"'He would have been a great man had somebody loved him.'" (Kissinger on Nixon, 16)

"'Those writings of mine aren't anything,' Mao said. 'There is nothing instructive in what I wrote.'" (71)

"'He speaks forthrightly -- no beating around the bush, not like the leftists, who say one thing an mean another. ... He is much better than those people who talk about high moral principles while engaging in sinister intrigues. ... There is a man who knows what he stands for, as well as what he wants, and has the strength of mind to get it.'" (Mao on Nixon, 74)

"To the Chinese, with their self-centered view of the world, the Vietnamese were younger brothers -- the 'half-cooked,' as one expression had it -- who had not yet become thoroughly civilized." (265)

Its a wonderfully written book by the brilliant historian Margaret Macmillan. The maneuvers of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger along with Chou-En-Lai and Mao-tse-tung that crafted the the beginning of an era where the United States and China embarked upon a new relationship is brilliantly scribbled by the author. From the Long March of 1935 to the Cultural Revolution of 1960s this book provides an insight into all the major events that shaped the contemporary Chinese history.

Richard Nixon (then US President in 1972) along with Henry Kissinger (then NSA of USA who was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to end the Vietnam War) were so desperate to open the talks with China and taking itself out of the imbroglio in Vietnam which had cost it substantially. Today the same United States seems diametrically opposite to its position - 5 decades back. Then, they paved the way for acknowledging PRC as the one china and today it backs the Taiwan as the mainland China. It is a scintillating book which travels through the Great Leap Forward of 1958 and the Cultural Revolution of late 1960s.

This book deserves to be read because it brings into light the deeds of Mao Ze Dung (founder of Communist China) who was responsible for the deaths of 4 crore people which is obviously a huge figure. It was that visit of US President only which laid the foundation of a China that lives in its own hubris, has a dream to dominate the whole world, lay claims on every part it wants be - it Ladakh in India, to Senkaku islands in Japan, which has border disputes with more countries than it shares the border with.

But at the same moment, It is dramatic how a nation has progressed so much in the past 4 decades. A nation which had a closed economy, was abysmally destitute, had nothing significant to offer to the world today has the second largest economy in the world, WHO runs on its propoganda, and is looking forward to replace US as the superpower. It seems that a New Cold War is on the verge of beginning. But this time China has replaced USSR. This book will definitely not disappoint you if you are intrigued by world politics.

Loved it!

This book has been riveting to read. All of this history happened during my lifetime.. I was just too small to remember any of it. C said that the only thing that he really didn't like about President Nixon is that the Watergate hearings bumped his favorite program The Flintstones. You can see that point of view I'm sure. Anyway we were young, but are living in a time now where Nixon's opening of China has made great changes in the world we live in today. I honestly don't know that there would have been a lot of other men who would have been able to wrangle this deal other than Nixon and Kissinger. There were so many who were morally opposed to the trip.
William F. Buckley, someone I greatly admire, was invited on the trip by President Nixon and attended a banquet in China given in honor of the Americans by the Chinese. He had this to say about it, "It is unreasonable to suppose that anywhere in history have a few dozen men congregated who have been responsible for greater human mayhem that the hosts at this banquet and their spiritual colleagues, instruments all of Mao Tse-tung. The effect was as if Sir Hartley Shawcross had suddenly risen from the prosecutor's stand at Nuremberg and descended to embrace Goering and Goebbels and Doenitz and Hess, begging them to join with him in the making of a better world." An exaggeration.. Not hardly. Estimates suggest that Mao Tse-tung is responsible for the deaths either by political persecution or starvation of more than 40 Million people. There are many books that detail the brutality of Mao and his followers among them, the famous Life and Death in Shanghai extremely well written by Nien Cheng. My friend Circe also recommended a book I read several years ago called Mao's Last Dancer that chronicles the peasants struggle to avoid starvation due to the policies of Chairman Mao. At one point the author relates where as a child he realizes that his family is competing for their food sources with rats.. either they will starve or the rats will starve. It's heartbreaking.
And yet, Nixon wanted desperately to talk with the Chinese. His objective was complicated. The United States was in the middle of the Cold War with Russia; talking with the Chinese gave that government a sort of 3rd power status that created a thaw in U.S. / Russian relations and more caution on the part of Russia. Our relations with China after the Korean conflict and during Vietnam were difficult and possibly dangerous. Also, businessmen in the United States saw huge and lucrative markets and wanted in. There is no question that Sino/American trade has made untold fortunes for both countries. There were many other reasons Nixon wanted to go, but paramount among them was to ensure peace. That's a good reason I think. And, I don't know if Nixon thought of this because it wasn't mentioned in the book, but I think that it's obvious that contact with the western world has brought a measure of liberty to China.. not yet what one would hope for, but I think it's coming.
Nixon, who is remembered by most of the populace for Watergate, wanted to be remembered for this one week which he considered his greatest achievement.

Perhaps relevent given all the nonsense talk of "appeasement" in today's campaign.

Once again: praise be to MacMillian. Her previous book has singlehandedly overturned the Keynesian interpretation of the Versailles Tready that dominated for some 70 years. Here she gives a tremendous account of everything that went into getting the two titans together, from the grandiose to the rediculous. Each chapter provides the necessary history to give the reader the proper grounding in topics such as Chinese history recent and ancient, the political tone in the U.S., the tension in Southern Asia, and all that goes into international diplomacy. Some of it quite silly.

Chou en Lie and Kissenger play their roles like a high stake game of Go, and an underrated president gets some fair treatment. Also, MacMillan serves as a solid exception to the otherwise warrented notion that the fairer sex doesn't have the even-headedness to properly tackle history.
She's a national tresure.

Book nine of the "Joey B reads himself some presidential goodness" series. I had been dreading reading about Richard Nixon. All I knew was that he is universally accepted as a horrible president and a horrible person. Was he? Mostly, but this book does raise some interesting issues.

I decided to read this book as opposed to a general biography because I wanted to focus on the one act of his presidency that is widely seen as a triumph: his trip to China.

I had always heard about this trip but didn't realize all the behind the scenes wrangling that had to occur to make it happen and then, once there, to make it a success.

Nixon almost completely cut out the state department and was dealing with China directly and through Henry Kissinger. You have to admire his desire to cut through all the bureaucracy. This same desire to micromanage and control everything is what would ultimately lead to his downfall with Watergate.

One of my favorite lines from the book said that Nixon wasn't a good person, but he wanted to be. He tried to be. He just wasn't that guy.

I only gave this 3 stars because there was a bit too much China and not enough Nixon for my taste. It was interesting to hear about the behind the scenes struggles in China. I suppose if it had been just the Nixon side, it would have been a very short book.

The biographical information on Nixon and Kissinger was fantastic and definitely makes the book worth a look. This helps to remember that even the worst presidents are still capable of doing good, even if it is for the wrong reasons. I mean, he founded the Environmental Protection Agency for Pete's sake!

I cannot explain my endless fascination with Ricard Nixon. I simply accept it.

I made it through about 3/4 of this book before I finally had to put it down. It was well written, but it read more like a history textbook and I couldn't take it anymore. Some parts of the book were very interesting, but the author couldn't sustain that momentum throughout.

Very impressive work by Margaret MacMillan.

The subtitle is The Week That Changed The World, and while that is true, the week itself, in a literal sense really only amounted to both sides trying to save face over Taiwan and to a lesser extent N. Vietnam.

But the meetings, banquets and sight-seeing ultimately led to full diplomatic relations.

Chou en lai is the most interesting of the Big 4 (Chou, Mao, Nixon, Kissenger). I found myself thinking "he has some good points" as he pointed out US interference in the world. Of course he was representing Mao, one of the worst villians in history.

There are also cultural descriptions of the Chinese approach to negotiations, courtesy, protocol and philosophy that added much to the context of this book.

I wonder what Nixon would think if he could have lived to the present day and saw how dependent we are on China and the economic power they have over us?

This is a thorough, well-researched and well-written book on a significant event in modern world history. The author delves into the psyches of the main players (Nixon, Mao, Kissenger, Chou), their governments, their countries and to a degree their histories. She includes some perspective on the politics among the various factions in both countries. I found it interesting and informative. It was mentioned on a news show by someone asked what advice he would give Trump before meeting with Kim and he said "I'd tell him to read 'Nixon & Mao'." So I did. Nixon's week in China was far too nuanced for anyone in today's White House but it will be interesting to see if there are ANY bits of similarity other than the obvious one that one side wants/wanted an opening to the world stage and one side wants/wanted a grand photo op before an election. With Nixon and Mao, it was much more, of course.
I don't know if that week and all that led up to and away from it "changed the world" but I suspect that over the following years it did. It would have happened anyway at some point no doubt. But still. It was historic. And China is now, 50 years hence, poised to take over what has been USA purview around the world since 1945 -- unless of course Russia does it first.

In Nixon and Mao, historian Margaret MacMillan weaves a flowing narrative that recounts the events of one historic week for U.S. foreign relations. In February of 1972, Richard Nixon became the first American President to visit China. While isolationism had been China’s overarching foreign policy, a recent Communist overthrow and Mao Tse-tung’s rise to power made this Cold War meeting finally possible. Both Nixon and Mao prided themselves on their abilities as statesmen, and each recognized an opportunity to establish positive foreign relations, but MacMillan takes great care to point out that these two leaders were not alone in making this meeting possible. Also important were Nixon and Mao’s far-thinking statesmen. The aging Mao entrusted Chou En-lai, who acted as a tour guide and a realpolitical voice for his ailing chairman. For Nixon, Henry Kissinger performed much of the legwork that made this historical visit possible.
Of course, by 1972 both sides had something to gain. China was growing weary of its Soviet communist neighbors to the north and also hoped to establish new credibility within the United Nations, especially in the hopes of swaying international opinion against Taiwan. For the United State, China might help Nixon find a respectable route out of Vietnam. Also, the Chinese economy held the promise for immense trade possibilities with American businessmen. In short, by 1972 the historical timing was right, and a few driven individuals helped to make this historic week in U.S. foreign relations happen. Within the span of 338 pages, MacMillan sheds light on the complexities in preparing for and conducting a political meeting of tremendous symbolic importance, a task made all the more difficult because these men had no precedent on which to build. In the realm of U.S. foreign relations, China remained literally uncharted territory, making this meeting all the more impressive and important.
Nixon and Mao is the much anticipated follow up to MacMillan’s 2002 critically acclaimed book, Paris 1919. Comparisons between these two works are unavoidable for a number of reasons. Curiously, both books hold different titles on each side of the Atlantic. For example, what Americans know as Paris 1919 is known in England as Peacemakers: The Paris Conference of 1919 and its Attempt to End War. In a similar fashion, America’s Nixon and Mao becomes Seize the Hour: When Nixon Met Mao. The publishers’ choice to alter titles may say much about Americans disdain for complex titles and our inclination towards world changing events. Also, both American publications share eerily similar subtitles: Six Months that Changed the World and The Week That Changed the World respectively.
So, did Nixon’s week in China actually change the world? To be fair, the title is a direct quote from Nixon, and not the author’s own estimation. But readers will note that MacMillan never takes a strong stance on Nixon’s statement; in fact, she never clearly defines a simple argument. This lack of a clearly defined thesis statement can most likely be attributed to the complexities of subsequent Sino-American relations. MacMillan’s argument is subtle. Nixon and Mao’s conclusion does help to explain how history unfolded for these men and their countries after meeting, and this pastiche of biographical and historical information shows that, yes, the world did change. America and China established tense but working foreign relations. But did either side really attain what they wanted? Mao hoped that an alliance with America would help China gain international prestige, as well as conduct technological exchanges with the United States. Also, Mao hoped for U.S. support in the U.N., especially regarding international acceptance of Taiwan as an autonomous entity separate from China. Put simply, MacMillan may have been astute in avoiding a clearly defined thesis statement, as the complex nature of international Cold War politics do not always lend themselves to simple answers. Most likely, it is safe to assume that Nixon’s week may have changed the world, but not in one single, clearly recognizable way.

She spent too much time with half-baked biographical sketches and not enough time on the meat and potatotes of the negotiations themselves (although when her discussion of the latter were insightful). I'm thinking that any Nixon biography worth its salt (or Kissinger for that matter) would have more information about the subject. The subject matter on Chinese political thought and the history of Chinese Communist Party was relevant and enjoyable.

This books gives much deeper understanding of Nixon and what motivated him in office. The image provided of Mao makes him appear like a monster. Chou En-lai emerges as a key figure. The relationship (or lack there of) between the White House and the State Department puts envents in a new light.