the bit I've emboldened: words almost fail me. No - the Allende government wasn't a patch on Pincohet's for utter depravity. Did Allende have troops walk into all schools and demand all kids had their hair cropped short or shaved off? Did it systematically murder dissenters? It was very naive, and had ambitions never likely to be realised - but the American response was to support a coup against the will of the people.

 

Rich Chileans were delighted; the poor, as ever, were systematically crushed. And for what? Fear of another Cuba? Please. The domino theory nonsense is what led to Vietnam in the first place; and also resulted in US intelligence ludicrously overestimating the extent of Soviet ambitions before the Cold War even began. They were always doing this: allowing dogma to get in the way of cooler, more rational thinking - indeed, they did it yet again over Iraq and Saddam Hussein. It even led to the views of Zbigniew Brezinski given credence under Carter - when Brezinski just happened to be Polish, whose compatriots hate the Russians more than anyone else!

 

One of Nixon's plus points is that, in the case of detente, he saw past this ideological stupidity - but not in Latin America. I'm surprised at you, FWJ, for taking the views of a delusional crook (for only delusion explains his own criminal behaviour, and belief that he was untouchable) as gospel: did Black happen to know Nixon? Were they friends by any chance?

 

PS. How does his documented anti-semitism square with your view of Nixon being a nice guy?

[Boris]

Yet Johnson was also responsible for the Civil Rights Act.

 

As far as I understand, Vietnam would have happened had Kennedy not been shot, but who knows how far he would've gone.

 

As an aside, I wonder if Nixon would've won in 68 had Bobby Kennedy not been assassinated?

[Ray Winstone]

I think the view of Nixon is a generational one and as Kissinger said to Nixon, "history will be kind to you".

 

Remember also that Nixon would have been within his rights to challenge the result of the 1960 election. It WAS stolen from him. The 2000 election was unseemly and Nixon would nevr have allowed his country to be dragged throught that. That is why he was so shamed at Watergate. The OFFICE of President was shamed and that nearly killed him. He was that old school type.

 

What did JFK achieve? Virtually nothing except the missile crisis which would have been a averted just as succesfully by Nixon. JFK may or may not have prevented Vietnam, but Johnson definitley was responsible. Nixon had to clean up the mess that was no fault of his.

 

While I agree that Nixon's term in charge was over shadowed by his departure from office you comments regarding Kennedy are sadly miss-guided.

 

What you should remember is that Lydon B Johnson was responsible for pushing through many of the reforms that were actully put forward initially by Kennedy.

 

Actually the only reason that a Republican dominated senate allowed so many of the democrats reforms to go through was because of the nationa wave of sympathy for Kennedy.

 

Kennedy achieved a lot more than just what is shown during his term in office.

 

Fact.

[Ray Winstone]

Yet Johnson was also responsible for the Civil Rights Act.

 

As far as I understand, Vietnam would have happened had Kennedy not been shot, but who knows how far he would've gone.

 

As an aside, I wonder if Nixon would've won in 68 had Bobby Kennedy not been assassinated?

 

The civil rights bill may have been passed during Johnson's term in office however the credit was very much Kennedy's.

 

See my previous post.

 

Just as a small aside it is said that Kennedy basically won the election against Nixon on the basis of his image.

 

There was the famous TV debate that people who had listened to it were impressed by Nixon, where as people who watched it thought Kennedy was the better of the two candidates.

 

Nixon had recently had a heart operation and was sweating and looked very uncomfortable during the debate.

[shaun.lawson]

Yet Johnson was also responsible for the Civil Rights Act.

 

As far as I understand, Vietnam would have happened had Kennedy not been shot, but who knows how far he would've gone.

 

As an aside, I wonder if Nixon would've won in 68 had Bobby Kennedy not been assassinated?

 

In his final months in office, Johnson was plagued by a recurring dream: of a beautiful woman, and a prostitute. The beautiful woman was the Great Society - how he could so easily have been remembered in history. The hooker was Vietnam: how he was remembered. His health never recovered, and he died just five years later - the most high profile victim of the war, I'd argue.

[felix]

Sounds like a good read; although never comfortable with him as the president who ended war in Vietnam..

There's recorded evidence he prolonged the war to help his second-term re-election and of course he did sanction bombing in Cambodia & Laos !

 

Nevertheless, sounds like a good shout .

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

The Democrats were right to want to pull the plug: Vietnam was a monstrous disaster. And lest we forget, Nixon was only in the position to win the election because of Bobby Kennedy's assassination. "Peace with honour"? The deliberate torpedoing of a possible peace, and all the American troops who died as a result?

 

And as for the bit I've emboldened: words almost fail me. No - the Allende government wasn't a patch on Pincohet's for utter depravity. Did Allende have troops walk into all schools and demand all kids had their hair cropped short or shaved off? Did it systematically murder dissenters? It was very naive, and had ambitions never likely to be realised - but the American response was to support a coup against the will of the people.

 

Rich Chileans were delighted; the poor, as ever, were systematically crushed. And for what? Fear of another Cuba? Please. The domino theory nonsense is what led to Vietnam in the first place; and also resulted in US intelligence ludicrously overestimating the extent of Soviet ambitions before the Cold War even begun. They were always doing this: allowing dogma to get in the way of cooler, more rational thinking - indeed, they did it yet again over Iraq and Saddam Hussein. It even led to the views of Zbigniew Brezinski given credence under Carter - when Brezinski just happened to be Polish, whose compatriots hate the Russians more than anyone else!

 

One of Nixon's plus points is that, in the case of detente, he saw past this ideological stupidity - but not in Latin America. I'm surprised at you, FWJ, for taking the views of a delusional crook (for only delusion explains his own criminal behaviour, and belief that he was untouchable) as gospel: did Black happen to know Nixon? Were they friends by any chance?

 

PS. How does his documented anti-semitism square with your view of Nixon being a nice guy?

 

I've really hit the Nixon-hater button on you!!!

 

I remember when dear old Lacostelad came on espousing his anti-Israeli, neo nazi crap. I got labelled a Zionist for arguing with him and calling him an ant-Semite!!! Posters were asking me if I was Jewish and having a pro -Israeli agenda for hammering him for his views!!!

 

I think you have a blinkered vision of Richard Nixon. The book absolutely nails him for many things and Black does not hold back. And yes, Black knew him. Black also hammers Kissinger where necesary and Black knows him also!!!

 

Nixon did not believe in the domino theory by the time he became President. He accepted that the South may fall. And Kennedy LIED to the American people when he talked about the "Missile" gap. It did not exist as the US was far ahead of the Soviets in 1960. He just wanted to terrify voters into thinking that Nixon was responsible for the USSR being on par with the US.

 

There was no 'dogma' in the Nixon presidency over the USSR. Or anyone else.

 

The Carter Presidency was a disaster and you are right Brzinski was the only one who truly understood the Russians.

 

I ask you to read 'A Bright Shining Lie' by Neil Sheehan. That is the BEST book ever about Vietnam. Also, take your blinkered views on Nixon and try to read this book. I admit, the book was balanced to me. He castigates Nixon over many things, including his character. Deservedly so. But Nixon was way ahead in almost everydepartment than ALL his successors.

 

I am glad Obama won, but lets not make this guy out to be something he is not. I can quite envision in the years ahead the man being criticised when the vision fails to match upto to reality.

 

But I hope it does not.

[Charlie-Brown]

Nixon knew almost everything about watergate and the people involved and the motivation behind it, these people were playing for keeps and didn't care whose lives or careers were destroyed, if you think otherwise see Nixon's comments about burglar Howard Hunt....and how they didn't want to scratch that itch / pick that scab .... in it up to his neck springs to mind.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

While I agree that Nixon's term in charge was over shadowed by his departure from office you comments regarding Kennedy are sadly miss-guided.

 

What you should remember is that Lydon B Johnson was responsible for pushing through many of the reforms that were actully put forward initially by Kennedy.

 

Actually the only reason that a Republican dominated senate allowed so many of the democrats reforms to go through was because of the nationa wave of sympathy for Kennedy.

 

Kennedy achieved a lot more than just what is shown during his term in office.

 

Fact.

 

Misguided. How utterly condescending.

 

No one at the time believed Kennedy could get his civil rights bills through because he was loathed in the South and was not considered able to convince southern voters.

 

It took a Texas man to get it through, LBJ, precisely because he was off, and knew, the south.

 

LBJ was also a man of greater stature and ability than JFK. Fact.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

Nixon knew almost everything about watergate and the people involved and the motivation behind it, these people were playing for keeps and didn't care whose lives or careers were destroyed, if you think otherwise see Nixon's comments about burglar Howard Hunt....and how they didn't want to scratch that itch / pick that scab .... in it up to his neck springs to mind.

 

 

Yes, the book makes it clear that the Plumbers, though not in themselves illegal, were basically allowed to be taken over by real cowboys like Liddy and Hunt. Men who were uncontrollbale and would act as they pleased. Ehrlichmann, Colson and Haldeman were responsible for this and deservedly got what was coming. Nixon, seemed to be in a hubris about this when it all started, he ignored it and the book explains that his doing this was inexplicable in so careful an operator.

 

I have to say though that Nixon did not have a very high quality staff or cabinet. Kissinger was the star but their relationship was fraught. This was a major failing and the book heavily criticises him for this and rightly so.

 

By the way, this is a great debate.

 

The way things should be on JKB!!!

[Ray Winstone]

Misguided. How utterly condescending.

 

No one at the time believed Kennedy could get his civil rights bills through because he was loathed in the South and was not considered able to convince southern voters.

 

It took a Texas man to get it through, LBJ, precisely because he was off, and knew, the south.

 

LBJ was also a man of greater stature and ability than JFK. Fact.

 

LBJ got the civil rights bill through on the back of Kennedy's death.

 

 

It had nothing to do with convincing southern voters as the Bill would not have even got through the house of representatives if Kennedy had not been assassinated.

[shaun.lawson]

I've really hit the Nixon-hater button on you!!!

 

I remember when dear old Lacostelad came on espousing his anti-Israeli, neo nazi crap. I got labelled a Zionist for arguing with him and calling him an ant-Semite!!! Posters were asking me if I was Jewish and having a pro -Israeli agenda for hammering him for his views!!!

 

I think you have a blinkered vision of Richard Nixon. The book absolutely nails him for many things and Black does not hold back. And yes, Black knew him. Black also hammers Kissinger where necesary and Black knows him also!!!

 

Nixon did not believe in the domino theory by the time he became President. He accepted that the South may fall. And Kennedy LIED to the American people when he talked about the "Missile" gap. It did not exist as the US was far ahead of the Soviets in 1960. He just wanted to terrify voters into thinking that Nixon was responsible for the USSR being on par with the US.

 

There was no 'dogma' in the Nixon presidency over the USSR. Or anyone else.

 

The Carter Presidency was a disaster and you are right Brzinski was the only one who truly understood the Russians.

 

I ask you to read 'A Bright Shining Lie' by Neil Sheehan. That is the BEST book ever about Vietnam. Also, take your blinkered views on Nixon and try to read this book. I admit, the book was balanced to me. He castigates Nixon over many things, including his character. Deservedly so. But Nixon was way ahead in almost everydepartment than ALL his successors.

 

I am glad Obama won, but lets not make this guy out to be something he is not. I can quite envision in the years ahead the man being criticised when the vision fails to match upto to reality.

 

But I hope it does not.

 

But Nixon's anti-semitic views are documented, FWJ - there's no ifs or buts about it. In my experience, anti-semites (as opposed to anti-Zionists, who I myself have no problem with, and I'm Jewish) tend to be pretty nasty pieces of work. If he didn't believe in the domino theory, why did his administration do as they did in Chile? And ironically, it was his own downfall which stopped detente in its tracks: rather like appeasement, it was quickly discredited, and viewed as part of a decade America wanted to quickly put behind it.

 

A few other points. US intelligence was so woefully bad that it convinced the American leadership of Soviet military parity - when in truth, the USSR was miles behind. A 1960s Moscow flypast panicked the Americans; when in fact, the same jet had just flown round and round Red Square! Can you believe that? And no, Brezinski didn't understand the Russians at all: he just hated them. When Gorbachev appeared on the scene and looked to make peace, Brezinski blasted Reagan's administration for trusting him just because "Gorbachev happened to wear a clean shirt, and his wife didn't look like a beast". And this guy had been the US National Security Advisor!

 

But... but... I'll read the book at least. Incidentally, if you've read A Bright Shining Lie, have you also read David Halberstam's timeless The Best and the Brightest?

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

LBJ got the civil rights bill through on the back of Kennedy's death.

 

 

It had nothing to do with convincing southern voters as the Bill would not have even got through the house of representatives if Kennedy had not been assassinated.

 

There may be an element in that, but the fact was that LBJ went further than JFK would have dared.

 

It would have went even further if LBJ had not tragically have got the country into the mire in Vietnam.

 

I must say that the period in question is a fascinating one and for me, the three Presidents involved, JFK , LBJ and Nixon, are the most interesting Presidents of the 20th century.

[Ray Winstone]

There may be an element in that, but the fact was that LBJ went further than JFK would have dared.

 

It would have went even further if LBJ had not tragically have got the country into the mire in Vietnam.

 

I must say that the period in question is a fascinating one and for me, the three Presidents involved, JFK , LBJ and Nixon, are the most interesting Presidents of the 20th century.

 

I would add Reagan to the list purely on the basis of his utter hypocracy throughout his term, yet it ended (at least in the worlds eyes) succesfully.

 

The period in question is so interesting I have studied it for the last 2 years and providing I get through this year I hope to write my dissertation on something simmilar next year.

 

How do you limit these kinds of presidents to 10,000 words?

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

But Nixon's anti-semitic views are documented, FWJ - there's no ifs or buts about it. In my experience, anti-semites (as opposed to anti-Zionists, who I myself have no problem with, and I'm Jewish) tend to be pretty nasty pieces of work. If he didn't believe in the domino theory, why did his administration do as they did in Chile? And ironically, it was his own downfall which stopped detente in its tracks: rather like appeasement, it was quickly discredited, and viewed as part of a decade America wanted to quickly put behind it.

 

A few other points. US intelligence was so woefully bad that it convinced the American leadership of Soviet military parity - when in truth, the USSR was miles behind. A 1960s Moscow flypast panicked the Americans; when in fact, the same jet had just flown round and round Red Square! Can you believe that? And no, Brezinski didn't understand the Russians at all: he just hated them. When Gorbachev appeared on the scene and looked to make peace, Brezinski blasted Reagan's administration for trusting him just because "Gorbachev happened to wear a clean shirt, and his wife didn't look like a beast". And this guy had been the US National Security Advisor!

 

But... but... I'll read the book at least. Incidentally, if you've read A Bright Shining Lie, have you also read David Halberstam's timeless The Best and the Brightest?

 

Where were you when I was rowing with that bloody Nazi!!!!

 

Yes, the book makes the point of Nixon complaining about Jews in congress, etc and he also had the ridiculous old fashioned view that all Jews stuck together and all that rot. But 90% of Jewish voters never voted for him anyway. Maybe that affected him. However, one of his greatest friends and advisors was Murray Chotimer who was Jewish and his greatest colleague was of course, Kissinger.

 

Nioxn and Ike knew they were well ahead of the USSR in 1960. When Isaid Brzinski 'understood" Russians, I meant he "knew" them as only a Pole does. I remember when living in South Africa in the early 80's at the time of Solidarity, many Polish miners were allowed to leave and the one country they wanted to go to was South Africa because SA was a major anti-communist country. I remember the loathing that these guys had for RUSSIA not USSR.

 

Yes, I am an admirer of Halberstam, who features heavily in Shining Lie as he and Sheehan were very similar people.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

I would add Reagan to the list purely on the basis of his utter hypocracy throughout his term, yet it ended (at least in the worlds eyes) succesfully.

 

The period in question is so interesting I have studied it for the last 2 years and providing I get through this year I hope to write my dissertation on something simmilar next year.

 

How do you limit these kinds of presidents to 10,000 words?

 

Impossible.

 

However, try and not be judgmental. It is not the job of a historian to judge!

[shaun.lawson]

Where were you when I was rowing with that bloody Nazi!!!!

 

Yes, the book makes the point of Nixon complaining about Jews in congress, etc and he also had the ridiculous old fashioned view that all Jews stuck together and all that rot. But 90% of Jewish voters never voted for him anyway. Maybe that affected him. However, one of his greatest friends and advisors was Murray Chotimer who was Jewish and his greatest colleague was of course, Kissinger.

 

Nioxn and Ike knew they were well ahead of the USSR in 1960. When Isaid Brzinski 'understood" Russians, I meant he "knew" them as only a Pole does. I remember when living in South Africa in the early 80's at the time of Solidarity, many Polish miners were allowed to leave and the one country they wanted to go to was South Africa because SA was a major anti-communist country. I remember the loathing that these guys had for RUSSIA not USSR.

 

Yes, I am an admirer of Halberstam, who features heavily in Shining Lie as he and Sheehan were very similar people.

 

Don't call him a Nazi, FWJ. He isn't one - and it's libellous.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

Don't call him a Nazi, FWJ. He isn't one - and it's libellous.

 

You cant libel a pseudonym on a website.

 

And he was one.

 

Very clever they are at disguising it.

[shaun.lawson]

Impossible.

 

However, try and not be judgmental. It is not the job of a historian to judge!

 

It is the job of a historian to be objective - but that doesn't stop me employing Lawsonian moral judgmentalism in my writing all the time! It drives my supervisor crazy - but he's just got to suck it up.

[Ray Winstone]

Impossible.

 

However, try and not be judgmental. It is not the job of a historian to judge!

 

Historians cant help but judge, despite how much they may try to convince you that they are balanced in their views on any particular subject.

 

You should meet some of the lecturers and tutors I have had - they are all publihed authors that just bitch about other historians and their books.

 

Its quite funny.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

It is the job of a historian to be objective - but that doesn't stop me employing Lawsonian moral judgmentalism in my writing all the time! It drives my supervisor crazy - but he's just got to suck it up.

 

Correct.

 

And the passage of time does help.

 

That's why its called history.

[shaun.lawson]

You cant libel a pseudonym on a website.

 

And he was one.

 

Very clever they are at disguising it.

 

People know who he is, and he does a lot of important work for charity. Unless you can prove your assertions, I don't think such comments should be made on here - especially given as a non-member, he has no means of replying either.

[Boris]

Don't call him a Nazi, FWJ. He isn't one - and it's libellous.

 

No?

 

The Maltese/Italian fascist he had as an avatar was ironic then?

[shaun.lawson]

Historians cant help but judge, despite how much they may try to convince you that they are balanced in their views on any particular subject.

 

You should meet some of the lecturers and tutors I have had - they are all publihed authors that just bitch about other historians and their books.

 

Its quite funny.

 

And almost always politically motivated in some way. I can never understand why we can't just skip through the orthodox and revisionist phases of any historiographical debate, and jump straight to a synthesis and conclusion - there's shades of grey in anything, which is what historians invariably discover when they've been discussing something for so long.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

Historians cant help but judge, despite how much they may try to convince you that they are balanced in their views on any particular subject.

 

You should meet some of the lecturers and tutors I have had - they are all publihed authors that just bitch about other historians and their books.

 

Its quite funny.

 

Yes, I remember so called teachers in my schools in South Africa.

 

You should have seen the history text books we were forced to read.

 

The Afrikaner Nationalist view of the world. One teacher told me that Aushwitz and Austerlitz was the same place. Also a French-Rhodesian teacher TOLD my brother that Glasgow was the capital of Scotland.

 

Then, when we came back to Scotland in the mid 80's and went to school here, we got fed the opposite. Socialism and political correctness...

 

Is it any wonder me and my wee brother are warped....

[shaun.lawson]

No?

 

The Maltese/Italian fascist he had as an avatar was ironic then?

 

I don't know - but there have been plenty of strange avatars on here at many times.

 

Put it this way: if I thought he was an extremist, I wouldn't be in occasional touch with him. But I am - because I don't believe he is.

[Ray Winstone]

No?

 

The Maltese/Italian fascist he had as an avatar was ironic then?

 

That still does not make him a Nazi.

 

The term 'Nazi' was formed out of the NSDAP party or the National Social German Workers Party if you will. Thats what a 'Nazi' was, a member of the party.

[Boris]

It is the job of a historian to be objective - but that doesn't stop me employing Lawsonian moral judgmentalism in my writing all the time! It drives my supervisor crazy - but he's just got to suck it up.

 

Correct.

 

And the passage of time does help.

 

That's why its called history.

 

If the historian has the evidence then surely their conclusion (objectively arrived at I suppose!) will be a judgement of sorts.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

People know who he is, and he does a lot of important work for charity. Unless you can prove your assertions, I don't think such comments should be made on here - especially given as a non-member, he has no means of replying either.

 

I think you are being coy here.

 

I have a mate who s a kickbacker who also considers this guy to be a Nazi. And he played in the football team the guy set up. He also never wants to see this guy ever again!!!

 

He may not be a blackshirt, brownshirt, wearing goosestepping Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler loving Horst Wesselied whistling stormtrooper, but for me and many others he still ticks the box that asks the question: Are you a Nazi?

[Charlie-Brown]

Don't take this the wrong way FWJ but I think you are being a bit naive about Nixon's innocence and the 'secret teams' that were 'unofficial' standard operating practice during the sixties and seventies and earlier and later, Nixon was sponsored by the Texas Oil Cabal ie the Bush family, HL Hunt family & others whilst Kissinger was in the Rockefeller & Rothschild Wall Street Money Cabal...these interests intersected and shared common interests indeed they control much of US Politics even to this day - Nixon was their man in the White House - as for the plumbers just look at their OSS/CIA background and their connection and similar background to Nixon and key people in his administration like General Haig as well as other people on the Warren Commision.....from 1960 elections to Iran-Contra the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

If the historian has the evidence then surely their conclusion (objectively arrived at I suppose!) will be a judgement of sorts.

 

Oh no, I am trying to enjoy a bottle of Teachers here!

 

 

Yes, Yes, anything!! Yes.

[Ray Winstone]

And almost always politically motivated in some way. I can never understand why we can't just skip through the orthodox and revisionist phases of any historiographical debate, and jump straight to a synthesis and conclusion - there's shades of grey in anything, which is what historians invariably discover when they've been discussing something for so long.

 

So true.

 

The paper I am writing at the moment is basically about 'Staatpolizeistellen' which were the local Gestapo offices and about how useful they were etc.

 

Obviously the SS and Gestapo were the first thing historians started to look at after the Third Reich collapsed.

 

Basically up until the early 80's all historians would have you believe that the SS and Gestapo were pretty much responsible for keeping the Reich going and were ruthlessley efficient at it.

 

Where as since then historians will tell you this was rubbish and everything written before 1980 is pretty much wrong.

[Boris]

That still does not make him a Nazi.

 

The term 'Nazi' was formed out of the NSDAP party or the National Social German Workers Party if you will. Thats what a 'Nazi' was, a member of the party.

 

Semantics.

 

You could class your politics as National Socialist without being a member of "the party", but imho you would still be a Nazi.

 

Nazi, fascist they're all the same to me. Splitting hairs over them is ridiculous.

 

And I think I'm knowledgable enough to know about the formation and genesis of the NSDAP thank you.

[Ray Winstone]

Semantics.

 

You could class your politics as National Socialist without being a member of "the party", but imho you would still be a Nazi.

 

Nazi, fascist they're all the same to me. Splitting hairs over them is ridiculous.

 

And I think I'm knowledgable enough to know about the formation and genesis of the NSDAP thank you.

 

I dont think I lectured you on the genisis or foundation of the NSDAP.

 

I merely pointed out that the term 'Nazi' no longer exists in that way.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

Don't take this the wrong way FWJ but I think you are being a bit naive about Nixon's innocence and the 'secret teams' that were 'unofficial' standard operating practice during the sixties and seventies and earlier and later, Nixon was sponsored by the Texas Oil Cabal ie the Bush family, HL Hunt family & others whilst Kissinger was in the Rockefeller & Rothschild Wall Street Money Cabal...these interests intersected and shared common interests indeed they control much of US Politics even to this day - Nixon was their man in the White House - as for the plumbers just look at their OSS/CIA background and their connection and similar background to Nixon and key people in his administration like General Haig as well as other people on the Warren Commision.....from 1960 elections to Iran-Contra the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

 

And yest you dont believe in any Lithuanian conspiracy at HMFC!

 

There is no evidence of that stuff in the film 'Nixon' where he meets the mysterious Jack Jones on his Texan ranch!

 

Also, most of his life Nixon was not well off. It was only when he started working as a lawyer after he lost in 1960 and 1962 that he started making money. Of course he was hired by Coca -Cola and worked on their behalf.

 

He also detested Earl Warren and feuded with him all his life.

 

I am not saying he was an innocent. Far from it. But he was not the monster he was made out to be, by the way mainly by the leftist media in America at the time who hated him anyway.

[shaun.lawson]

I think you are being coy here.

 

I have a mate who s a kickbacker who also considers this guy to be a Nazi. And he played in the football team the guy set up. He also never wants to see this guy ever again!!!

 

He may not be a blackshirt, brownshirt, wearing goosestepping Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler loving Horst Wesselied whistling stormtrooper, but for me and many others he still ticks the box that asks the question: Are you a Nazi?

 

Nothing coy on my part, FWJ - I just don't subscribe to your view of the guy.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

Semantics.

 

You could class your politics as National Socialist without being a member of "the party", but imho you would still be a Nazi.

 

Nazi, fascist they're all the same to me. Splitting hairs over them is ridiculous.

 

And I think I'm knowledgable enough to know about the formation and genesis of the NSDAP thank you.

 

I agree with you Boris, that a Nazi is a Nazi, no matter how he covers his tracks.

 

This guy was spouting obscene stuff and as far as I was concerned too many on JKB were agreeing with him.

 

He was recruiting. He used Israel because it was to many people an open and shut case. Mistreatment of Palestinians etc. Grab their attention. I am aware of Israeli massacres and crimes they have committed.

 

I was labelled a Zionist and asked if I was Jewish because I was offended by it.

 

That says a lot about people and shows that there will always be residue of anti-semitic feeling.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

Nothing coy on my part, FWJ - I just don't subscribe to your view of the guy.

 

See my response to Boris.

 

I met these types in South Africa.

 

Many of them were really plausible too.

[Charlie-Brown]

And yest you dont believe in any Lithuanian conspiracy at HMFC!

 

There is no evidence of that stuff in the film 'Nixon' where he meets the mysterious Jack Jones on his Texan ranch!

 

Also, most of his life Nixon was not well off. It was only when he started working as a lawyer after he lost in 1960 and 1962 that he started making money. Of course he was hired by Coca -Cola and worked on their behalf.

 

He also detested Earl Warren and feuded with him all his life.

 

I am not saying he was an innocent. Far from it. But he was not the monster he was made out to be, by the way mainly by the leftist media in America at the time who hated him anyway.

 

I don't think Nixon was a monster either indeed for all his flaws and faults his farewell address to whitehouse staff is one of the most genuine & heartfelt speeches I've ever seen from a politician...it was like this great realisation after it was already too late......anyway Nixon was just a puppet as LBJ was before him and Dubya has been these last eight years to the people who really control American politics & business life of which David Rockefeller and George Bush senior are the most recent patriarchs but much of their families wealth and influence/control goes back to the late nineteenth & early twentieth century........America is still a democracy but the voters can only choose from the candidates / puppets that are put up in front of them - they are all pre-vetted and pre-selected anyway - no outsider would ever get campaign finance if they weren't 'on-side'........anyway Nixons farewell speech

 

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?hl=en&q=nixon+farewell+speech&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#q=nixon%20farewell%20speech&hl=en&emb=0

[Boris]

I dont think I lectured you on the genisis or foundation of the NSDAP.

 

I merely pointed out that the term 'Nazi' no longer exists in that way.

 

Eh?

 

Sorry, I must have misread you then.

 

It seemed to me that this

The term 'Nazi' was formed out of the NSDAP party or the National Social German Workers Party if you will. Thats what a 'Nazi' was, a member of the party.

meant you could only be labelled a Nazi if you were a card carrying member of the NSDAP (my point obout the genesis of the NSDAP is that i am more than familiar with it's origins, history, functions etc etc etc).

 

My point is that the term Nazi is a valid political term to apply to someone with fascistic views regardles of their own personal membership of a now defunct German political party.

 

But really you meant that Nazi no longer means a member of the Nazi party (in Germany from 1920-1945) and is probably what i have described above?

 

Apologies if I am being dense.

[shaun.lawson]

So true.

 

The paper I am writing at the moment is basically about 'Staatpolizeistellen' which were the local Gestapo offices and about how useful they were etc.

 

Obviously the SS and Gestapo were the first thing historians started to look at after the Third Reich collapsed.

 

Basically up until the early 80's all historians would have you believe that the SS and Gestapo were pretty much responsible for keeping the Reich going and were ruthlessley efficient at it.

 

Where as since then historians will tell you this was rubbish and everything written before 1980 is pretty much wrong.

 

Mmm. Now though, thanks to brilliant scholars like Ian Kershaw, the polycratic chaos of the Third Reich has come to be largely accepted - as has the reality that in most dictatorships, it's far, far harder for the dictator have his orders followed than we might realised. Especially in Nazi Germany, where Hitler revelled in allowing his subordinates to fight it out amongst themselves, while he remained above the fray: Darwinism in action, as he saw it.

 

So you had extremists in some areas; moderates in others. You'll be aware of the intentionalist/functionalist debate, I imagine? Having studied it at A Level, undergraduate and Masters level, I'm a convinced functionalist: life just ain't that simple, and my problem with a good deal of intentionalists is their wish to ascribe blame to such a horrific regime, rather than seek to understand and judge things more coolly. The banality of evil: that's what I'm getting at here.

 

Sadly, some Jewish historians have also accused others of abandoning their moral duty by not blaming it all on Hitler: they're too emotionally involved, basically. Entirely understandable - I'm the grandson of a Holocaust survivor myself - but a problem given the need for any historian to remain detached.

[shaun.lawson]

See my response to Boris.

 

I met these types in South Africa.

 

Many of them were really plausible too.

 

But to my knowledge, you haven't 'met' LL - so are generalising, probably very unfairly.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

I don't think Nixon was a monster either indeed for all his flaws and faults his farewell address to whitehouse staff is one of the most genuine & heartfelt speeches I've ever seen from a politician...it was like this great realisation after it was already too late......anyway Nixon was just a puppet as LBJ was before him and Dubya has been these last eight years to the people who really control American politics & business life of which David Rockefeller and George Bush senior are the most recent patriarchs but much of their families wealth and influence/control goes back to the late nineteenth & early twentieth century........America is still a democracy but the voters can only choose from the candidates / puppets that are put up in front of them - they are all pre-vetted and pre-selected anyway - no outsider would ever get campaign finance if they weren't 'on-side'........anyway Nixons farewell speech

 

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?hl=en&q=nixon+farewell+speech&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#q=nixon%20farewell%20speech&hl=en&emb=0

 

If the Rockefellers controlled so much why did Nelson Rockefeller not become President?

 

I am surprised that you reduce the argument to the usual conspiracy - tabloid view that a secret cabal rules the world (They do actually =They are called CEO's of Banks!!)

 

Google for Ned Beatty's speech to Peter Finch in 'Network'!!!