Libertarians On Kissinger?

I know volumes have been written on Kissinger. I'm trying to find if mises.org or other libertarian forms have addressed him at length.

I can't say Kissinger is liberal. He hugged Mao Zedong and said that China looked nice during the cultural revolution...

 

If we are picking large political figures in the modern era, which are not often mentioned as liberal, then I offer Menahem Begin as a creative choice of interesting subject.

 

Edit: Kissinger is mentioned in one of my books written by Chinese libertarian who was in prison, and she really dislikes him.

I understand Netanyahu is denationalizing everything in sight.

Jeremiah Dyke:

Original Thread Title: Libertarians on Kissinger

A picture says just the right amount of words:

Venture bros ftw

Nitroadict:

Jeremiah Dyke:

Original Thread Title: Libertarians on Kissinger

A picture says just the right amount of words:

 

Come on people, he had a role in defusing that whole cold-war demenza by actually trying to get closer to China. Who knows, perhaps without that move the Chinese would have been more reluctant to move towards more economic freedom, and without the Chinese reform neither India would have moved even at the glacial pace it is moving, nor would the USSR have fallen so fast.

 

On that account only, I’d say that Kissinger was actually much more preferable form a libertarian point of view than any other US political figure since…wow, in a very long time actually. I actually like comparing him with his idol, Prince Metternich, in my opinion the greatest Statesman (yes, form a libertarian point of view) ever.   

 

I don't understand how Chinese reform accelerated the fall of the USSR.  From what I've read the USSR had already jumped off the economic cliff, they didn't need anyone to push them.

Richard McGuire:

I don't understand how Chinese reform accelerated the fall of the USSR.  From what I've read the USSR had already jumped off the economic cliff, they didn't need anyone to push them.

 

Well, it could be argued that seeing an hyper-communistic regime such as China make an orderly change toward a higher degree of economic prosperity and freedom, broke the ideological spell of communism for most of the USSR citizens. Whichever illusion they still had that communism could work if they just held on a little longer was dissipated.

 

And than again, even if very poor by western standards, the USSR was still the riches country of all those which it had around (taking exception of Finland and, perhaps, Turkey), and the Chinese reform showed the man on the street that there was such a thing as a better world within plain view (because, you know, western TV stations where just lying about prosperity in the west).

 

Thus the Chinese “second big step forward” could have spelled the death of the communist ideal. I’ve read once on National Geographic of the citizens of a Siberian town on the Amur that wondered how could the Chinese city at the opposite bank of the river have managed to get from a clearly inferior city to their won, to a modern, skyscraper-filled metropolis just 15 years later.

 

That is how China could have bee to the USSR what West Berlin was the DDR (or Hong-Kong to China itself).

 

PS: And than perhaps the USSR was not doomed after all. If Gorbatchev had pushed form economic reforms, instead of political reforms, perhaps the Soviet Empire too could have been ‘saved’. China was certainly in much direr straits when Deng began to liberalize the economy. But avoiding a Chinese-style reform (in roder to avoid that practical declaration of bankruptcy of the comunsit ideal) could have been precisely what motivated Gorby to go for political reforms.

 

Merlin:

Nitroadict:

Jeremiah Dyke:

Original Thread Title: Libertarians on Kissinger

A picture says just the right amount of words:

 

 

I’d say that Kissinger was actually much more preferable form a libertarian point of view than any other US political figure since…wow, in a very long time actually. I actually like comparing him with his idol, Prince Metternich, in my opinion the greatest Statesman (yes, form a libertarian point of view) ever.   

 

After all, only a libertarian would make a plan for "Food Control Genocide". 

Anymore gems you want to crack out?

Smiling Dave:

I understand Netanyahu is denationalizing everything in sight.

Netenyahu's intentions were to reduce the size of the Israeli government, given that the Israeli economy can no longer support the burden of Israel's warfare and welfare state, but I'm not sure there has been any progress.

Jonathan M. F. Catalán:

Netenyahu's intentions were to reduce the size of the Israeli government,

You make it sound like a bad thing.

given that the Israeli economy can no longer support the burden of Israel's warfare

You mean self defense, I hope.

Allow me to digress with a rant. Rothbard was a genius, and as such had his blind spots where he was clearly off his rocker. One was his refusal to go into an elevator. Another was his Anti Jewish everything. I have found factual obvious errors in his ravings on this subject. He wrote stuff that only a madman or a poor man in the pay of the Arabs could possibly have written. Him and Jimmy Carter.

People here, and even more on lewrockwell.com, have jumped on this happily, or at least accepted it as the obvious.

Of course there is no point arguing with someone whose mind is made up.

Mr Catalan, let me be clear that I am not talking about you. Your possibly innocent comment was just the springboard for the rant.

and welfare state, but I'm not sure there has been any progress.

He has been Prime Minister several times. Every time he managed to push through something else. First the post office was privatized. Now there is something else, I forget what.

 

Smiling Dave:

Allow me to digress with a rant. Rothbard was a genius, and as such had his blind spots where he was clearly off his rocker. One was his refusal to go into an elevator. Another was his Anti Jewish everything. I have found factual obvious errors in his ravings on this subject. He wrote stuff that only a madman or a poor man in the pay of the Arabs could possibly have written. Him and Jimmy Carter. 

Factual errors? Bring them on.

 

Smiling Dave:

I understand Netanyahu is denationalizing everything in sight.

Natanyahu's privatization schemes are practically all fascist in nature, benefiting only his political opponents who identify anything that is not nationalized in the Marxist tradition as Capitalism.  

 

 

DD5:

Natanyahu's privatization schemes are practically all fascist in nature

and the evidence for this sweeping statement is?

Smiling Dave:

First the post office was privatized.

Oh really?

from:  http://www.israelpost.co.il/newmail.nsf/eng/postalmission?opendocument&L=EN

 

The Israel Postal Company Ltd.

As part of Israel's postal reform, the government decided that the Israel postal authority would cease to operate as a statutory body and all of its operations would be transferred to a newly created state owned enterprise, "The Israel Postal Company".

 

So in this case, they didn't even bother to take the fascist route.  They simply closed the old agency, founded a new company with tax payers money, declared it a public company with monopolistic privileges, and behold... You have privatization according to you.

 

DD5:

The Israel Postal Company Ltd.

As part of Israel's postal reform, the government decided that the Israel postal authority would cease to operate as a statutory body and all of its operations would be transferred to a newly created state owned enterprise, "The Israel Postal Company".

I stand corrected. I did not know this.

Marko:

Factual errors? Bring them on.

One article full of factual errors and venom is this:

http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_3/3_3_4.pdf

I wrote a longish post pointing out a few, but it did not get through. No matter. Anyone who lived through the events he described knows he is  raving like a madman, or a paid propagandist. When Im less tired, if you are interested, I'll point some out.

In particular, his description of the situation in 1948 and  1967 is totally from fantasy world.

Oh well. So he got that wrong, and elevators wrong. Nobody's perfect.

Smiling Dave:

One article full of factual errors and venom is this:

http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_3/3_3_4.pdf

Ah nice, that's just about my favourite essay ever.

 

Marko:

Smiling Dave:

One article full of factual errors and venom is this:

http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_3/3_3_4.pdf

Ah nice, that's just about my favourite essay ever.

Then you will love Grimm's Fairy Tales

 

Smiling Dave:

DD5:

The Israel Postal Company Ltd.

As part of Israel's postal reform, the government decided that the Israel postal authority would cease to operate as a statutory body and all of its operations would be transferred to a newly created state owned enterprise, "The Israel Postal Company".

I stand corrected. I did not know this.

OOPS!. I meant the phone company. Sorry. It's been a while. ANd you can buy shares in the phone company if you wish.

 

 

Smiling Dave:

Then you will love Grimm's Fairy Tales

Always preferred them to Robert Kagan.

 

Smiling Dave:

OOPS!. I meant the phone company. Sorry. It's been a while. ANd you can buy shares in the phone company if you wish.

Bezeq?  

This is precisely what I am talking about.  You think that you have a free market now in telecommunications over there?  This is a highly regulated industry.  Every major move requires government approval.  Competition is highly restricted by government licenses.  You now have a government enforced Cartel being interpreted by the general public as free enterprise.  

What form and shape this industry takes is not the product of just individuals conducting voluntary exchange on the open market by real property owners, but of government bureaucrats and officials who still maintain a great degree of control over the industry.  Not only is competition restricted, but the industry is regulated at a level of types of service packages, charging methods, and you name it.  You are free to conduct your own research to verify this.

The myth of private enterprise must be shattered if there is any progress to be made in the direction of freedom.  It is extremely detrimental to your own cause that you do not understand or acknowledge that these privatizations are not real.  This may not be socialism, but it sure ain't Capitalism.  This is the 3rd system that Mises referred to as Interventionism.  

 

 

 

 

DD5:

 You think that you have a free market now in telecommunications over there?  This is a highly regulated industry.  Every major move requires government approval.  Competition is highly restricted by government licenses.  You now have a government enforced Cartel being interpreted by the general public as free enterprise. 

I didn't mean to imply he's Adam Smith. But the economy is much less socialist then it was before him.

Smiling Dave:

DD5:

 You think that you have a free market now in telecommunications over there?  This is a highly regulated industry.  Every major move requires government approval.  Competition is highly restricted by government licenses.  You now have a government enforced Cartel being interpreted by the general public as free enterprise. 

I didn't mean to imply he's Adam Smith. But the economy is much less socialist then it was before him.

It's a myth.  Just like the Laissez-faire bush years, or worse, the small government Regan myth.

 

1.  Has government spending decreased over the years?  Try spending relative to GDP or national income.  Don't forget to include deficits.

2.  Has their been a relative trend in deregulation of industries?

3.  Has the national debt been in decline (again, relative to GDP)?

I am willing to bet you that the answer to all 3 questions is NO, meaning their country has become more socialistic and not less.  Go prove me wrong.

 

 

 

Nitroadict:

After all, only a libertarian would make a plan for "Food Control Genocide". 

Anymore gems you want to crack out?

The important word here is plan. We as economists must understand the nature of unintended consequences. Thus we say that it doesn’t mater whether the commies had “good intentions”: they flopped big time and screwed entire generations. We just focus on their real-world “achievements”.

 

This very standard must not be denied to individuals. Sure, Kissinger might very well have been a fascist hell set on World Control, but hey, who cares? What did he factually do, bring about a World Government or (unintentionally) help China to liberalize in order to achieve his goal? His factual record is way better than anyone else’s, notwithstanding his ideological views. In this sense, I don’t care what he wanted to do, to me it matter what he did. Any more ideological gems you might want to crack out? 

 

Smiling Dave:

given that the Israeli economy can no longer support the burden of Israel's warfare

You mean self defense, I hope.

Man, spending billions on conventional “self-dense” while having nukes would be like spending a million buck to buy a chariot and four thoroughbred horses while having a Nisan. Israel could ‘self-defend’ very easily with ten Grippens, a hundred Merkavas and 300 Namers.  I really don’t see what on earth they could buy all the stuff they do. Gosh, they even want the F-22 now. Its just one more case of how continuous war keeps the population quiet.

 

Merlin:

Man, spending billions on conventional “self-dense” while having nukes would be like spending a million buck to buy a chariot and four thoroughbred horses while having a Nisan. Israel could ‘self-defend’ very easily with ten Grippens, a hundred Merkavas and 300 Namers.  I really don’t see what on earth they could buy all the stuff they do. Gosh, they even want the F-22 now. Its just one more case of how continuous war keeps the population quiet.

So you think that if the USA was justified in doing something about 9/11 [assume this for the sake of argument] they should have nuked someone. After all,  no need for conventional weapons if you have nukes, right?

War here may keep the population quiet, because many people are pro war in principle. They see it as a good thing. You are a man, a defender of your country and of the American way of life, and if you die, well that's the greatest sacrifice for the greatest cause. [Not to mention psycopaths who just love killing.] You personally Merlin may be one of the enlightened, but plenty of people aren't. I know this from personal experience, and you can too if you go to the right places. Certainly the leadership here to a man talks like that all the time.

In Israel things are a bit different. Everyone is anti war. Everyone. And the reason is simple. It is a small country fighting large countries. Experience has made it very clear that a war will mean every single family will have someone dead when it's over. No one has any illusions about this.

As for why they need all that stuff. In 1973 when the Egyptian Army attacked, it got to the gates of Tel Aviv because the Israeli Air Force literally ran out of bullets.

As for Gosh even wanting the F-22, I dunno. Can I ever explain that to someone who can estimate the military needs of a country surrounded by an ocean of enemies armed to the teeth as 410 weapons? Please apply for the post of Syria's military advisor.

Smiling Dave:

Marko:

Factual errors? Bring them on.

One article full of factual errors and venom is this:

http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_3/3_3_4.pdf

I wrote a longish post pointing out a few, but it did not get through. No matter. Anyone who lived through the events he described knows he is  raving like a madman, or a paid propagandist. When Im less tired, if you are interested, I'll point some out.

In particular, his description of the situation in 1948 and  1967 is totally from fantasy world.

Oh well. So he got that wrong, and elevators wrong. Nobody's perfect.

So uh, what specific errors did Rothbard make? He says May 15th for Israel declaring independence and wikipedia says May 14th.

Then the Dein Yassin/Deir Yassin Massacre seems okay...

Rothbard:

While the British were stillin Palestine, the Zionist para-military forces began to crush the Palestinian Arab armed forces in a series of civil war clashes. But, more fatefully, on April 9, 1948, the fanatical Zionist-Revisionist terrorists grouped in the organization Irgun Zvai Leumi massacred a hundred women  and children in the Arab village of Dein Yassin.

wiki:

The Deir Yassin massacre took place on April 9, 1948, when around 120 fighters from the Irgun and Lehi Zionist paramilitary groups attacked Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, a Palestinian-Arab village of roughly 600 people.^[1] The invasion occurred as Jewish militia sought to relieve the blockade of Jerusalem during the civil war that preceded the end of British rule in Palestine.^[2]

Around 107 villagers, including women and children, were killed. Some were shot, while others died when hand grenades were thrown into their homes

Yeah, it's wikipedia, but I am doubting your claim more. Since you obviously know a lot about this, care to educate us?

Smiling Dave:

Merlin:

Man, spending billions on conventional “self-dense” while having nukes would be like spending a million buck to buy a chariot and four thoroughbred horses while having a Nisan. Israel could ‘self-defend’ very easily with ten Grippens, a hundred Merkavas and 300 Namers.  I really don’t see what on earth they could buy all the stuff they do. Gosh, they even want the F-22 now. Its just one more case of how continuous war keeps the population quiet.

So you think that if the USA was justified in doing something about 9/11 [assume this for the sake of argument] they should have nuked someone. After all,  no need for conventional weapons if you have nukes, right?

War here may keep the population quiet, because many people are pro war in principle. They see it as a good thing. You are a man, a defender of your country and of the American way of life, and if you die, well that's the greatest sacrifice for the greatest cause. [Not to mention psycopaths who just love killing.] You personally Merlin may be one of the enlightened, but plenty of people aren't. I know this from personal experience, and you can too if you go to the right places. Certainly the leadership here to a man talks like that all the time.

In Israel things are a bit different. Everyone is anti war. Everyone. And the reason is simple. It is a small country fighting large countries. Experience has made it very clear that a war will mean every single family will have someone dead when it's over. No one has any illusions about this.

As for why they need all that stuff. In 1973 when the Egyptian Army attacked, it got to the gates of Tel Aviv because the Israeli Air Force literally ran out of bullets.

As for Gosh even wanting the F-22, I dunno. Can I ever explain that to someone who can estimate the military needs of a country surrounded by an ocean of enemies armed to the teeth as 410 weapons? Please apply for the post of Syria's military advisor.

You bring about an interesting point. Should the US have nuked some afghani city in (let us suppose) just rage? Of course not. But the most decent answer to this problem has been furnished by…Israel itself.

 

You see, when some Latin American dictator harbors former Nazi officials and Israel’s request of extinction go unheeded (pretty much all of the time), Israel doesn’t go around bombing Buenos Aires, instead it sends a single, superbly rained agent incognito, to take out the target (in Dubai just the other week). That is precisely what should bee done in such cases. Wars as large-scale enterprises are always fightable with nukes. What isn’t is police action and special forces can handle that.

 

As for everyone in Israel being anti-war, I don’t know, my brother is studying in Haifa and that’s not really his impression. But even if most people are, perpetual war is not meant to appease the war-loving public, but to create this image of perpetual risk from which only the state can save the people. Surrendering half of one’s income to the state and three full years to the military seems a light bargain in such circumstances. That’s why any country longs to achieve the “perpetual war” status, although only Israel has succeeded so far (my own country’s socialist government also succeeded).

 

As for ’73, rest assure my friend that Lanchester’s square made it plainly impossible for Israel to win that war. Israel is still with us today only because at the last moment it made clear its possession of nukes (perhaps the American shipped a few warhead only then), and the Arabs turned tail.

 

There is no way a conventional army in Israel, even in a 100% income tax is introduced, can sustain an attack of Egypt and Syria at the same time. Only nukes keep Israel alive. Thus every defense problem can be easily solved by having a nuclear arsenal and highly trained special forces. Israel had both, and still wastes a vast majority of its military budget on senseless weapons.

 

 

 

E. R. Olovetto:

care to educate us?

You could start by educating yourself. The very snippets you quote show plainly he is lying.

Rothbard on Dir Yassin:

E. R. Olovetto:

massacred a hundred women  and children

Wiki on Dir Yassin:

E. R. Olovetto:

Around 107 villagers, including women and children, were killed. Some were shot, while others died when hand grenades were thrown into their homes

Note the difference in the Rothbard and the wiki version.

He lies about the numbers. According to Rothbard a hundred women and children were killed. But wiki has it that the hundred "included" women and children. How many women and children? Who knows? One? The end of this post will prove from an Arab source that not a single child was murdered.

You can further educate yourself if you read the rest of the wiki. Frinstance:

Even the number 100 is wrong. From the same wiki:

The Jewish Agency sent two doctors, Dr. Z. Avigdori, the chairman of the Jerusalem branch of the Palestine Physicians Association, and his deputy, Dr. A. Druyan, to examine the corpses, and to report any mutilations or other atrocities. Lapidot writes that the doctors asked to be allowed to move around the village freely. They walked from house to house, counting and examining corpses. Their report said they found 46 corpses. The cause of death had been injuries from bullets or bombs, and that, "all the bodies were dressed in their own clothes, limbs were whole and we saw no signs of mutilation."

So it's not a hundred, it's 46.

Two factual errors so far.

Rothbard also gleefully accepts fairy tales from sources known to be liars, ignoring the reliable sources. From the same wiki:

The Jordanian newspaper Al Urdun published a survivor's account in 1955, in which he said that the Palestinians had deliberately exaggerated horror stories about atrocities in Deir Yassin to encourage others to fight

A Jordanian newspaper. A survivor's account. In 1955. Just the people and place to give the most slanted anti Israel opinion, and yet the Rothbard doesn't bother with that unimpeachable primary source.

I dunno. He has an Arab resident of Dir Yassin to quote, someone who was there at the scene, and he omits him too.

Abu Mahmud, who lived in Deir Yassin in 1948, was one of those who complained. He told the BBC: "We said, 'There was no rape.'

And how about:

Mohammed Radwan, one of the villagers who fought the attackers, said: "There were no rapes. It's all lies. There were no pregnant women who were slit open. It was propaganda.

Contrast this with:

Hazam Nusseibeh, the news editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service at the time, gave an interview to the BBC in 1998. He spoke about a discussion he had with Hussayn Khalidi, the deputy chairman of the Higher Arab Executive in Jerusalem, shortly after the killings: "I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story. He said, 'We must make the most of this.' So he wrote a press release, stating that at Deir Yassin, children were murdered, pregnant women were raped, all sorts of atrocities."^[75] Gelber writes that Khalidi told journalists on April 11 that the village's dead included 25 pregnant women, 52 mothers of babies, and 60 girls.

So that we know people are very interested in lying, and Rothbard is very interested in publishing their version.

I'll end by giving you a hint for further study. Where in the previous paragrapgh is there an implication from an Arab journalist who was working at the time that not a single child was murdered?

C'mon logicians, you can find it.

sorry about the double post. my first one didnt get through, my computer told me.

Merlin:

my brother is studying in Haifa and that’s not really his impression

How long has he been there? Does he speak Hebrew? Read the Israeli papers? Watch Israeli TV? Which elements of society does he come in cointact with? How many people has he spoken to about it?

Merlin:

That’s why any country longs to achieve the “perpetual war” status, although only Israel has succeeded so far (my own country’s socialist government also succeeded).

Which country are you from?

Merlin:

As for ’73, rest assure my friend that Lanchester’s square made it plainly impossible for Israel to win that war. Israel is still with us today only because at the last moment it made clear its possession of nukes (perhaps the American shipped a few warhead only then), and the Arabs turned tail.

Interesting indeed, but I don't see the relevance. Link to this version of the victory?

Merlin:

There is no way a conventional army in Israel, even in a 100% income tax is introduced, can sustain an attack of Egypt and Syria at the same time. Only nukes keep Israel alive.

I thought Israel has a peace treaty with Egypt.

And I think those nukes have to be defended from assault, no?

 

 

 

 

Smiling Dave:

E. R. Olovetto:

care to educate us?

You could start by educating yourself. The very snippets you quote show plainly he is lying.

First of all, you made the claim that Rothbard concocted this fantasy then gave a "dog ate my homework" story. Download Lazarus add-on to firefox so you can recover text, and you can delete your own double post by choosing "more"^>. I didn't read the Rothbard essay except to find 1948 which you first referenced and do some quick fact checking. I don't know much about this part of history or how it relates to Kissinger so much even, so mods, please feel free to split this off into another thread. I also haven't made up my mind and you certainly haven't proven your case that Rothbard intentionally "lied".

Smiling Dave:

Rothbard on Dir Yassin:

E. R. Olovetto:

massacred a hundred women  and children

Wiki on Dir Yassin:

E. R. Olovetto:

Around 107 villagers, including women and children, were killed. Some were shot, while others died when hand grenades were thrown into their homes

Note the difference in the Rothbard and the wiki version.

He lies about the numbers. According to Rothbard a hundred women and children were killed. But wiki has it that the hundred "included" women and children. How many women and children? Who knows? One?

That citation (#3) is from 1987. When is Rothbard's essay from [RAL? 3/3]? Is it possible that he didn't have the same information we do now?

Smiling Dave:

You can further educate yourself if you read the rest of the wiki. Frinstance:

Even the number 100 is wrong. From the same wiki:

The Jewish Agency sent two doctors, Dr. Z. Avigdori, the chairman of the Jerusalem branch of the Palestine Physicians Association, and his deputy, Dr. A. Druyan, to examine the corpses, and to report any mutilations or other atrocities. Lapidot writes that the doctors asked to be allowed to move around the village freely. They walked from house to house, counting and examining corpses. Their report said they found 46 corpses. The cause of death had been injuries from bullets or bombs, and that, "all the bodies were dressed in their own clothes, limbs were whole and we saw no signs of mutilation."

So it's not a hundred, it's 46.

Two factual errors so far.

OK, this is from the criticism section... [underlines mine]

Criticism of Meir Pa'il account

Israeli military historian Uri Milstein writes that Pa'il's report is not an eyewitness account, because Pa'il was not in Deir Yassin on April 9. Milstein argues that there was no organized massacre, though he acknowledges that whole families were gunned down during the fighting. He regards the Haganah intelligence reports to have been doctored, either by the authors or later by their superiors, to exaggerate the atrocities and blacken the names of the Irgun and Lehi within the context of in-fighting within the Jewish community.^[58] He argues that the killings were typical of war and that the Haganah did similar things on many occasions, even if not on such a scale. He writes that the idea of a massacre was a myth created by the Israeli Left to prevent unification of the Haganah and the Irgun, and in particular to prevent the Irgun's commander, Menahem Begin, from taking office in Israel's first national unity government under David Ben Gurion.^[59]

Morris writes that part of Pa'il's account, where he reports that he saw five Arab men paraded, then later saw their bodies in the quarry, is supported by a report from Drs. Avigdori and Druyan, sent by the Jewish Agency to examine the scene (see below), who found five male bodies in a house by the village quarry.^[60]

Pa'il told Yoni Mendel in 2007 that he was sent to Deir Yassin by the Haganah to assess the fighting capabilities of the Irgun and Lehi. "What I discovered there," he said, "is that they didn’t know a thing about field war. Worse, I saw that they knew how to massacre and kill ... They are angry with me that I said these things. Let them first be angry at themselves."^[61] 

All citations from 1999/2007 after Rothbard is dead. The part you quoted of Jewish doctor's accounts is at odds with #3 in the headline of 107 killed and it isn't clear what year it is from. Maybe the doctors lied or got there after the other 73 who were women/children raped, mutilated, etc. Maybe the Israeli army never, ever did such things. They must hold themselves to higher standards of humane war.

Smiling Dave:

Rothbard also gleefully accepts fairy tales from sources known to be liars, ignoring the reliable sources. From the same wiki:

The Jordanian newspaper Al Urdun published a survivor's account in 1955, in which he said that the Palestinians had deliberately exaggerated horror stories about atrocities in Deir Yassin to encourage others to fight

A Jordanian newspaper. A survivor's account. In 1955. Just the people and place to give the most slanted anti Israel opinion, and yet the Rothbard doesn't bother with that unimpeachable primary source.

Here you are again very selectively quoting from the section on propaganda. This newspaper account is based on a 2007 cite.

The Jordanian newspaper Al Urdun published a survivor's account in 1955, in which he said that the Palestinians had deliberately exaggerated horror stories about atrocities in Deir Yassin to encourage others to fight, but unwittingly had caused them to flee instead. Everyone had reason to spread the atrocity narrative. The Irgun and Lehi wanted to frighten Arabs into fleeing; the Arabs wanted to provoke an international response;^[70] the Haganah wanted to tarnish the Irgun and Lehi; and the Arabs and the British wanted to malign the Jews.^[71] In addition, Milstein writes that the left-wing Mapai party and David Ben-Gurion, who became Israel's first prime minister on May 14, deliberately exploited Deir Yassin to stop a power-sharing agreement with the right-wing Revisionists—who were associated with Irgun and Lehi—a proposal that was being debated at that time in Tel Aviv.^[72]

Mordechai Ra'anan, the Irgun commander in Jerusalem, told reporters on April 10 that, "so far, 254 Arab bodies have been counted."^[73] He later said: "I told the reporters that 254 were killed so that a big figure would be published, and so that Arabs would panic."^[74] That figure was published by The New York Times on April 13, and it stuck until 1987, when Sharif Kan'ana of Bir Zeit University interviewed survivors and concluded that 107 had died, with 12 wounded. Only 11 of the 100 armed villagers were among the dead.^[46]

Hazam Nusseibeh, the news editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service at the time, gave an interview to the BBC in 1998. He spoke about a discussion he had with Hussayn Khalidi, the deputy chairman of the Higher Arab Executive in Jerusalem, shortly after the killings: "I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story. He said, 'We must make the most of this.' So he wrote a press release, stating that at Deir Yassin, children were murdered, pregnant women were raped, all sorts of atrocities."^[75] Gelber writes that Khalidi told journalists on April 11 that the village's dead included 25 pregnant women, 52 mothers of babies, and 60 girls.^[70][2006]

The stories of rape angered the villagers, who complained to the Arab emergency committee that their wives and daughters were being exploited in the service of propaganda.^[76] Abu Mahmud, who lived in Deir Yassin in 1948, was one of those who complained. He told the BBC: "We said, 'There was no rape.' He [Hussayn Khalidi] said, 'We have to say this so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews'."^[75][1998]

"This was our biggest mistake," said Nusseibeh. "We did not realize how our people would react. As soon as they heard that women had been raped at Deir Yassin, Palestinians fled in terror. They ran away from all our villages."^[75][77] He told Larry Collins in 1968: "We committed a fatal error, and set the stage for the refugee problem."^[78] Mohammed Radwan, one of the villagers who fought the attackers, said: "There were no rapes. It's all lies. There were no pregnant women who were slit open. It was propaganda that ... Arabs put out so Arab armies would invade," he said. "They ended up expelling people from all of Palestine on the rumor of Deir Yassin."^[69]

At best, all you have proven is that Rothbard was factually wrong based on information available now about this one set of atrocities (or fuzzy, friendly, war killings, depending what side you are on). Maybe he didn't do enough research on this one specific little incident that I happened to pick out quite randomly and just take the headline as "close" (100~107).

Can you clarify, are you Jewish and pro-state-Israel? What is the exact proof that Rothbard had certain information readily available, like not from this one incident that both sides used as propaganda? What are you saying Rothbard's intention of lying is? His states clearly that:

Rothbard:

The libertarian, in particular, knows that States, without exception, aggress against their citizens, and knows also that in all wars each State aggresses against innocent civilians "belonging" to the other State.

I will take issue with part of his conclusion:

Israel, therefore, faces a long-run dilemma which she must someday meet. Either to continue on her present course, and, after years of mutual hostility and conflict beoverthrown by Arab people's guerrilla war. Or--to change direction dras-tically, to cut herself loose completely from Western impe-rial ties, and become simply Jewish citizens of the Middle East. If she did that, then peace and harmony and justice would at last reign in that tortured region. There is ample
precedent for this peaceful coexistence. For in the cen-turies before 19th and 20th century Western imperialism, Jew and Arab had always lived well and  peacefully together in the Middle East. There is no inherent enmity or conflict between Arab and Jew. In the great centuries of Arab civilization in North Africa and Spain, Jews took a happy and prominent part--in contrast to their ongoing persecu-tion by the fanatics of the Christian West. Shorn of Western influence and Western imperialism, that harmony can reign once more.

I have seen a mosque in a Jewish quarter in Spain where the Star of David was hidden within the geometric Arab designs. There has always been animosity and persecution between differing religious ideologies. The fact is that modern states exacerbate this problem, rather than helping alleviate it as is their claimed intent.

 

E. R. Olovetto:

First of all, you made the claim that Rothbard concocted this fantasy then gave a "dog ate my homework" story.

I claimed it is full of factual errors. And it is. And the dog indeed ate my homework. But I can rewrite it slowly if anyone is seriously interested. And I don't mean seriously interested in a fiery debate, or in defending his honor, but in an impartial examination of the facts. By which I mean a willingness to go where the evidence leads, not feel compelled to defend Rothbard at all costs. Are you ready for that? Is there any evidence that will make you admit he wrote many factual errors? Or do you already know in advance with praxeological certainty that its impossible? This is not a trivial question. It is the heart of the matter

Download Lazarus add-on to firefox so you can recover text, and you can delete your own double post by choosing "more"^>.

TY for your concern.

I didn't read the Rothbard essay except to find 1948 which you first referenced and do some quick fact checking.

I don't know much about this part of history

I accept your apology for ignorance.

or how it relates to Kissinger so much even, so mods, please feel free to split this off into another thread. I also haven't made up my mind

well that's good. Think about it, examine the information, and you will, with luck, reach the right conclusioon.

and you certainly haven't proven your case that Rothbard intentionally "lied".

I take the the "intentionally" insertion to be an admission of what stares one in the face, that there are factual errors.

The intentional is very clear if you read his works on anything Jewish. Never a good word, ever. From someone who had a lot to say about it.

The intention is also very clear from the essay, where he throws all his pure and holy Libertarian principles out the window when it comes to Israel. In fact his book should have been named "Toward a New Liberty, Except for the State of Israel, Where I Think Everything in this Book Is Wrong."

Smiling Dave:

Rothbard on Dir Yassin:

E. R. Olovetto:

massacred a hundred women  and children

Wiki on Dir Yassin:

E. R. Olovetto:

Around 107 villagers, including women and children, were killed. Some were shot, while others died when hand grenades were thrown into their homes

Note the difference in the Rothbard and the wiki version.

He lies about the numbers. According to Rothbard a hundred women and children were killed. But wiki has it that the hundred "included" women and children. How many women and children? Who knows? One?

That citation (#3) is from 1987. When is Rothbard's essay from [RAL? 3/3]? Is it possible that he didn't have the same information we do now?

So there are factual errors, you admit. We have made some progress. What about the Jordanian newspaper article from 1955. He was alive and kicking then, no?

Smiling Dave:

You can further educate yourself if you read the rest of the wiki. Frinstance:

Even the number 100 is wrong. From the same wiki:

The Jewish Agency sent two doctors, Dr. Z. Avigdori, the chairman of the Jerusalem branch of the Palestine Physicians Association, and his deputy, Dr. A. Druyan, to examine the corpses, and to report any mutilations or other atrocities. Lapidot writes that the doctors asked to be allowed to move around the village freely. They walked from house to house, counting and examining corpses. Their report said they found 46 corpses. The cause of death had been injuries from bullets or bombs, and that, "all the bodies were dressed in their own clothes, limbs were whole and we saw no signs of mutilation."

So it's not a hundred, it's 46.

Two factual errors so far.

OK, this is from the criticism section... [underlines mine]

Criticism of Meir Pa'il account

Israeli military historian Uri Milstein writes that Pa'il's report is not an eyewitness account, because Pa'il was not in Deir Yassin on April 9. Milstein argues that there was no organized massacre, though he acknowledges that whole families were gunned down during the fighting. He regards the Haganah intelligence reports to have been doctored, either by the authors or later by their superiors, to exaggerate the atrocities and blacken the names of the Irgun and Lehi within the context of in-fighting within the Jewish community.^[58] He argues that the killings were typical of war and that the Haganah did similar things on many occasions, even if not on such a scale. He writes that the idea of a massacre was a myth created by the Israeli Left to prevent unification of the Haganah and the Irgun, and in particular to prevent the Irgun's commander, Menahem Begin, from taking office in Israel's first national unity government under David Ben Gurion.^[59]

Morris writes that part of Pa'il's account, where he reports that he saw five Arab men paraded, then later saw their bodies in the quarry, is supported by a report from Drs. Avigdori and Druyan, sent by the Jewish Agency to examine the scene (see below), who found five male bodies in a house by the village quarry.^[60]

Pa'il told Yoni Mendel in 2007 that he was sent to Deir Yassin by the Haganah to assess the fighting capabilities of the Irgun and Lehi. "What I discovered there," he said, "is that they didn’t know a thing about field war. Worse, I saw that they knew how to massacre and kill ... They are angry with me that I said these things. Let them first be angry at themselves."^[61] 

A whole family may be three people. A man, his wife, his 17 year old son, all armed. Why do you ignore the eyewitness Arab accounts that say there was no atrocity?

All citations from 1999/2007 after Rothbard is dead.

All the ones YOU quoted, yes. Not the ones I quoted.

The part you quoted of Jewish doctor's accounts is at odds with #3 in the headline of 107 killed

We agree on that. Good. So 107 is not a sure number, is it?

and it isn't clear what year it is from.

Maybe to those who cannot read. But to those who can, footnote 66 says it's from 1948.

Maybe the doctors lied or got there after the other 73 who were women/children raped, mutilated, etc.

That's your strongest argument? Maybe? This maybe also has to include that maybe all the Arab eyewitnesses and journalists I quoted are also lying in favor of their beloved Israel. Yeah, maybe.

And so Rothbard is totally justified in stating this maybe as a fact. OK. It will be hard to convince you if that is how you think.

Maybe the Israeli army never, ever did such things. They must hold themselves to higher standards of humane war.

Maybe you should study the logic books on this site to realize what is wrong with the above sentence. If you ever do find out, I will be impressed.

Smiling Dave:

Rothbard also gleefully accepts fairy tales from sources known to be liars, ignoring the reliable sources. From the same wiki:

The Jordanian newspaper Al Urdun published a survivor's account in 1955, in which he said that the Palestinians had deliberately exaggerated horror stories about atrocities in Deir Yassin to encourage others to fight

A Jordanian newspaper. A survivor's account. In 1955. Just the people and place to give the most slanted anti Israel opinion, and yet the Rothbard doesn't bother with that unimpeachable primary source.

Here you are again very selectively quoting

TY for noticing that I am being very selective, carefully quoting from the most reliable source. An ARAB EYEWITNESS WHO LIVED IN DIR YASSIN AT THE TIME OF THE ATTACK AND SURVIVED IT. And wrote in a JORDANIAN NEWSPAPER that there was no atrocity. Wtf is wrong with you?

from the section on propaganda.

Sounds really bad,  no? Quoting from the section on propaganda. What he means is the section that gives evidence that the whole story is just propaganda, meaning lies.

This newspaper account is based on a 2007 cite.

So Jordanian newspapers written in 1955 were under lock and key and super hush hush until 2007.

The Jordanian newspaper Al Urdun published a survivor's account in 1955, in which he said that the Palestinians had deliberately exaggerated horror stories about atrocities in Deir Yassin to encourage others to fight, but unwittingly had caused them to flee instead. Everyone had reason to spread the atrocity narrative. The Irgun and Lehi wanted to frighten Arabs into fleeing; the Arabs wanted to provoke an international response;^[70] the Haganah wanted to tarnish the Irgun and Lehi; and the Arabs and the British wanted to malign the Jews.^[71] In addition, Milstein writes that the left-wing Mapai party and David Ben-Gurion, who became Israel's first prime minister on May 14, deliberately exploited Deir Yassin to stop a power-sharing agreement with the right-wing Revisionists—who were associated with Irgun and Lehi—a proposal that was being debated at that time in Tel Aviv.^[72]

Mordechai Ra'anan, the Irgun commander in Jerusalem, told reporters on April 10 that, "so far, 254 Arab bodies have been counted."^[73] He later said: "I told the reporters that 254 were killed so that a big figure would be published, and so that Arabs would panic."^[74] That figure was published by The New York Times on April 13, and it stuck until 1987, when Sharif Kan'ana of Bir Zeit University interviewed survivors and concluded that 107 had died, with 12 wounded. Only 11 of the 100 armed villagers were among the dead.^[46]

Hazam Nusseibeh, the news editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service at the time, gave an interview to the BBC in 1998. He spoke about a discussion he had with Hussayn Khalidi, the deputy chairman of the Higher Arab Executive in Jerusalem, shortly after the killings: "I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story. He said, 'We must make the most of this.' So he wrote a press release, stating that at Deir Yassin, children were murdered, pregnant women were raped, all sorts of atrocities."^[75] Gelber writes that Khalidi told journalists on April 11 that the village's dead included 25 pregnant women, 52 mothers of babies, and 60 girls.^[70][2006]

The stories of rape angered the villagers, who complained to the Arab emergency committee that their wives and daughters were being exploited in the service of propaganda.^[76] Abu Mahmud, who lived in Deir Yassin in 1948, was one of those who complained. He told the BBC: "We said, 'There was no rape.' He [Hussayn Khalidi] said, 'We have to say this so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews'."^[75][1998]

"This was our biggest mistake," said Nusseibeh. "We did not realize how our people would react. As soon as they heard that women had been raped at Deir Yassin, Palestinians fled in terror. They ran away from all our villages."^[75][77] He told Larry Collins in 1968: "We committed a fatal error, and set the stage for the refugee problem."^[78] Mohammed Radwan, one of the villagers who fought the attackers, said: "There were no rapes. It's all lies. There were no pregnant women who were slit open. It was propaganda that ... Arabs put out so Arab armies would invade," he said. "They ended up expelling people from all of Palestine on the rumor of Deir Yassin."^[69]

At best, all you have proven is that Rothbard was factually wrong

Yes!

based on information available now

and in 1955 and 1948. see above.

about this one set of atrocities (or fuzzy, friendly, war killings, depending what side you are on).

I thought we have agreed that there was no atrocity. Or do you think the Arab resident of dir yassin who survived was lying? Or the arab journalist. Logic, my boy, logic. Put on your thinking cap.

You do know that Jerusalem was being blockaded at the time by the Araqbs, meaning starving the civilian population to death. Dir yassin is very close to Jerusalem, walking distance in fact. This was part of an attempt to save the civilian population of Jerusalem from starvation. It was not fuzzy or friendly. as starving women and children to death is not fuzzy or friendly. But your logic is fuzzy.

Maybe he didn't do enough research on this one specific little incident that I happened to pick out quite randomly and just take the headline as "close" (100~107)

So we have reached some agreement. Good. My original remark that it is full of factual error was made not even knowing about Rothbard's butchery of the dir yassin incident. And yet even a "random" choice of yours, one that by some remarkable coincidence is the very worst accusation he makes, is full of factual error.

Take the headline as close? Close? Can you read? 100 women and children is NOT the same as 107 people that INCLUDE an UNKNOWN number of women and children. And that an ARAB journalist assures us contains NO children.

Can you clarify,

You have not been reading your logic books, have you? Or your von Mises on Marx. What counts is not the author of the work, but what he writes, when it comes to discussing ideas. Does Ad Hominem mean anything to you?

are you Jewish

Yes. Me and Rothbard and Mises and Walter Block.

and pro-state-Israel?

I am in favor of people not being killed or slandered about. And in favor of the truth being known, as opposed to defending my heroes when they lie.

What is the exact proof

I will, if I feel there is a point to doing it, and I have the energy, and there is an interested audience, write a bit about it every day. But Im not very impressed with your reception of this clear evidence of factual error so far.

that Rothbard had certain information readily available,

Jordanian newspapesr written in 1955 and doctors reports written in 1948 [which corroborate each other, but are on the wrong side of his fairy tale] seems readily available to me.

like not from this one incident that both sides used as propaganda?

Both sides use as propaganda? What are you talking about?

What are you saying Rothbard's intention of lying is?

I am not saying. I am not a mind reader. Who knows why he chose to lie? I do have a good guess, but my personal conjectures are of no interest.

His states clearly that:

Rothbard:

The libertarian, in particular, knows that States, without exception, aggress against their citizens, and knows also that in all wars each State aggresses against innocent civilians "belonging" to the other State.

I will take issue with part of his conclusion:

Israel, therefore, faces a long-run dilemma which she must someday meet. Either to continue on her present course, and, after years of mutual hostility and conflict beoverthrown by Arab people's guerrilla war. Or--to change direction dras-tically, to cut herself loose completely from Western impe-rial ties, and become simply Jewish citizens of the Middle East. If she did that, then peace and harmony and justice would at last reign in that tortured region. There is ample
precedent for this peaceful coexistence. For in the cen-turies before 19th and 20th century Western imperialism, Jew and Arab had always lived well and  peacefully together in the Middle East. There is no inherent enmity or conflict between Arab and Jew. In the great centuries of Arab civilization in North Africa and Spain, Jews took a happy and prominent part--in contrast to their ongoing persecu-tion by the fanatics of the Christian West. Shorn of Western influence and Western imperialism, that harmony can reign once more.

I have seen a mosque in a Jewish quarter in Spain where the Star of David was hidden within the geometric Arab designs.

read here about the seal of solomon:

http://baheyeldin.com/culture/star-of-david-solomons-seal.html

and find out what the seal of solomon looks like.

There has always been animosity and persecution between differing religious ideologies.

The fact is that modern states exacerbate this problem, rather than helping alleviate it as is their claimed intent.

 

Smiling Dave:

How long has he been there? Does he speak Hebrew? Read the Israeli papers? Watch Israeli TV? Which elements of society does he come in cointact with? How many people has he spoken to about it?

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

About six months now, and he’s learned Hebrew remarkably well. His fellow Israeli students would seem to be more or less peace-loving people. But Diaspora Jews are by far the most disruptive and chauvinistic members of society there. While all the locals my brother knows are keen on avoiding war and meddling with neighbor’s affairs, it’s the American and French Jews who rabidly pro-war.  Also from the 9oleder) Israelis I myself have know, they to are pro-war.

Smiling Dave:

Which country are you from?

Albania

Smiling Dave:

I thought Israel has a peace treaty with Egypt.

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Egyptian hate the sh*t out of Israel, but Egyptian cities are so clustered together to be the perfect target for nuclear attack, thus Egypt, though by far the largest Arab army, has willy-nilly concluded peace with Israel. But make no mistake, should Israel somehow lose its nuclear capability Egypt will have its army in the Golan Heights (over horrendous losses) in a month. Basically a rerun of the 44-45 soviet campaign: a numerically superior army beats by attrition a better  but les numerous one.  

Smiling Dave:

And I think those nukes have to be defended from assault, no?

I'm afraid that is not the case. Massive armored columns are very, very easy to spot, and Israel can launch within minutes. Everything that moves would be pulverized within 5 km of even making it out of barracks.

And even if, by magic, some foes manages to know out BOTH the IAF (denying the ability to deploy aerial nukes) AND the land-based Jerichos, Israel has dolphin-class subs, armed with nuclear-tipped harpoons and there is no way on this earth in which a sub can be detected and done away with if it doesn’t attack surface ships. So, believe me, Israel’s defense is 100% safe. Why, then, do they deploy they bloated, fascistic, way-to-expensive and hatred inducing army than? Only to keep the locals in a perpetual state of fear.

 

 

 

Merlin:

Nitroadict:

After all, only a libertarian would make a plan for "Food Control Genocide". 

Anymore gems you want to crack out?

The important word here is plan. We as economists must understand the nature of unintended consequences. Thus we say that it doesn’t mater whether the commies had “good intentions”: they flopped big time and screwed entire generations. We just focus on their real-world “achievements”.

 

This very standard must not be denied to individuals. Sure, Kissinger might very well have been a fascist hell set on World Control, but hey, who cares? What did he factually do, bring about a World Government or (unintentionally) help China to liberalize in order to achieve his goal? His factual record is way better than anyone else’s, notwithstanding his ideological views. In this sense, I don’t care what he wanted to do, to me it matter what he did. Any more ideological gems you might want to crack out? 

 

Yes:   you are apologizing & attempting to turn a clearly statist agent in to a libertarian of some sorts.  This is incorrect, & similar to the errors found in idolizing other political figures, merely due to inference that their actions are libertarian like, & that they were less bad then others (ahh, lesser of evils).     

He had a political agenda that most likely was not trying to liberalize China for the sake of creating a more libertarian world (hint: China would've eventually liberalized to compete with other governments in the statist-market for government, despite their traditional isolationism).  It might've had more to do with what the US would gain from this.  

China currently makes most of American products; not sure they could do that with a less "liberal" economy. 

There is obviously no correlation there, & obviously the American government had nothing but libertarian ideas in mind in achieving this. 

Let's also cheer the government for being libertarian, because in some indirect way, doing anything to "liberalize" something (this term itself is being used in a relative sense; the ultimate "liberalization" would probably be the elimination of state regulation upon the economy) is sufficient grounds for being libertarian. 

If you're not a libertarian & approve of Kissinger's actions, then this is a waste of time for me, & I apologize for lecturing you as this would more logically consistient then claiming Kissinger is a libertarian because he talked to China for the US government's own aims.  

I can't wait to see people start rationalizing Bush II's invasion of Iraq as the moment that eventually pushed Iraq to becoming more liberalized, & therefore, more libertarian, because it would be just as ridiculous as this is.

tl;dr: There is more to it then just analyzing an action that didn't end up blowing up the world & calling it "libertarian".  This is an insult to libertarianism (or any ideology that one mis-identifies something as) as an ideology & strain of thought that has taken decades to become nuanced & will probably take decades more to become understood by more than a minority of the population.  

BTW, this thread needs to be split where the tangent on how factual Rothbard is popped up.  I will try to this in the next hour or two if no one else does. 

If Kissinger cared something about liberalisation he would have allied the Soviet Union which at the time was a liberal paradise compared to China. After all the ideological backdrop to the Sino-Soviet split was the Chinese castigating the Soviets for renouncing Stalin and Stalinism.

Smiling Dave:

You make it sound like a bad thing.

Only if you decide to cut it off with a quote box and not read it within context.

You mean self defense, I hope.

That is questionable, just like it is questionable whether the Israeli invasion of Gaza really benefited Israel's self-defense over the long-run.

 

He has been Prime Minister several times. Every time he managed to push through something else. First the post office was privatized. Now there is something else, I forget what.

 

 

I know this thread has drifited but are there any article links on Kissinger you would recommend?

Nitroadict,

I now se it’s my fault I didn’t make it clear: I don’t believe Kissinger was libertarian. Calling his that would indeed be insulting. I fully agree that he was a fascist very eager to promote US supremacy. The only thing that I’m arguing is that, perhaps, in trying to do so, out of his statist motives, he actually helped achieve something good.

 

So, would China have opened up without the hint that the US was more favorably disposed towards it? That’s of course hard to say, but history would suggest otherwise. I know of no communist government which voluntarily relented controls prior to China’s big-bang.

 

As mater of fact I know of no government which eve relented to a considerable extent any kind of control. So, it would be far form self-evident that China would have liberalized all by herself (my own government was started for funds and still managed to get going for 15 years! Commies are not the guys to accept defeat).

 

The reason I think the US rapprochement helped is that any country going through that kind of changes is very vulnerable. The US could have even managed to overthrow the government if it tried hard enough during the upheaval. By clearly stating that the US viewed China in a less confrontational way, Kissinger could have allowed Deng to eliminate the Gang of Four by gaining the loyalty of the army, free to turn its attention form defense. It could also have discouraged the soviets form attempting a coup in China, which they would have absolutely loved to do. So, unintentionally to be sure, his policy could have helped the Chinese opening.

 

But if some guy X personally devised (if he did) a strategy that, for whichever reason, brought a fourth of the population of earth out form communist quagmire and into a more tolerable and prosperous regime, well, that’s what I call a valuable contribution. That is not to say that Kissinger was a libertarian, but I’d very much have had him where he was in the ’70 than any other US politician I know . That’s all I’m saying.