As an avid reader of geopolitics and a fan of Walter Isaacson’s biographies, I find myself rather disappointed to report that the Kissinger biography was a bit of a drag.

Despite being at the intersection of two worlds that I thoroughly enjoy, namely geopolitics and the engaging style of Isaacson's biographies, this particular work failed to live up to my expectations.

The book was unnecessarily long and overly detailed, which unfortunately prevented it from ever really gaining the kind of momentum that we see in Isaacson’s other remarkable works.

To put this into context, I have rated Steve Jobs a full 5 stars, and also gave 4 stars to The Code Breaker, Einstein, and Elon Musk.

These previous works had a certain charm and pacing that kept me hooked from start to finish, but the Kissinger biography just didn't quite have that same magic.

It's a shame really, as the subject matter of Kissinger's life and his impact on geopolitics is truly fascinating.

Perhaps with a bit more editing and a tighter focus, this could have been a great biography.

But as it stands, it falls short of the high standards set by Isaacson's other excellent works.

I've been delving into Kissinger books since 2017. As an individual who has been extremely curious about the newly emerging powerhouse China, about the complex web of international relations, and about the delicate balance of power, I discover that his writings are truly profound and thought-provoking.

This particular book offers an in-depth exploration of Kissinger both as a private individual and as a prominent politician. It vividly portrays his personality, which is described as a "mixture of charm and seduction, flattery and duplicity." His approach to Foreign Affairs is a subject of intense debate. Critics view it as cold, calculating, manipulative, and morally flawed, while his supporters praise it as creative and innovative. The book also delves into his relationship with Nixon, which is characterized as "never personal friends, always a complex mix of wariness and codependency." Moreover, it highlights Kissinger's tremendous fame in Washington even after his retirement, perhaps being the only one relatively untouched by the Watergate scandal.

Walter Isaacson indeed knows how to pen a captivating biography. I can vividly envision Kissinger's face filled with disappointment when he realizes that this book serves as a vindication of history rather than a long-winded celebration of his achievements.

Henry Kissinger was truly a remarkable figure, having a life filled with enough achievements for three or four highly successful individuals.

He began as a tenured professor at Harvard, then went on to serve as the Secretary of State, and later became a private citizen involved in million-dollar deals between American companies and foreign nations.

It is true that in foreign policy, he had his share of missteps. There was the secret bombing and subsequent invasion of Cambodia, the costly and bloody effort to prop up Saigon's government which ultimately fell a few years later, and the unwise actions in Peru. However, it seems to me that most foreign policies, in most countries, throughout most of history, are often marked by folly. Diplomacy is indeed one of the most difficult professions in the world.

Nevertheless, his career has many notable accomplishments. He skillfully triangulated between China and the Soviet Union, brought the Middle East closer to peace, and for the first time in the Cold War, slowed down the arms race. These are all significant achievements.

Kissinger had a European's cynicism. While Woodrow Wilson believed that America's role was to "make the world safe for democracy," Kissinger tended to think that America's role was simply to make the world safe. Maybe his realpolitik was appropriate for the moment. Perhaps he prevented Vietnam-scarred America from swinging back to isolationism, as it did after World War I and as it seems to be doing today.

However, as Isaacson argues, Kissinger may have missed an important aspect of the United States. At its best, America is not just a stabilizer of the world but the hope of the world. If America becomes nonchalant about human rights and freedom, then why should it succeed and its enemies fail?

Throughout his life, Kissinger touchingly described the United States as a place where one can walk across the street with confidence. He himself arrived as a refugee from Nazi Germany and look at what he became and what he achieved. The cynical, scheming, brilliant statesman - what a great country that can claim him as one of its own.

When I embarked on this book that would consume more than 35 hours of my time, I never in my wildest dreams imagined that I would reach its conclusion. I was initially drawn in by the captivating account of the WW2 years. Then, I became utterly fascinated by his transitions from the military to academia and finally to government. The tales of Vietnam and Watergate further enthralled me, and yet we were only halfway through!

It brought to mind Tony Fauci's memoir (On Call). You begin reading with the intention of learning what he has to say about a particular period, only to discover that the subject was embroiled in so many major events that by the time you're halfway through, you still haven't reached the most famous one that piqued your interest in the first place!

In the end, I completed the book because I relished the opportunity to revisit the 70s with an outstanding narrator. I finally gained insights into the political events of the 60s - 70s that my parents had lived through but which I had never heard about in school. Moreover, I was curious to see how Henry's approach to life, so vastly different from my own, would play out.

Isaacson does not shy away from highlighting Kissinger's flaws. I never developed a liking for Kissinger throughout the book. However, I did find him utterly fascinating, and there was a certain guilty pleasure in observing how his dramatic character flaws eventually caught up with him. It serves as a comprehensive case study in leadership, foreign policy, and egocentrism. And in some respects, it made the current political landscape seem less bleak. Bad as it may be now, I could suddenly envision how much worse it was in the past. If we managed to survive Nixon, I suppose we can endure ____.

I would highly recommend this book as a clear-sighted perspective into a distinct yet relevant era of American history. It is long, but it is precisely the length and depth that make it truly great. It doesn't attempt to simplify every subject matter or reduce people to one-dimensional good guys or bad guys. Isaacson takes the time to point out the subtleties of each situation and how they can be interpreted in various ways. In an era dominated by soundbites and fake news, this kind of factual depth and neutrality is not only refreshing but also highly instructive.

The Nixon administration can be likened to a junior high school environment.

There were all sorts of dramas and power struggles going on.

It was a time of great upheaval and change, with policies being debated and decisions being made that would have far-reaching consequences.

However, despite the chaos and confusion, I was able to learn a great deal of details that I had previously been unaware of.

It was like uncovering a hidden world of political machinations and behind-the-scenes dealings.

Through my research, I came to understand the complex web of relationships and interests that influenced the actions of the Nixon administration.

It was a fascinating and eye-opening experience that has given me a new perspective on this important period in American history.

Overall, while the Nixon administration may have seemed like a bit of a mess at times, it was also a rich and fertile ground for learning and discovery.

It is truly a challenge to briefly review this book, which, despite being unnecessarily lengthy, is still fascinating. Given the nature of the subject, one couldn't realistically expect it to be short. However, the writing could have been more concise, especially when it comes to certain issues, such as those related to Vietnam, where there is a fair amount of repetition. Additionally, following the narrative can sometimes be difficult, as the author has a tendency to return to previously discussed times or matters to add minor details.

That being said, Isaacson is an outstanding biographies writer, and this work is no exception. The book is impeccably well-documented and beautifully written (apart from the repetitive sections). He manages to effectively construct the persona behind the character. Kissinger evolves from being the bookish son of a Jewish teacher in Nazi Germany to becoming the influential Secretary of State and a key player in the Cold War and the foreign policy of the USA. It is also commendable that Isaacson takes the time to provide sufficient context information to help the reader understand the complexities underlying the story. He often includes many human and personal details that assist in comprehending the intricacies of the situations being described. This is particularly useful for those who did not live through those times or are not well-versed in the history of the USA, like myself.

One aspect that I would have liked to read more about was Kissinger's relationship with his family. In particular, his mother, who appears to have been a dominant figure in his early life and perhaps even in his later years after leaving office. How his siblings interacted with him and his success, as well as many other details that would have helped to complete the subject's profile.

In conclusion, Isaacson has succeeded in writing about a polarizing figure and presenting him fairly. He has included both the good and the bad, allowing the reader to form their own judgment. This is precisely what every biography writer should strive for when penning this type of book.

A thorough exploration (which, in my opinion, is rather long) into the person and his politics.

The focus is, of course, on the details of his time in Nixon's White House, with a particular emphasis on his role in the Vietnam War. However, there is also a wealth of additional detail in other areas.

I was always aware of the person. By the time I became conscious of him, he was a TV commentator. For some reason, he was also memorably a source of book quotes for a middle school report on Vietnam. But I didn't have the context for why he seemed so highly regarded.

I think the book has helped me understand some of his genius. It has also shown me why he is probably the dead-center target of Dylan's "Masters of War."

Perhaps this in-depth look at his life and actions will provide a more comprehensive understanding of his significance and the impact he had on both the political and cultural landscapes of that era.

It is important to consider all aspects of his story to truly appreciate the complexity of the man and his place in history.

The well-written account of a public life offers a refreshing look into the petty foibles of a great man.

Despite the fact that the rest of his career and achievements are retold with balance, it is still fascinating to learn about these small flaws.

For example, Kissinger's insistence on re-writes without actually reading the drafts by his aides makes one wonder if he treated his graduate students in the same manner.

Another interesting story is how Kissinger, the great political manipulator, met his match in Melvin Laird.

Who now remembers Laird? This is a story that is well worth retelling.

Kissinger went on to achieve great heights as a pundit, but it is his service to his country as Secretary of State and as National Security Advisor that he is remembered for.

This book records and honors that service, providing a valuable insight into his life and career.

What do we make of Henry Kissinger?

His has many strengths that are admirable, yet not enviable. His weaknesses, on the other hand, are terrible. If someone told me they thought the world was better for having Kissinger in it, that would be the opening to a reasonable conversation. However, if they told me they aspired to be like Henry Kissinger, I would get as far away from that person as humanly possible.

And I think that's the essence of what I've spent the past two weeks thinking about, regarding Kissinger. Any individual should obviously seek to avoid being like Kissinger - temperamental, power-hungry, charismatic, manipulative, and self-centered. This is a person to avoid. But also a person, at least in the twentieth century, destined for success. These personality traits helped him attain the power he so badly desired. And so we find the ranks of the powerful full of such folks, some of whom have had biographies written about them.

The challenge with Kissinger, though, is that his personality embodies an approach to geopolitics. An approach that arguably worked, although history does not permit counter-factuals. He normalized relations with China, enabled détente and ABM treaties with the USSR, and made peace several times in the Middle East.

His approach emphasizes realpolitik and the balance of power. It is both unfamiliar and uncomfortable to most Americans. We tend to view our international incursions through an idealistic lens rather than a pragmatic one. His personality supports this approach: conspiratorial, cunning, pragmatic, and manipulative. He is arguably anti-democratic: He prefers to make decisions alone in a room with his counterpart, rather than subject himself to the bureaucratic and legislative processes inherent to a democracy.

So what do we make of this guy?

I think it's most helpful to break the question down into four pieces:

1) Should American diplomacy rely more heavily on realpolitik as opposed to ideological bases for action?

Treated in isolation, this one seems like a given. American foreign policy no longer exists in an isolationist vacuum. We need a means to pursue narrow self-interest as part of international negotiation. The question here is not whether I agree with Kissinger's impulse - America's insistence on ideological superiority in foreign affairs can be at best cartoonish and at worst inhibitory toward the participation of other countries, who also think highly of themselves. The question is one of magnitude - how much is appropriate? And how do we tie those actions to democratic engagement and support? Neither of these are questions that are easy to answer.

2) Does (1) require Kissinger's work to usurp the democratic process and the proper functioning of the bureaucracy (e.g., usurping the power of the Sec of State, leaving the Defense Dept bureaucracy out of SALT negotiations)?

Here we reach the point in Kissinger's premise where his personality starts to work against him. It is one thing to say we should permit our diplomatic leaders to use realpolitik to bring about the SALT negotiations. But Kissinger does not know when to stop. He excludes subject matter experts from these negotiations, in the name of giving himself a free hand to win a diplomatic victory. The result? An unworkable deal in which Americans won points they did not need and lost points they desperately did need.

It will always be difficult to marry the sort of free-wheeling diplomat who can really exert international pressure with the sort of structured bureaucracy that can fully analyze a complex situation and determine the best course of action. Kissinger utterly failed at the latter. It is not a failure implicit to his theory of international relations, it is a failure of his personality in executing that approach.

3) Does (1) require Kissinger's reliance on deceit, manipulation, and extra-legal solutions (e.g., invading Cambodia without congressional oversight, wire-tapping innocent citizens without a warrant)?

Here the answer is more obvious. Kissinger veers into authoritarianism and police state actions. His personal desire for secrecy, not a professional need for realpolitik, begins to animate his actions. Power, noted by Kissinger for its uses as an aphrodisiac, here takes on its more familiar role as a corrupting agent. In a fully functioning democracy, I find it hard to believe Kissinger would not have faced inquiries and possible criminal sentencing for his actions in this category.

4) Does the totality of Kissinger's approach have unintended consequences, as counterparties eventually come to expect?

My lack of subject matter expertise hinders my ability to speculate here. But I suspect, after traveling on this 760-page journey with Isaacson, I strongly suspect that there is something ephemeral in Kissinger's success in foreign relations. It worked because American power was unmatched and it was trusted by many countries of the world. American diplomats had never behaved like Kissinger, lying to both sides of a negotiation, keeping Congress and its own populace in the dark. Once countries came to expect this behavior, which perhaps they now do, I suppose it might be less effective.

A final note. Kissinger famously blames the influence of Nixon's administration for some of his worst actions. "It would have been different under Rockefeller," referring to the Moderate Republican who was Nixon's primary rival for the Presidency. Here Kissinger implicates himself as a failure in an important test of human decency. When a capable, intelligent person places themselves under the service of evil, they are guilty of more than the evil they do. They are guilty of creating the means by which their leader perpetrated his or her evil. Kissinger cannot escape his actions by blaming them on the President he happened to serve. Rather he actively decided to serve that President, he actively enabled Nixon's actions, and he actively perpetrated his own.

Contrast this to Alan Greenspan, who famously saw Nixon up close, declined to participate in his administration, and then went on to make his mark on the world in future administrations.

"Initially impressed by Nixon's intelligence, Greenspan became turned off after attending a meeting with advisers during which Nixon discussed "how the Democrats were the enemy" in a profanity-laden discussion that "would have made Tony Soprano blush." When asked to join the administration after the election, Greenspan declined."

And this I feel is the lesson I draw from the book. Don't do what Kissinger did - grasp at power under whatever circumstances it is offered to you. Have the self-respect to impose limits upon the leader you are willing to serve - and if the leader is unfit, you ought to find another way to spend your time. I cannot conclude whether the world is better off with or without a Kissinger, but it would be a much better place if Kissinger's could stop themselves from serving Nixon's.

The closest I can come to an answer to my first question is to propose that I do not believe Kissingers can stop themselves from serving Nixons. It's who he is. Perhaps it would have been different under Rockefeller.

I bit off a lot more than I wanted to chew with this one, but I'm glad I did.

I not only learned about Kissinger, but also discovered a wealth of fascinating historical events from the 70s that were completely new to me.

These included both the major events of the time and some lesser-known ones that provided a more comprehensive understanding of that era.

Moreover, I feel like I'm finally starting to understand the complex nature of Nixon and the factors that shaped his actions and decisions.

After finishing, I delved deeper into Kissinger's views on current political events. It's quite remarkable that at his age, he still has such incisive opinions on the motives and reasons behind the actions of individuals and nations alike.

His insights offer a unique perspective and add another layer of depth to my understanding of the political landscape.

Overall, this exploration has been a truly enriching experience, broadening my knowledge and enhancing my appreciation for the intricate web of history and politics.

This was truly phenomenal. I initially almost hesitated to read it because the ratings here were so divided. However, now it all makes perfect sense.

I must admit that I didn't have much of an opinion on Kissinger before picking up this book. Other than knowing that he was this rather strange hawkish German guy (who, as it turned out, was Jewish!), and that he had something to do with Vietnam. But Isaacson's books are always amazing, so I thought it would be well worth the read.

And boy, was it! After reading it, I can say that I believe Isaacson did manage to remain neutral, with virtually no editorializing at all. I think a lot of the reviews here, especially the 1-star reviews, are bringing their own interpretations of Kissinger and getting angry that Isaacson doesn't play up any of the tropes they were expecting.

The majority of the book takes place during the Vietnam era, and this is understandable as this was the period when Kissinger was most influential. I had no idea that he requested FBI wiretaps on his coworkers in the White House and fed Nixon's paranoia, which ultimately led to the creation of The Plumbers and thence to Watergate. It's incredible how Kissinger managed to avoid jail time or even getting fired. It's also really fascinating to see how highly regarded he was back in the 60s - 70s, before fading from the limelight in the 80s. Most people today probably don't know much about him, including me before reading this book.

I recently watched Oliver Stone's Nixon, which features Kissinger (played extremely well by Paul Sorvino), and that made me want to learn more about both men. John A. Farrell's "Nixon: A Life" is just as detailed as Isaacson's, although I would argue that Isaacson had the more difficult task as foreign policy isn't exactly thrilling reading for most people.

One of the most astonishing aspects of this book was learning how much of a playboy he was with Hollywood stars. Not necessarily that he slept with any of them, but it's interesting that he capitalized on his fame to mingle in the elite circles of movie stars. Go figure. Oh, and that he had a crazy and awful diet and once ate three trays of danishes at a meeting in Russia. The meeting didn't end until after midnight, so dinner had been canceled and everyone went to bed hungry except him.

The other most surprising thing was that the dude is STILL ALIVE at the time of writing this.

The last Isaacson biography on my list, and by far the longest one. I embarked on this book with very limited knowledge about Kissinger or his work. He is one of those household names that your parents are bound to know a great deal about, but you might not (if you happen to be my age).

This painstaking account of his foreign affairs offers a history lesson from a truly unique perspective. The Machiavellian nature of Nixon's administration is endlessly fascinating.

Isaacson is unrivaled in providing a complete character description of complex men, encompassing all their contradictions. Kissinger is indeed a man full of contradictions.

These contradictions manifest not only in his arrogance and insecurity. They are also evident in his realpolitik practices, which are often accused of being inhumane and stem from a profound pessimism resulting from his upbringing as a Jew in Nazi Germany. This book is perhaps the best account for understanding the subtleties of his villainized policies in various conflicts, including the bombing of Cambodia. It delves deep into the motives, the context, and the consequences, offering a comprehensive and thought-provoking exploration of one of the most influential figures in modern history.