Stephen's Reviews > The Trial of Henry Kissinger
The Trial of Henry Kissinger
by
by
Stephen's review
bookshelves: biographies, non-fiction, 2000-2005, conspiracies-and-weird-science
Mar 21, 2010
bookshelves: biographies, non-fiction, 2000-2005, conspiracies-and-weird-science
1.5 stars. This was a very frustrating book to read. In each of the chapters (except chapter 8 on East Timor), Hitchens makes his allegations against Kissenger and then proceeds to layout a seeming plethora of information to support the allegations.The problem is, the information presented does not confirm or, in the case of the Kissenger's alleged involvement in the murder of Greek journalist Elias Demetracopoulos, even support the allegations made. I kept finding myself saying "ok, then what...finish the argument." He never did. It was like 2 out of 3 parts of a syllogism that was never completed.
In my opinion, the one exception to this lack of "closing the logical argument" occurred in Chapter 8 dealing with the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia. Here I think hitchens makes a credible case to support his allegations that Kissenger knew about the invasion of East Timor before it happened and was actively against to any action by the U.S. in opposition to the invasion. That said, even though the incident certainly confirms the commonly held opinion of Kissenger as a cold, calculating practitioner of realpolitik , if Kissenger's actions in that matter constitute war crimes then you would likely have to include many other U.S. administrations including both Bill Clinton's for the atrocities committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia and Reagan's administration for its support of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980s despite what they knew he was doing to his own people (i.e. the Kurds). I am just not willing to go that far even when the actions, on their face appear to lack a moral center.
Don't get me wrong, Kissenger may have done everything he is alleged to have done in this book and, if true, he should certainly be held accountable. I just did not see the evidence presented in this book.
In my opinion, the one exception to this lack of "closing the logical argument" occurred in Chapter 8 dealing with the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia. Here I think hitchens makes a credible case to support his allegations that Kissenger knew about the invasion of East Timor before it happened and was actively against to any action by the U.S. in opposition to the invasion. That said, even though the incident certainly confirms the commonly held opinion of Kissenger as a cold, calculating practitioner of realpolitik , if Kissenger's actions in that matter constitute war crimes then you would likely have to include many other U.S. administrations including both Bill Clinton's for the atrocities committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia and Reagan's administration for its support of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980s despite what they knew he was doing to his own people (i.e. the Kurds). I am just not willing to go that far even when the actions, on their face appear to lack a moral center.
Don't get me wrong, Kissenger may have done everything he is alleged to have done in this book and, if true, he should certainly be held accountable. I just did not see the evidence presented in this book.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Trial of Henry Kissinger.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
March 21, 2010
– Shelved
April 30, 2010
–
Started Reading
May 1, 2010
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-5 of 5 (5 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jayanth
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Aug 23, 2016 04:19AM
We shall wait for the private papers (if they haven't been destroyed already) to be declassified, or they should be subpoenaed to make the comprehensive case.
reply
|
flag
At the time that CH was writing - as pointed out by Niall Ferguson - a tremendous amount of primary sources about the Nixon and Kissinger administration were released. Despite this fact, it appears that CH thought it would be best to only cite 10 primary sources in the entire book - which is nothing - and that is the biggest problem with this book; CH decided to make a lot of claims about Kissinger without bothering to present primary evidence.
"... if Kissenger's actions in that matter constitute war crimes then you would likely have to include many other U.S. administrations including both Bill Clinton's for the atrocities committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia and Reagan's administration for its support of Saddam Hussein ..."
And if this were the case? If American exceptionalism is just one war criminal after another?
And if this were the case? If American exceptionalism is just one war criminal after another?



