Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
The thinking was that, because he had negotiated an end the Vietnam War which he had been busily escalating for several years, he and the lead Vietnamese negotiator both deserved to share the prize. The war hadn't ended, or anything, they'd just signed an agreement (which both sides more or less ignored.)
Every single person at the time thought it was the stupidest thing they'd ever heard. Even the New York Times could see that something was amiss; with their usual bold commitment to justice even when it contradicts the whims of American empire, they declared that it was "at the very least, premature." Le Duc Tho, the Vietnamese man who he was meant to share the prize with, angrily declined his half of the prize. Kissinger almost declined the prize... not because even he could see that is was an absurd joke, but because he was offended that they were going to give it to Le Duc Tho also. You know... peace-man logic.
They weren't great friends. Of course, in the end, Kissinger decided that he owed it to himself to collect his prize, although he didn't come in person because he probably would have been protested (and maybe arrested, I don't remember the timeline.)
Kissinger also helped scuttle the 1968 peace talks in the early stage. Kissinger, with through careful inference or by leveraging his network, informed the Nixon campaign that peace talks were underway.
The Nixon administration, though Anna Chennault, encouraged the South Vietnamese to drat their feet in their talks. They promised more favorable conditions if they waited until Nixon won the election. Which he did in 1968.
Peace talks concluded in 1973.
Yeah. There's a reason why, out of a long tradition of American war criminals, he was for-real worried about getting arrested for his war crimes and didn't leave the US all that much after a certain point because of it.
He was also just generally stupid and weak. The people at Harvard thought he must be qualified because the people in Washington respected him, and the people in Washington thought he must be qualified because the people at Harvard respected him. But he was generally just kind of a bumbler, if you couldn't tell from that "reporters will hear you" line of argument.