Kissinger: Ignore a potential holocaust in the USSR

[Thanas]

Link

Americans need a thicker skin. Or so I had thought until a few days ago, when the latest batch of President Richard Nixon’s Oval Office tapes was released by the Nixon library. On the tapes, Nixon is his usual self, vilifying or ridiculing blacks and Jews and Irish- and Italian-Americans. But the shocker is Henry Kissinger, then secretary of state, saying: “The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy. And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern.”

Kissinger added: “Maybe a humanitarian concern.”

Just to lean over backward before piling on: The topic was Soviet Jews, and what the United States could or would do to help them was a legitimate and genuine quandary. As Nixon inimitably put it in concurring with Kissinger, “We’re not going to blow up the world” over this. But Kissinger — Jewish and a Holocaust survivor himself — didn’t just say, “This issue can’t be allowed to dominate our relations with the (now former) Soviet Union.” At a time when Soviet Jews were subject to official discrimination in jobs, long prison sentences on trumped-up charges, overt anti-Semitism in the state-controlled press and lots more of the same, Kissinger advised a president who had just finished revealing his contempt and dislike for Jews that none of this needed to be an American concern at all. Even gas chambers — another Holocaust — would be of no concern. Oh, maybe — maybe! — “a humanitarian concern.” And we all know what Kissinger — Dr. Realist — thinks about humanitarian concerns. One’s probably better off being no concern at all.

So where is the Great American Umbrage Machine when we really need it? The microscandal over Williams’s reflections was a top story for days. The outrage over MoveOn and “General Betray Us” was a campaign confection that has become a permanent debating point. The story of a secretary of state advising a president that he could ignore a future Holocaust barely lasted one news cycle.

There have been a few exceptions — a fine essay by Christopher Hitchens (a Kissinger obsessive) in Slate; a funny, tart blog item by Jeffrey Goldberg (a Holocaust obsessive) on The Atlantic site — but judging from the depth of the coverage, you would have thought that Kissinger was the one with sartorial hang-ups and that Williams had blown off a new Holocaust.

The New York Times did run a short editorial on Sunday, but it was mostly about Nixon. Its only criticism of Kissinger was to credit him with a “genius for playing the lackey to power.”

What’s going on here? Well, partly, there is a huge, rarely acknowledged random element in what becomes a big story. It depends on what else is happening in the world, what the Page One editor had for lunch and so on. Criticisms of the media for overplaying or underplaying a story are often unfair. This case, though, seems pretty clear-cut.

Then, too, some might say it’s all ancient history. And he didn’t really mean it: He was just sucking up to Nixon. Anyway, nothing Kissinger might say on any topic can compare as a subject for obloquy with his bombing of Hanoi and other achievements while in office. But this just pushes the puzzle back a half-century. How has he managed to remain not just respectable but glamorous all this time? The answer, I think, is: by using some of the same techniques on everybody else that he used on Nixon.

However he may have done it, Kissinger has held us — journalists, politicians, celebrities major and minor, corporate chieftains and wealthy socialites — in his thrall for 50 years. Even people who think he’s a war criminal swoon in his presence and drop his name the next day.

Compare Kissinger with another man who longed to be him (or at least to hold a comparable place in American society): Richard Holbrooke, who died last week at age 69. Holbrooke was right about everything Kissinger has been wrong about. Although his send-offs in the press have been overwhelmingly and deservedly handsome, Holbrooke was, during his lifetime, regarded somewhat as a figure of fun or pathos. He wore his ambition on his sleeve. He wanted so badly to be secretary of state. Why did people joke about Holbrooke but suck up to Kissinger? There is material here for a great novel. Meanwhile, though, some of us have amends to make.

Let me start the confessions: I don’t claim to know Henry Kissinger at all, but I have been in the same room with him many times and have never taken the occasion to so much as poke him in the eye. In fact, as I recall, I was embarrassingly deferential each time.

Never again.

[K. A. Pital]

Kissinger had no problems with a real holocaust that Indonesia caused in East Timor. I think he'd be even glad if something like that happened inside the USSR - all the more propaganda food for the US State Department about how evil evil evil Russkies are.

Kissinger to Sukharto on Timor:

It is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly. We would be able to influence the reaction if whatever happens, happens after we return.... If you have made plans, we will do our best to keep everyone quiet until the President returns home. ... The President will be back on Monday at 2 PM Jakarta time. We understand your problem and the need to move quickly but I am only saying that it would be better if it were done after we returned.

I think Kissinger has just so much on him, from the quiet support of the Khmer Rouge to Chile to whatever else, that this remark about something that might have happened and America wouldn't give two shits (and it's not like America could really do anything, either) is absolutely irrelevant in the light of his real actions which had real consequences.

[MKSheppard]

Let me put this into clearer context:

Kissinger “The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy. And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern....maybe a humanitarian concern."

Nixon: "We’re not going to blow up the world [over this]."

Certainly, the US was not going to uh, intervene in the affairs of a nation with 1.220 ICBMs, 215 SLBMs, 628 IRBMs, and 110 TU-95 BEARs. [Soviet Force Levels in 1969]

Intervening in the affairs of a nation that's a third rate power and whose traditional patron totally collapsed eight years ago? LEAD THE CHARGE INTO SERBIA!

[Stark]

Aside from irrelevant military trivia, that isn't what was said. He says that he doesn't want to encourage Jews to emigrate from Russia, and that if those Jews were being systematically mass-murdered, that wouldn't be a concern (probably in regards to 'encouraging emigration).

Spinning this as realpolitik when its clearly racism is bizarre.

[K. A. Pital]

Intervening in the affairs of a nation that's a third rate power and whose traditional patron totally collapsed eight years ago? LEAD THE CHARGE INTO SERBIA!

Surprisingly enough, Kissinger, the same person who supported the actions in Chile, Argentina, Cambodia, East Timor and Pakistan and his hands are so deep in blood that it is truly hard to find someone similar in American Cold War history (except, of course, the military establishment), was opposed to the war in Yugoslavia. It is quite funny, really.

The Rambouillet text, which called on Serbia to admit NATO troops throughout Yugoslavia, was a provocation, an excuse to start bombing. Rambouillet is not a document that any Serb could have accepted. It was a terrible diplomatic document that should never have been presented in that form.

Damn.

[fgalkin]

Well, at least he's consistent in not giving a shit about genocides, even fake ones.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Straha]

A few things:

A. Kissinger was no holocaust survivor. The article makes that claim and it... irks me to no end.

B. This is old news. I have all three volumes of Kissinger's memoirs, he talks about Jews in the Soviet Union at some length, and doesn't cover himself up there. If you go to "The Kissinger Transcripts," compiled and released publicly over ten years ago, there are pages and pages of discussion of this, including multiple instances where Kissinger tells Brezhnev to his face that concern over Jewish emigration and the treatment of Jews inside the Soviet Union is a minor issue, and that the Soviets should pay no mind to American announcements on the issue. The recent Dallek book Kissinger and Nixon talks about the issue as well. Kissinger also publicly came out against the Jackson-Vaniik Amendment, which means not only is this article old news but it's thirty-five years old.

That brings us to:

C. Put this into context. I will bet money that the issue being discussed between Nixon and Kissinger was Senator Jackson's repeated attempts to make the liberalization of Soviet policy regarding emigration of Jewish citizens from the Soviet Union a sine qua non in regards to détente. This was largely political, used by the Democratic party to harass Nixon publicly, and not a serious goal. Even if it was, I can... appreciate, I guess, what Kissinger is saying (except for the "gas chamber" line), better relations with the Soviet Union with all the benefits that came out of it is certainly far more useful than pissing off the Soviets for no return gain.

That said:

D. There is absolutely nothing that can excuse the "if they put Jews into gas chambers" line. It's abhorrent, repugnant, and disgusting. For that alone, to say nothing of his other many sins, he should never be able to have a sound night's sleep. But, as always, context is key. I like to condemn someone for ignoring a genocide/travesty of justice/whatever as much as the next guy, but he wasn't quite doing that here.

[Pelranius]

So is Kissinger a self hating Jew or just really, really amoral?

[Sarevok]

Aside from irrelevant military trivia, that isn't what was said. He says that he doesn't want to encourage Jews to emigrate from Russia, and that if those Jews were being systematically mass-murdered, that wouldn't be a concern (probably in regards to 'encouraging emigration).

Spinning this as realpolitik when its clearly racism is bizarre.

Way to take words out of context. Kissinger did say it was a humanitarian concern. There was nothing America could do here. How do you suggest America could force the Soviet Union at the height of cold war to change its internal policy ?

[Flagg]

Aside from irrelevant military trivia, that isn't what was said. He says that he doesn't want to encourage Jews to emigrate from Russia, and that if those Jews were being systematically mass-murdered, that wouldn't be a concern (probably in regards to 'encouraging emigration).

Spinning this as realpolitik when its clearly racism is bizarre.

Way to take words out of context. Kissinger did say it was a humanitarian concern. There was nothing America could do here. How do you suggest America could force the Soviet Union at the height of cold war to change its internal policy ?

Can you not read? Kissinger was talking about the emigration of Jews to the US.

[D.Turtle]

Way to take words out of context. Kissinger did say it was a humanitarian concern. There was nothing America could do here. How do you suggest America could force the Soviet Union at the height of cold war to change its internal policy ?

He was clearly separating between "American concerns" and "humanitarian concerns" as in, that humanitarian concerns are unimportant as to what America does. As in, its only a humanitarian concern, so who gives a shit?

He is not saying that America can't do anything, but that it shouldn't or doesn't need to.

[Shroom Man 777]

Way to take words out of context. Kissinger said it was maybe a humanitarian concern. He wasn't even sure if gassing Jews would count as a humanitarian concern, it was a maybe, and most certainly it wasn't a concern of America either.

If American policy makers can't even give a shit about a holocaust in Russia, then I guess it puts all their hollering about freedomization and democracy and whatever in the context of bullshit. At worst it paints them as anti-semites, at best it paints them as amoral shitpieces who don't really give a rat's ass over other human beings and prioritize political advancement over actual human suffering. Which, I guess, is no big surprise to us all here.

[Marcus Aurelius]

So is Kissinger a self hating Jew or just really, really amoral?

Neither, I would guess. It's just a standard "Realpolitik über alles" attitude that some people like to think is the sign of good foreign policy. That kind of thinking of course includes the basic assumption that moral concerns are secondary at best, and tertiary if the situation so dictates.

[Sarevok]

If I am not mistaken the chief problem with jews in Soviet Union was that it was not easy to leave the county. It was very difficult for many of them to even go to Israel. It was not a question of America closing its doors to jews but rather Soviets not letting them out.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Yeah, America should just treat other superpowers like it does small states, since it's reaction to China & Tibet was totally the same as Iraq & Kuwait... I mean, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia for sponsoring terrorists? Iran and Yemen?
Well, it should totally ignore other states internal affairs and dictate their ethical norms on minorities even if they can't enforce it or it means thermonuclear war!!!!

/Sarcasm.

[Straha]

Dear fucking gods.

Kissinger wasn't ignoring any holocaust inside Russia. Nobody was. There was nothing to ignore. He was saying that trying to get Russia to change its emigration policy regarding Jews shouldn't be an American concern because America couldn't in anyway force a change in policy. He was not "not giving a shit about a holocaust in Russia", he was not saying America shouldn't change its internal immigration policies, he was not doing just about anything that he is being accused of in this thread.

Kissinger made two statements. The first was a blunt statement that trying to change Soviet emigration policy WAS NOT a plank in American foreign policy. Simple enough. The second was that what the Soviet Union did to its people was not an American concern. He said this in a way that was in horrible taste, and is downright appalling. For that he deserves all opprobrium possible, and we can all heap it on him, but don't accuse him of doing anything he wasn't.

I will tentatively interject in his defense right now and say that he was probably speaking in a tongue in cheek way. If you read/listen to the Kissinger Transcripts he would often make a perfectly acceptable statement ("The emigration of Jews isn't our concern, it's an internal matter.") and follow it up with an over-the-top ridiculous statement ("They can do anything they want with their Jews, matter of fact. Anything.") Nixon loved that shit. So, I don't think Kissinger actually meant what he was saying, but that doesn't really matter here or there.

[K. A. Pital]

If I am not mistaken the chief problem with jews in Soviet Union was that it was not easy to leave the county. It was very difficult for many of them to even go to Israel. It was not a question of America closing its doors to jews but rather Soviets not letting them out.

The USSR actually first tried to create an "internal Israel" for the Jews, and it didn't fail, but the city was too small to accomodate all. After that we started relaxing emigration rules which led to many Jews leaving the USSR in the 70's and such. In 1971, the USSR decided to let the Jews leave its borders for Israel if they so desire.

Nixon loved that shit. So, I don't think Kissinger actually meant what he was saying, but that doesn't really matter here or there.

I am too of the opinion that this is just a tasteless statement of someone who doesn't give a shit, not something more. Like I said, it is much scarier when Kissinger gives explicit approval to a war of agression which was subsequently followed by genocide, and that war and genocide actually happened, unlike the scare-mongering about all Jews being sent to gas chambers in the USSR.

And yeah, how did Kissinger turn into a Holocaust survivor? I believe I missed the part where Soviet or Anglo-American troops found him dying in a KZ, like they did with Wiesenthal, eh?

[LaCroix]

And yeah, how did Kissinger turn into a Holocaust survivor? I believe I missed the part where Soviet or Anglo-American troops found him dying in a KZ, like they did with Wiesenthal, eh?

He lived under Nazi rule, and emigrated in 1938 . This makes him a German Jew who survived, simply by leaving long before the holocaust started. But if you take this as the obstacle to hop over, every Jew still alive after WWII is a Holocaust survivor.

[K. A. Pital]

And yeah, how did Kissinger turn into a Holocaust survivor? I believe I missed the part where Soviet or Anglo-American troops found him dying in a KZ, like they did with Wiesenthal, eh?

He lived under Nazi rule, and emigrated in 1938 . This makes him a German Jew who survived, simply by leaving long before the holocaust started. But if you take this as the obstacle to hop over, every Jew still alive after WWII is a Holocaust survivor.

Hmm. I believe the language is not being good to me here. In Russian, nobody would call any Jews alive after WWII "Holocaust survivors" - only those who actually passed through the Holocaust would be called "survivors" (like you wouldn't call a man sitting in the USA the survivor of a tsunami that hit Indonesia), although a case could be made that a child of escaped parents is one.

I don't think Kissinger cared about himself being Jewish, or about the Jews in general for that matter. I don't think he cared about anything except himself and his job, which was to make way for American interests regardless of any consequences.

[LaCroix]

Hmm. I believe the language is not being good to me here. In Russian, nobody would call any Jews alive after WWII "Holocaust survivors" - only those who actually passed through the Holocaust would be called "survivors" (like you wouldn't call a man sitting in the USA the survivor of a tsunami that hit Indonesia), although a case could be made that a child of escaped parents is one.

I just tried to come up with what their argumentation would be like.

But basically, since they got out just in time, it is more appropriate to compare him to an American tourist who didn't like the hovel of a hotel he was in and cut his vacation short and got out of Indonesia two days before the tsunami hit. If he didn't leave, he would have been hit as well.

So I can agree to the definition that he was a "survivor" of some kind, but of the lowest grade possible, if there were such grades. (Especially as his family probably lost all they had in the process - most was taken away or had to be sold at ridiculous prices.)

[Straha]

Hmm. I believe the language is not being good to me here. In Russian, nobody would call any Jews alive after WWII "Holocaust survivors" - only those who actually passed through the Holocaust would be called "survivors" (like you wouldn't call a man sitting in the USA the survivor of a tsunami that hit Indonesia), although a case could be made that a child of escaped parents is one.

But basically, since they got out just in time, it is more appropriate to compare him to an American tourist who didn't like the hovel of a hotel he was in and cut his vacation short and got out of Indonesia two days before the tsunami hit. If he didn't leave, he would have been hit as well.

Uh, comparing a German Jewish family who escaped the Third Reich in 1938, after living under the Nazis for years, to American tourists on vacation is... in rather poor taste don't you think?

And, Stas, I don't know why the article calls him a survivor, and it's certainly not a translation issue because I can't think of anywhere else I've heard him referred, even obliquely, as a holocaust survivor. I think the author of the article just wanted to be able to throw extra shit at poor ole Henry.