Grateful that this book exists. Kissinger was such an important figure. He was so complex, with such intellectual brilliance and yet such ego fragility. In a way, it was perhaps his fragile ego that drove him to be the force he was.

Buddhism and stoicism, in a sense, are anti-ego. However, great human advancements often don't occur without the drive of certain individuals. Companies or countries may possess power, but it is the people at the top who ultimately make the difference. Therefore, the ego matters, not necessarily for happiness, but for progress. Or rather, for the furtherance of history, as it can sometimes be backwards progress. With war serving as an engine of history and the dark ages as an example, history doesn't automatically improve. But a group of self-effacing individuals who have reached nirvana will lose to an army led by a man with a vision and armed to the teeth.

I'm rambling now. I'm not sure if I like Kissinger. Probably not. But that's beside the point. This long and challenging read was for me a study in intellectual brilliance, realpolitik, ego, fragility, pessimism, risk, war, and happiness. Important stuff, one might say.

Throughout the first part of my life, history held little interest for me. In elementary and high school, there was an excessive focus on names, dates, and similar bits of information that seemed mundane, boring, and, from my perspective, useless.

However, in college, I was fortunate to have a couple of professors who took a broader view of history. They presented the bigger picture of society and history as a complex mosaic of human experience, evolution, and growth. This perspective was, and still is, much more useful and engaging.

Walter Isaacson is a master at writing thoroughly captivating books. He seamlessly weaves together the necessary names, dates, and individual events of history into a larger and more meaningful picture of our human journey. In my younger years, if someone had told me that I would thoroughly enjoy and be completely captivated by a nearly 900-page book, I would have thought they were terribly misinformed or lacked a true understanding of who I am and what interests me. Isaacson has delightfully kept me engaged in several of his books, for which I am grateful.

My memory from childhood and as a young adult of Henry Kissinger was that he was a brilliant statesman and an important part of our world politics during very difficult and trying times. My knowledge of Kissinger was mainly formed by my family, the media, and, when I was paying attention, public school teachers. This book has expanded my understanding of a complex person who, for better or worse, exerted a significant amount of influence on our world.

The extraordinary level of painstakingly validated detail, the tireless and far-reaching gathering and verification of historical facts, the extensive and broad input from various historical sources, along with an unparalleled depth of writing ability, make all of Isaacson's books well worth reading and, as a result, they remain in my personal library.

Where do I begin to review Kissinger: A Biography by Walter Isaacson?

For as long as I can recall, Henry Kissinger has had a larger-than-life presence on the world stage. His international globetrotting, especially during the Nixon and Ford years with his shuttle diplomacy, made him a polarizing figure. Praised and revered by many, yet also reviled and criticized by others.

Walter Isaacson delves into the relationship between this complex man's personality and the foreign policy he pursued. Through extensive research, interviews, and access to Kissinger's private papers and classified memos, Isaacson tells this uniquely American story. It's the story of a young Jewish boy, Heinz Kissinger, persecuted in Furth, Bavaria. His family fled Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, emigrating to America and settling in New York when he was fifteen.

Although Kissinger always maintained that his experience under the Nazi regime had no effect on him, this intimate biography reveals the possible impact on his life and world view.

The Vietnam War was one of the tragic times in American history. As explored in the book, when the Paris accords were reached and American troops finally withdrew in 1973, Kissinger reflected on the ten years since the first American combat troops landed at Da Nang and the twenty years since the French pulled out.

The book also highlights Kissinger's opening of relations with China in February 1972. President Nixon and Kissinger met with Chairman Mao at his home inside the red walls of Beijing's Imperial City. There was even an opera, Nixon in China.

The book, first published in 1992, concludes with Kissinger attempting to explain the relationship between realism and morality at a Paris gathering of Nobel Prize laureates in 1988. Amid attacks on his views, the room fell silent as he spoke of more than a dozen of his relatives killed during the Holocaust, emphasizing his knowledge of the nature of genocide.

This richly textured biography solidifies Henry Kissinger's place as one of the world's great international players.

Lots of information to unpack in this one. I didn't enjoy it as much as Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs. There could be several reasons for this. Maybe I found the subject matter less interesting. Or perhaps, since the events were before my memory, I didn't relate to it as much. It could also be that his writing style improved and developed in the twenty years between the books. More likely, it's a combination of all three.

I knew very little about Kissinger before reading this. Other than the name and that he was influential in politics at some point, I was in the dark. I didn't know he was a Holocaust refugee, which administrations he'd been involved with, or even what his actual position was.

Isaacson appears to make an effort to balance out the opinions of the man Kissinger was. He takes interviews and documentation from both friends and enemies/rivals. Sifting through this information must have been a laborious process. He admits that finding the truth in the reams of documents created by and about the man is very difficult, considering Kissinger's adeptness at creating misleading information. Whether his assessment of the man is accurate, only time will tell. But he seems to have made an attempt to give as honest a perspective as possible. I'm sure historians for decades to come will debate whether he had a positive or negative effect on American and world politics. Most likely, they will decide he was a combination of both, much like Isaacson's assessment.

An exceedingly thorough biography of a very interesting man is presented here. Kissinger's towering intellect, when combined with his charm and wit, made him an incredibly effective diplomat. He was able to navigate the complex world of international relations with a certain finesse. However, on the other hand, his personal insecurity and scheming made him a toxic person to work with. His amoral approach to international relations led to some extremely unfortunate outcomes.

It seems clear that his brilliance, as well as his penchant for realpolitik, was more suited to a world in which leaders are not answerable to their people. His canny maneuvering worked better for navigating the psychology of individual personalities, as opposed to the moods of whole populations. This perhaps explains some of the controversial decisions he made.

Kissinger has led a fascinating life. Although this biography cuts off in the early 90s, I suspect not much could be added, beyond further (probably embarrassing) texture from the declassified Nixon White House tapes. The book is quite long, but the stories of his years of diplomacy require a fair amount of context and elaboration to have much value. So, its length may be necessary to fully understand the complex man and his impact on the world stage.

This is a biography that has not aged well.

As others have pointed out, the author's blatant dislike for Kissinger (and the Nixon administration in general) significantly affects the narration of the major events in Kissinger's life.

This biography, penned in 1992, assumes that the reader is already familiar with Kissinger, the key figures in the Nixon White House, and the major events of the 1960s and 1970s.

Consequently, the author alternates between telling history and providing commentary, expecting the reader to distinguish between the two.

In the author's account, every action taken by Kissinger and the Nixon administration is depicted as a clumsy misstep or a missed opportunity.

Is this accurate? Perhaps. But if that's the case, then why was Kissinger retained in the Ford administration? Why did he have such a strong allure in elite social and political circles? And why does he stand out as one of the most influential bureaucrats in the modern era?

The answers to these questions do not align with the bungling and chaotic image presented of him in this biography.

In brief, I believe this was a biography written for the era (1992) and takes for granted the readers' aversion to the Nixon administration.

However, readers today (2024), especially those with no recollection of these events, should seek elsewhere for an accurate portrayal of the man's life and legacy.

Balanced coverage of the great monster is presented, encompassing his remarkable ascent from a penniless immigrant German Jew to a position of permanent influence in the highest echelons globally. His academic pretentiousness, with the longest-ever thesis at Harvard, and his unceasing efforts at persuasion and sycophancy are also detailed. (It should be noted that Kissinger is perhaps the greatest war criminal in American history.) The facts speak for themselves:

  Whenever peace — conceived as the avoidance of war — has been the primary objective of a power or a group of powers, the international system has been at the mercy of the most ruthless member of the international community. [A more proper goal is] stability based on an equilibrium of forces.
If I had to choose between justice and disorder, on the one hand, and injustice and order, on the other, I would always choose the latter.

Isaacson offers relatively little editorial. He respects Kissinger's single-mindedness and intellectual prowess, while also revealing his egotism and blandly malevolent wonkishness:

  Here was an example of what would become a pattern in Kissinger’s diplomacy: his attempt to mediate a dispute by finding a semantic formulation to finesse differences. In this case it was devising a phrase that linked the bombing halt to the negotiations, without sounding like a condition. Later, at the end of the war, he would search for ambiguous phrases about the demilitarized zone and South Vietnamese sovereignty that could be read differently in Hanoi and Saigon. Sometimes these word games paid off. But usually they opened Kissinger up to accusations that he had left important disagreements unresolved by talking out of both sides of his mouth.
[during the 1970 election, R v N ] At the convention, the Rockefeller forces, with little to lose, sent Kissinger to talk to the Iowa delegation. “It was so novel to me,” he told a reporter at the time. “I’d never met working politicians before. I didn’t attempt to talk their language. I just talked what I knew.” The Iowa delegation voted overwhelmingly for Nixon.

Isaacson downplays the mass chaos and death that Kissinger caused. Moreover, since Isaacson published this, much more has emerged regarding Kissinger's personal responsibility for it. Dr Strangelove wasn't based on Kissinger, but it's impossible not to think of Peter Sellars (or Woody Allen) when reading about the tragic success of this erotomaniacal egomaniac. Hitchens' Trial of Henry Kissinger is far more relevant.

This was an absolutely amazing book.

It contains such amazing detail that I truly thought would have been lost to the passage of time. The writer's work is truly of A+ quality.

The topic of the book was utterly fascinating. It is yet another book that I deeply wish I had read when I was much younger.

I had a strong desire to understand who Kissinger was. Interestingly, both the extreme right and the extreme left view him as a curse and a war criminal. However, in reality, he is far from either of those characterizations. He is simply a man who has responded to the various causes and conditions in his life.

Surprisingly, I find myself somewhat admiring him for his remarkable intelligence, craftiness, deep insight, and vast expertise.

I wholeheartedly recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in becoming a foreign service officer, an intelligence analyst, or a politician. It offers valuable insights and knowledge that can be extremely beneficial in those fields.

Well written, this biography of Henry Kissinger, in my point of view, is to be labeled a "political biography".

The book indeed provides some glimpses into Kissinger's personal life, but the focal point remains his political work and views.

Walter Isaacson offers some astounding background information on political events that took place during Kissinger's tenure in the White House.

Moreover, he throws a very interesting light on Kissinger's personality and his way of handling subordinates, friends, and rivals.

I have always regarded biographies of people who are still alive as some kind of unfinished work. This book is no exception.

Published in 2005 and with Kissinger still alive and well today, the book is compelled to end with an open end.

It leaves the readers with a sense of anticipation, wondering what further developments and contributions Kissinger might make in the future.

Overall, this biography provides a valuable and engaging look into the life and times of one of the most influential political figures of the 20th century.

I truly had a profound affection for this book, and there were numerous reasons for it.

It offered an incredibly detailed and in-depth perspective on historical events, individuals, and decisions. By skillfully weaving together historical records, interviews, and even Kissinger's own explanations about himself and his actions, it painted a vivid and comprehensive picture.

Not only did I glean a wealth of knowledge about the man himself, but also about the era, the wars, the presidents, and much more.

Moreover, it provided some excellent insights into Kissinger and Nixon, highlighting how not to be a leader and serving as warnings for those in positions of power within the government.

Overall, I really relished reading this book and found it to be an enlightening and engaging experience.

If it weren't for the remarkable parallels between our current presidency and that of Richard Nixon, I would have never bothered to pick up this particular piece of work.

To be honest, I have to admit that my interest waned significantly after Nixon was helicoptered away from the White House. In fact, I didn't even manage to read it all the way through to the end.

However, despite my lack of complete engagement, it was truly an eye opener. It shed light on the complex and often hidden machinations that were taking place behind the scenes in foreign relations during that tumultuous period.

It made me realize just how much was happening beneath the surface, and how important it is to have a deeper understanding of the historical context in order to fully appreciate the events that shape our world today.

Isaacson commences the final chapter with a concise extract from Kissinger's personal writing regarding Metternich.

"The reaction against Metternich's complacent self-satisfaction and inflexible conservatism has tended...to assume the form of denying the authenticity of his achievements."

If one has ever attended a political science or international relations class on a liberal college campus, his name is spoken as if it were that of the "boogeyman," or some other sort of monster.

If you have perused any books by Henry Kissinger, such as World Order or On China, you will likely encounter disapproving glances on your university campus or while using public transportation.

As Isaacson details, there are numerous excellent reasons not to be fond of Henry Kissinger.

In this undertaking, Isaacson does not attempt to endear the reader to Kissinger; throughout the text, and predominantly in the epilogue, the author makes a concerted effort to highlight instances where Kissinger's more sinister impulses ultimately served to complicate world affairs and, in certain cases, result in the significant loss of human life.

One lesson that I have gleaned from reading this book, and others similar to it, is that there are few statesmen of Kissinger's caliber who are strictly good or evil.

With reference to Kissinger's own reflections on his idol, Metternich, a figure's reputation and character flaws can overshadow their accomplishments.

In Kissinger's instance, his contributions to American foreign policy are countless.

Although deeply flawed, his reactionary responses to isolated conflicts, viewing them within the context of the Cold War, deprived the Soviet Union of opportunities to project influence, thereby contributing to its downfall.

Simultaneously, Kissinger's excessive reliance on U.S. military force and his ease in courting brutal regimes imposed an enormous human cost on the Cold War.

Even to this day, more than 30 years after Isaacson's biography, no other statesman has remained relevant in terms of both their reputation, notoriety, or assessment of world affairs.

While Kissinger may be loathed by many, there is a reason why he has met with every U.S. President until Joe Biden.

Most books on Kissinger are either hagiographies or indictments; this book is neither.

For this reason alone, it is worthy of a five-star review.

Isaacson's honesty and scholarship further enhance its significance.

The author endeavors to "call it as it is," something that is nearly impossible to achieve when writing about a public figure as polarizing as Kissinger.

Kissinger's critics overlook the fact that he arrived in the United States as a refugee; he lost more than a dozen of his own family members in the Holocaust.

Can one fault Kissinger for pursuing a foreign policy divorced from morality and idealism?

Isaacson contends, whether deliberately or inadvertently, the strengths of a realist approach to foreign policy.

The reader must ask themselves whether they would prefer to live in a world of disorder and moralism, or order and immoralism.

The book, and the subject matter, serve as an ideal arbiter for this debate.