This book is a 1991 biography of Kissinger by Isaacson that was re-released in 2005.

I have been interested in diplomacy and diplomatic history ever since the time when Kissinger first began practicing his craft with Nixon. His life and accomplishments have been chronicled by many, including HK himself. Given his prolific writing and the significance of his tenure, I wondered if there was value in reading Isaacson's bio nearly sixty years after his entry into prominence during the Vietnam War. I believe there is, although it is not an obvious case.

Isaacson's bio is quite good and offers a great deal to think about and reflect upon even today, when the Cold War has ended, the world political order has taken troubling turns, and even the potential for power politics and personal diplomatic brilliance seems, at best, dubious, especially since 2016.

Some issues to consider include: Was Kissinger as skillful as all the accounts suggest? Yes, and the results he was associated with have proven valuable and lasting (to some extent). He would surely tell you that, and others would too.

Was Kissinger indispensable to the Nixon/Ford accomplishments and more important than the other actors? HK certainly thought so, but perhaps not. The presidents were crucial actors. The US counterparts in other nations also contributed to the success, as did the support staff, columnists, and other popularizers. The move away from Maoism by Deng and others has lifted more people out of poverty than the US did, and HK cannot claim that credit. The other leaders had considerable skill of their own.

Besides, the situation/context in which even limited peace was brokered needed to be in line with and conducive to HK's power political strategies. It was helpful to have a Cold War (and to have had WW2) and a generally understood view of the world into which clever US strategies could fit. The fundamental attribution error suggests that it was not just Kissinger and that context really mattered in how US diplomacy played out.

Is Kissinger's legacy still relevant today? Again, tactical details are nice to remember, and self-confidence/arrogance can take individuals a long way, but the world has changed! Balance of power politics/realism suggests a plan of working to restore equilibrium through the resolution of crises in pursuit of national interests. But what if the underlying world system changes such that a very different equilibrium (or even no equilibrium) is reestablished? Could Kissinger's strategies work in a non-ergotic world system?

What does Kissinger's legacy mean in a world of populist governments and executive actors that undermine the State Department and the Intelligence Agencies? What happens when experts are distrusted and vilified while the informational basis of policy is degraded and truth is negotiable?

While Nixon/Kissinger/Ford achieved good results in their foreign policies, is there a risk in glorifying those policies because of their positive outcomes? How does one formulate a US foreign policy today in a fractured yet interconnected world where the importance of physical location can be questioned relative to networked systems that can be hijacked and corrupted? Sure, I have to hope that productive policies are possible, but this is not the same environment in which HK rose to fame.

It would have been beneficial to have more consideration of the consequences of the reemergence of moralism over pragmatism under Reagan and subsequent administrations. The odd inversion of war and politics during the Gulf War under the neocons also deserved some discussion - although the timing on that was not fortunate even given the rerelease. We have just left an administration for which ethics and principles were completely foreign, so just establishing some relationship between power, politics, and principles will be a nice accomplishment for Biden's team. Revisiting the relationship of Kissinger and ethics at any level is likely a step too far right now, but there is always the possibility of hope, right?

Kissinger's notorious neglect of economic issues received little attention in the book, and technological issues would likely join economic ones in a more thorough reevaluation. There is much more to discuss. Isaacson's book is fine as far as it goes, but it prompts more questions today than it did when it was released. His book on Doudna was excellent, but HK presents different intellectual challenges than does gene editing in the time of COVID-19. Still, Isaacson's book is certainly worth a read if you have some free time.

Richard Nixon was a complex figure.

He was short in stature and perhaps insecure within himself. He was known for being a bit of a swinger in his personal life.

Yet, he was also a global power, having significant influence on the world stage. He was a protege of Rockefeller and even coached Donald Rumsfeld.

His strategy was to find the best player and partner, but when it came to the Watergate scandal, it's not entirely clear who actually gave the call.

He was so preoccupied with leaks that one could argue he was a master of the Machiavellian strategy in both domestic and global diplomacy.

Overall, Nixon's presidency was filled with contradictions and mysteries that continue to fascinate and intrigue historians and the public alike.

If Henry Kissinger were a literary character created by George R.R. Martin or Joe Abercrombie, he would surely be a favorite among readers. A diabolical, intelligent, charming, witty, but also self-interested and completely amoral figure - just like Lord Littlefinger from Game of Thrones. Unfortunately, fate had it that Kissinger was not born in the imagination of any writer dabbling in fantasy, but in Fürth, Germany in 1923. Moreover, he conducted the foreign policy of the greatest power of the 20th century.

The biography itself is okay, but for me it is too American-centric. I also felt that there was a bit of a lack of a summary of Kissinger's legacy - the long-term effects of his policies (which to some extent explains the fact that the book was published in the 1990s when he was still active professionally). Otherwise, as with Isaacson, it is accurate, in places detailed, but reads well and easily. And the Polish edition (Zyski i S-ka) is a masterpiece.

Does this book really need to be this long?? Well, in a way, the answer is yes. There is a vast amount of ground to cover.

Isaacson does an outstanding job of piecing together all the diverse and often contradictory versions of events in Kissinger's career, which were all crucial events in American foreign affairs, into a coherent narrative. The reader truly gets a sense of how duplicitous and deceiving Kissinger could be, and yet how essential these qualities were to his success. Nixon and Kissinger, oddly similar in their paranoia and penchant for subterfuge, accomplished some remarkable things not despite their character flaws but in a sense because of them. The bureaucracy at State and Defense would never have provided the impetus to make fundamental policy changes regarding Russia, China, or Vietnam. The book does seem long as Isaacson takes great pains to document all the details of their conspiracies. However, the greater point is well worth it: given the opportunity, Kissinger always opted for the more secretive, complicated, and conspiratorial path, often to his own detriment.

Telling Kissinger's story necessitates making judgments, and Isaacson does an excellent job. He does not shy away from describing morally questionable behavior but ensures to show how complex the context often was. Central to his thought and actions is his European background. This individual at the heart of American history was, in an important sense, not of our kind. His thinking was firmly realist in a country deeply infused with the belief that our morality must drive our foreign policy. The Wilsonian impulse has been both America's great strength and weakness. In Kissinger's era, the US achieved some remarkable feats when policy was driven by realism, but Americans still remain deeply uneasy with these successes.

Rereading this after 15 years was a captivating experience. I was struck then by Kissinger's certainty even at a young age. I was in awe of his 350-page senior thesis, "The Meaning of History," and always remembered these lines: "In the life of every person there comes a point when he realizes that out of all the seemingly limitless possibilities of his youth he has in fact become one actuality...No longer is life a broad plain with forests and mountains beckoning all around, but it becomes apparent that one's journey across the meadows has indeed followed a regular path, that one can no longer go this way or that." "The desire to reconcile an experience of freedom with a determined environment is the lament of poetry and the dilemma of philosophy."

This is an excellent biography of one of America's most renowned and controversial leaders.

He was an immigrant who managed to become an ultimate insider, yet, as those around him claimed, he always remained insecure. He was a refugee who always adhered to a fiercely pragmatic approach. A genius with words, he utilized that talent to seemingly be on everyone's side, although in the process, he earned plenty of haters from both camps.

Isaacson had extraordinary access to the protagonist and many others, which makes this story read more like a current issue of a political magazine rather than a dull retrospective on such a significant American figure. Isaacson aimed to write from a neutral perspective. While achieving complete neutrality is impossible, he did come quite close.

I'll need to ponder over the book for a while to form new opinions on Kissinger. Remarkably, 25 years after the book was written (at the "end" of his career), Kissinger still remains relevant. It's a remarkable story, regardless of how one views him or his policies and their impact on our modern world.

By the way, it's a long book. The audiobook lasts for 34 hours.

Here lies the review of the unfinished audiobook regarding Kissenger. The author boldly claims that his tome offers an objective account of Kissenger’s life and politics. However, he then proceeds to lament Kissenger’s supposed dislike of the book.

I was initially quite surprised by this, as the beginning of the audiobook is simply excellent. In clear and precise prose, Isaacson vividly describes the events and emotional turmoil of escaping Nazi Germany. The portrayal of being both brilliant and an outcast is truly outstanding. He effectively shows just how difficult it is to be driven out from one's homeland and forced to forge a new identity. I was deeply moved and inspired by this part of the narrative.

Then, unfortunately, the book takes a complete turn. After demonstrating his command of the English language, Isaacson seemingly turns his gift into a weapon. For endless sequences, he seems to revel in all the different ways he can paint Kissenger in a negative light, reducing him to a caricature. After a few hours of this, the once complex human being that was Kissenger is stamped down into a mere cartoon. And through this, we begin to understand the true nature of politics.

I haven't read Isaacson’s other books, and I have no doubt they're well-written. However, based on this experience, I can no longer trust him as an objective biographer. I am perhaps too young and too far removed from the events described to know the absolute truth. But I can easily recognize the voice of petty office gossip. Despite my genuine interest in the history, I grew tired of Isaacson’s constant sniping and ultimately put the book down.

Henry

"Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac."

Henry Kissinger, the US Secretary of State from 1973 to 1977, first under President Richard Nixon's administration and later under Gerald Ford's, was previously a national security advisor. A German-American politician and diplomat of Jewish origin, he fled with his family from Nazi Germany to the US in 1938 and obtained American citizenship in 1943.

"(...)what it means to be an American. I wrote that(...) in my opinion, it is a country where one can walk across the street with one's head held high."

He is a rather controversial figure. Considered by some as the best US Secretary of State in the country's history, and by others as a war criminal. After reading his biography, he appears to me as not a very pleasant, false, multi-faceted person. As he himself admitted, power was the best aphrodisiac for him, and it was the most important thing. He was distrustful, suspicious, even paranoid, insecure, a manipulator who was always playing some kind of game. He wanted to be admired, noticed, and win the favor of everyone, even enemies. He was a chameleon who told everyone something different, taking on a certain face like a mask according to the situation. When reading, I had in front of my eyes the character Arkadiusz Czerepach from the TV series "Ranczo". Those who have seen the series will understand my association. Kissinger's character is not likable and arouses many emotions, but in my case, they are not positive emotions.

This is Kissinger's biography, a proponent of realpolitik, one of the creators of the policy of détente. But the author in this monumental publication does not focus only on Kissinger himself. We also get a lot of American history here, about Nixon's presidency, and the people in his administration, the environment and the most important events of those times such as the war in Vietnam, relations with the USSR, Israel, China, the invasion of Cambodia, the attempts to overthrow the inconvenient for the US president of Chile, Salvador Allende, the Watergate scandal, the crisis in the Middle East, the crisis in Jordan, in which Kissinger is a participant, more or less active. It also presents the behind-the-scenes machinations of politicians, the world of diplomacy, politics and its lights and shadows.

Kissinger is certainly an interesting publication, but it is not an easy book to read, both physically and intellectually. The huge number of names, events, and situations that the reader is thrown into can overwhelm and discourage further reading. I think that for someone who is at least somewhat interested in politics, especially American politics and history, reading Kissinger's biography will be easier and they will find it better. It is a source-rich, well-written biography, as evidenced by the rich bibliography and numerous footnotes. The author has written it in an accessible language, thanks to which one can read this biography without feeling the boredom of science. It is not a reading for everyone, but if you are interested in the profiles of famous, controversial figures from the world of politics, international diplomacy, American history, and history itself, then reach for it and read. If not, then skip this reading, unless you are curious about the world, brave, and ready for challenges, then also reach for it and read, just like me. Because I was not particularly interested in politics or America, but I read the entire biography of Kissinger and I am proud of myself. And the knowledge I gained thanks to this reading is already mine, and it is important that books also teach us something from time to time, not just entertain us.

Finally, it is worth noting the beautiful and solid edition of this publication, a hardcover, thin paper, such as one finds in albums or encyclopedias. I don't know about you, but it very much suits my taste in paper. The only small drawback is the color of the cover, white, because it gets very dirty when you hold the book in your hands, especially now in summer when it's hot and your hands sweat. But this is only a small minus that does not detract from the shine of this edition.

Thank you to the publisher Zysk i S-ka for the copy for review.

I had no inkling of who Kissinger was when I embarked on this book. Nor did I have any idea of the enormity of the book itself. However, having relished this author's biography of Steve Jobs, I thought I'd give this one a go as well. Oh, the wealth of great history it contains! The majority of the action unfolds during the Nixon administration when Kissinger served as Secretary of State. I learned an abundance about the Vietnam War, about which my knowledge was lamentably lacking. Kissinger's ascent is truly impressive. From being a German immigrant, fleeing Nazi Germany as a teenager, he rose to become a high-level American statesman within the President's inner circle. He was an intriguing individual and an extremely effective negotiator, constantly treading the fine line between diplomacy and duplicity. This is a captivating book, especially for aficionados of American history and politics.

Took me a while to finish this one. Since this book is about Kissinger, it's rather challenging to pen an impartial account of all the aspects surrounding him. This is my first book on Kissinger, and I truly admired Isaacson's portrayal of events. Throughout the book, I had the sense that he was carefully considering when to concur or dissent with Kissinger's actions, striving to distill the psychological enigmas transpiring in Kissinger's mind. I can assert with confidence that this book endeavors very hard to assess Kissinger's political and personal life, with respect, balance, context, and truth as the prime objectives.

My principal takeaways regarding Kissinger's personality are that he was a realist. He comprehended that all decisions have both winners and losers. Occupying a position of power compels one to make decisions that will give rise to inequality and suffering if one deems it to be for the greater good. Between the lines, the book highlights that he perhaps did not value human life as highly as one might anticipate, and that led him to prolong conflicts longer than they ought to have been. However, he was probably doing so with the sincere belief that he thought he was doing the greater good in the long run.

His obsessive penchant for secrecy was indeed something of great interest. He constantly evaded bureaucracy, which enabled him to leap through some hoops in secrecy, which is rather concerning. At the same time, he had an astonishing talent for converting his critics, perhaps causing him to contemplate what others thought about various topics and put himself in other people's shoes. Kissinger was not overly afraid of acknowledging his failures once they occurred, but he was also not an easy person to deal with. Stubborn and short-tempered, he would constantly engage in altercations with people in government, academia, and the media, surprisingly always emerging victorious.

His genius was indisputable. Virtually everyone who met him concurred that this German-American citizen was among the most creative, meticulous, and prodigious public figures the United States has ever witnessed. Those traits, combined with his ego and difficult personality, made him the most famous person in the United States and among the most renowned in the world. He will always exist as a controversial figure, but never forget that this man was a genius who made both good and bad decisions.

Audiobook.

Semantic solutions and the art of talking out of both sides of one's mouth.

The "Nixon" question: Can one work without losing one's soul to make things better?
--Kissinger believed he was saving the world from Nixon.
--- He also opposed the state department bureaucracy, which was sometimes necessary but had bad long-run effects.

It's incredible how conniving and awful Nixon was. Huge decisions were made while he was drinking or without any meaningful consultation.

Laird (defense) and Rogers (state) were cut out of the Cambodia decisions.

Haig was pragmatic, dutiful, but not brilliant.
-- He had no intellectual respect.
-- He made fun of people behind their backs.

The fear of leaks was worse than the leaks themselves.

The Chilean coup in 1973.

The Pentagon Papers in 1971.

The invasion of Cambodia in 1970.

The Cambodian genocide from 1975-1979.

Ping pong diplomacy.

The opening to China in 1971.
--This screwed over Japan.

Being a celebrity translates to power.

Kissinger dated a lot of women but never had sex with them.

The India/Pakistan - Blood Telegram in 1971.

Haig started taking over power for Kissinger, and Nixon was resentful of Kissinger.

Haldeman - Henry handling committee.
Ehlichman - Henry handling committee.

Kissinger messed up "peace is at hand" in Vietnam. He accepted terms from the north before telling the south, but the south refused right before the re-election.

The Yom Kippur war in 1973 - same time as the Saturday night massacre. Kissinger negotiated almost entirely by himself without Nixon's approval.

As the head of the State Dept, he was a bad manager but a great negotiator. Linkages, shuttle diplomacy, and a good image (highest "approval - disapproval" of any official by far). He was relentless in asking: "What are your alternatives?"

He made foreign policy exciting to the general public.

He got along with Ford, who accepted him as smarter.

Scoop Jackson was actually kind of a political hack, and Kissinger's style didn't solve the Israeli immigration issue.

Support for the Shah was dumb, but he thought the US should have stood by him.

Nancy McGinnis - the "WASP ideal" for a wife - ingratiated him to the Hollywood / NY fashion social scene.

In 1975, Angola.

Moynihan went against detente.

The Lusaka speech in 1976 - Standing against white rule with a political cost in the south.

Ford abandoned detente in light of Reagan's challenges, and Kissinger became an albatross for his pessimism.

Conclusion / Personality overview
"Order and injustice > justice and disorder".
Life involves suffering.
The compulsion to get approval.
Seeing connections everywhere (linkages but also conspiracies).
Total insecurity.
The soul of a refugee - the need to ingratiate - he wanted to be liked.
Thin-skinned.
A reputation for duplicity.
Too dismissive of morality: Cambodia, Hanoi, Chile.

Great read.

This is truly an excellent piece of writing that offers a captivating and engaging experience for the reader.

The content is presented in a clear and concise manner, making it easy to understand and follow.

It covers a wide range of topics, providing valuable insights and perspectives that are both thought-provoking and informative.

The author's writing style is engaging and draws the reader in from the very beginning, keeping them hooked until the end.

Whether you are looking for entertainment, knowledge, or inspiration, this article has something to offer.

It is a must-read for anyone who enjoys good literature and wants to expand their horizons.

So, sit back, relax, and enjoy this great read.

Another superb biography from Isaacson.

I firmly believe that if AI could ever attain a general intelligence sufficient to manage a country's foreign policy, it might very well behave in a manner similar to Kissinger. His foreign policy is renowned for its remarkable brilliance and flexibility. However, his alleged lack of moral scruples can be rather disturbing at times.

His crowning achievements are undeniably his efforts in rapprochement with China and in handling the Middle East situation during the Yom Kippur War. The way he skillfully managed to isolate the Soviet Union from its support of Arab countries while simultaneously ensuring that the Arab countries did not lose too much face by preventing an overly dominant Israeli victory is truly a masterclass in diplomacy.

Moreover, I think it is unjust to solely blame Kissinger for his perceived faults, such as his role in delaying the Vietnam War or his acceptance of Suharto's government's invasion of East Timor. When analyzing the actions of a policymaker at his level, one must consider the broader context, which in this case was the Cold War. We have to take into account the very real possibility of Communist domination or, even worse, political chaos, which could have cost countless more lives.

Isaacson also meticulously chronicled Kissinger's infamous double face, his manipulative tendencies, and his thin skin. At times, the abundance of details can be overwhelming, but overall, it is a truly great biography that offers valuable insights into the complex mind of a significant historical figure.