I knew Kissinger had done some s***, trying to find middle of the road information about him is hard as hell.
Most pages talk about his accomplishments in great detail, most posts about his death were good riddance, rolling Stone mentioned he did some bad stuff in a hand wavy fashion
Depending on where you read, he killed millions and did Watergate himself or brought the world together Coca-Cola style.
This onion article is 10 times better than anything I searched for for 30 minutes yesterday.
The Rolling Stone article is much closer to reality. Kissinger was a warcriminal. Check out the 6part behind the bastards episodes on Kissinger. Dozens of citations are included with each episode in the series.
His wikipedia page is a good place to start. They take neutrality pretty serious over there.
‘Beau of the fifth column’ on YouTube had a pretty good objective description of the two points of view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqLSAW-1fQ8
One phrase that stuck was “You’re an objectively bad person who will do terrible things, but you’ll ally with America? How can we help you to sieze power?”
That is probably the best video I have seen on this subject. Thank you so much for sharing this. His explanation of the polarization are exactly what I was looking for.
I’m kind of in the middle, I realize that some shady, immoral, horrible shit has to happen, at the same time I also think that people use that concept to justify completely unreasonable, horrible things.
It’s so crazy that every other source you look up on him either shit talks him for 3 hours or gushes over him for 3 hours. It’s like one side doesn’t cover the good he’s done and the other side absolutely refuses to see the bad he’s done. The ones covering the good start reaching way outside the box to make it work and the ones covering the bad delve even in the rumor.
I guess it’s just strange that he did so much good and so much bad and the best thing that I can sun him up is that it’s complicated.
