Richard Nixon - The Invincible Quest

[shaun.lawson]

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

 

Yeah - but all politicians turn into Charles I when departing the scene, Charlie! Nothing ever becomes leaders like their leaving.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

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

 

I am a bit concerned that you 'hang" around with this guy.

 

His views are odious. But you "use' him to try and gain knowledge of his secret info on Romanov?

 

You might be tarred with the same brush.

 

I have always wondered who you really are?

[shaun.lawson]

I am a bit concerned that you 'hang" around with this guy.

 

His views are odious. But you "use' him to try and gain knowledge of his secret info on Romanov?

 

You might be tarred with the same brush.

 

I have always wondered who you really are?

 

No, I don't. Nor do I hang around with him. I'm just in occasional touch with him: one Hearts fan to another.

 

And I know you've always wondered about me: though your assertions a few weeks back on here were well wide of the mark. Granted, the academic/analyst in me is fascinated by Romanov, and football politics in general - but I'm just another Jambo, albeit one based at a geographical distance. And one increasingly concerned about the future - though that, of course, is a whole other debate!

[Charlie-Brown]

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'!!!

 

Secret cabals don't control the world FWJ it's fairly open and transparent - everybody knows who they are - they hold the money, the hold the power or how else do you think the Walker/Bush family get their people into the Whitehouse then the other side / same side get their other people in.....why do you think Blair went to meet with Murdoch when labour were aspiring to power.......he who pays the fiddler calls the tune.

[Ray Winstone]

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.

 

I also enjoy the books and journals that Robert Gellately has written.

 

So interestng to compare with someone like Jaques Delarue.

 

Funnily enough I prepared a presentation on the nature of the regime in the Third Reich, whether it be Polycratic or Monocratic. I did it using Herman Goering as a case study which was interesting because he is probably one of the few examples that make the regime look monocratic.

 

As to the Intentionalist/Functionalist debate - myself I will make a considered decision by the end of the year.

 

However I do favour one over the other at the moment.

[shaun.lawson]

I also enjoy the books and journals that Robert Gellately has written.

 

So interestng to compare with someone like Jaques Delarue.

 

Funnily enough I prepared a presentation on the nature of the regime in the Third Reich, whether it be Polycratic or Monocratic. I did it using Herman Goering as a case study which was interesting because he is probably one of the few examples that make the regime look monocratic.

 

As to the Intentionalist/Functionalist debate - myself I will make a considered decision by the end of the year.

 

However I do favour one over the other at the moment.

 

Goering though, like Himmler and one or two others, being right at the end of the spectrum, of course. Tim Mason wrote an absolutely brilliant article some years back on the intentionalist/functionalist stuff, by the way: it's probably what convinced me above anything else, but I can't recall what book it was in (a German book, though the article's in English) off hand!

[Charlie-Brown]

Regards LL - I know Steve, not personally as any kind of friend but i know who he is ever since he was the 'fanzine' guy and then later he stayed across the road when both he and i lived on opposite sides of downfield in dalry.........anyway in recent years LL has moved increasingly 'out there' ..... this isn't any attempt to be-little the guy cos for all his behaviour the guy is not in anyway unintelligent however he has become 'extremist' in his beliefs or at least on the numerous things he posts on the internet and not all of them are logically or politically coherent - but that is just my opinion......I'm not sure what he does with himself these days.

[Ray Winstone]

Goering though, like Himmler and one or two others, being right at the end of the spectrum, of course.

 

The problem we found with Goering was because he was the second most poweful man in the Reich (Deputy to all Hitler's offices etc) he simply just accepted it whenever he was not listened to by Hitler.

 

Goering would talk over most of his decisions with Hitler because he wanted to show off basically.

 

Where as Himmler and Heydrich were left to their own devices much of the time.

[Charlie-Brown]

The problem we found with Goering was because he was the second most poweful man in the Reich (Deputy to all Hitler's offices etc) he simply just accepted it whenever he was not listened to by Hitler.

 

Goering would talk over most of his decisions with Hitler because he wanted to show off basically.

 

Where as Himmler and Heydrich were left to their own devices much of the time.

 

Hitler was a good orator, Goering was a narcissist, Himmler was a fantasist and Heydrich was probably/definitely one of the most pathologically insane yet capable people to ever hold public office anywhere - he was a freakin fanatic - training as a fighter pilot then being shot down on the front and being rescued by special forces.........

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

The problem we found with Goering was because he was the second most poweful man in the Reich (Deputy to all Hitler's offices etc) he simply just accepted it whenever he was not listened to by Hitler.

 

Goering would talk over most of his decisions with Hitler because he wanted to show off basically.

 

Where as Himmler and Heydrich were left to their own devices much of the time.

 

There is a great book called 'The Devils Disciples' by Anthony Read which focuses on Hitlers' inner cirlce ie Himmler Goering and Goebbels.

 

In truth it focuses mostly on Goering and is in fact quite revelatory.

 

Goering was an exceptionally talented man. The author suggest that Goering was not infact inherently 'evil' but that he deliberately chose that 'path' knowing full well the implications. That he protected Jews, even during the war is factual. He was also the only member of the inner circle who could feasibly have prevented the war. But once the war began he became more and more reduced to debauchery and lost control over his fiefdoms.

 

Goebbels comes across as the worst. Himmler, an unremarkable beaurocrat.

 

A frightening book on the nature of power and what happens when it is in the worst possible hands.

 

And they were all so ordinary.

 

Ordinary monsters.

[shaun.lawson]

There is a great book called 'The Devils Disciples' by Anthony Read which focuses on Hitlers' inner cirlce ie Himmler Goering and Goebbels.

 

In truth it focuses mostly on Goering and is in fact quite revelatory.

 

Goering was an exceptionally talented man. The author suggest that Goering was not infact inherently 'evil' but that he deliberately chose that 'path' knowing full well the implications. That he protected Jews, even during the war is factual. He was also the only member of the inner circle who could feasibly have prevented the war. But once the war began he became more and more reduced to debauchery and lost control over his fiefdoms.

 

Goebbels comes across as the worst. Himmler, an unremarkable beaurocrat.

 

A frightening book on the nature of power and what happens when it is in the worst possible hands.

 

And they were all so ordinary.

 

Ordinary monsters.

 

Indeed. In the 1990s, an absolute disaster of a book was published in the US, by one Daniel Goldhagen. It was instantly acclaimed, and became an international bestseller: arguing that the Germans committed the Holocaust not because of economic conditions and the extremist vacuum it created, not even purely out of hatred for Jews; but because they were German.

 

The problem with history nowadays is it leads to writers looking to shock and sensationalise - because it sells books. The fact that Goldhagen's thesis was racist, riddled with errors, and not to put too fine a point on it, bollocks, barely even mattered. He was rapidly awarded a highly-paid post at Yale (I think); while the truth of it, the frightening, bewildering ordinariness of it, indeed, was essentially ignored.

[Ray Winstone]

There is a great book called 'The Devils Disciples' by Anthony Read which focuses on Hitlers' inner cirlce ie Himmler Goering and Goebbels.

 

In truth it focuses mostly on Goering and is in fact quite revelatory.

 

Goering was an exceptionally talented man. The author suggest that Goering was not infact inherently 'evil' but that he deliberately chose that 'path' knowing full well the implications. That he protected Jews, even during the war is factual. He was also the only member of the inner circle who could feasibly have prevented the war. But once the war began he became more and more reduced to debauchery and lost control over his fiefdoms.

 

Goebbels comes across as the worst. Himmler, an unremarkable beaurocrat.

 

A frightening book on the nature of power and what happens when it is in the worst possible hands.

 

And they were all so ordinary.

 

Ordinary monsters.

 

I think at Nuremburg they put Goering's IQ at 147!

 

He was part of the inner circle that could have prevented war and he actually tried. However in the end Hitler over-ruled him. The only way he could have prevented it was if he gave his support to those in the German Army who wanted Hitler removed and Goering to replace him.

 

The same thing again with Barbarossa - Goering warned Hitler that it would end in failure, however this was way too late as Hitler had deliberately not told Goering until it was too late.

 

Basically Goering saw war as getting in the way of his luxurious lifestyle and by the time the Luftwaffe was letting him down at Stalingrad he had lost interest in military and political issues.

[Ray Winstone]

Indeed. In the 1990s, an absolute disaster of a book was published in the US, by one Daniel Goldhagen. It was instantly acclaimed, and became an international bestseller: arguing that the Germans committed the Holocaust not because of economic conditions and the extremist vacuum it created, not even purely out of hatred for Jews; but because they were German.

 

The problem with history nowadays is it leads to writers looking to shock and sensationalise - because it sells books. The fact that Goldhagen's thesis was racist, riddled with errors, and not to put too fine a point on it, bollocks, barely even mattered. He was rapidly awarded a highly-paid post at Yale (I think); while the truth of it, the frightening, bewildering ordinariness of it, indeed, was essentially ignored.

 

I bought and read the Goldenhagen book.

 

'Hitler and his willing executioners'

 

It certainly is something else.

[Charlie-Brown]

Hjalmar Schacht was an interisting influence on the Third Reich then after the war he went to work in New York.......lots of interesting things happened at the end of the 2nd world war & after it, operation paperclip & werner von braun, reinhard gehlen's activities during and post world war 2, goerings letter to churchill, hitlers prediction(intelligence) that germany was to be divided but re-united 40-50 years later, himmlers plan for the allies to join germany to fight the soviet union denied but within 5 years that happened anyway and mccarthysim....the morganthau plan trashed and the marshall plan implemented instead, the rise of west germany, japan and south korea as the most modern shining examples of 'western' capitalism......

[Boris]

I think at Nuremburg they put Goering's IQ at 147!

 

He was part of the inner circle that could have prevented war and he actually tried. However in the end Hitler over-ruled him. The only way he could have prevented it was if he gave his support to those in the German Army who wanted Hitler removed and Goering to replace him.

 

The same thing again with Barbarossa - Goering warned Hitler that it would end in failure, however this was way too late as Hitler had deliberately not told Goering until it was too late.

 

Basically Goering saw war as getting in the way of his luxurious lifestyle and by the time the Luftwaffe was letting him down at Stalingrad he had lost interest in military and political issues.

 

He was still a **** though!

[shaun.lawson]

I bought and read the Goldenhagen book.

 

'Hitler and his willing executioners'

 

It certainly is something else.

 

Compare and contrast with Christopher Browning's far more sober "Ordinary Men".

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

Rather worrying how this thread has morphed from a discussion on very balanced biography of what I believe to be a great US President to Hermann Goering and the Holocaust!!

[spud]

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.

 

I think that nowadays, many people see Watergate as a shining example of the resurrection of United States democracy. They got rid of a President because he tried to trick the democracy, but US democracy won. Watergate has been moralised.

 

I don't think that the ending of the Nixon presidency had such high ideals. If you read "All the President's Men", Woodward and Bernstein both agree that they could not generate any interest in the Watergate story.

 

Nixon had to resign for getting caught swearing in the oval office. Once the White House tapes were released and the American people heard the swearing, or were able to see the censorship, his fate was sealed. I was young at the time but I can still remember the BBC correspondents saying things like "the President then spoke for 93 seconds, swearing an incredible 16 times."

 

There is an interesting article from Time magazine of 1974 here

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944845,00.html

 

which illustrates the feeling at the time.