Talk:Henry Kissinger/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

The Section on Kissinger's Role in Latin America

   The current section, as it stands on 12/31/12 is incomplete regarding some key findings on Kissinger's roles:

1. Kissinger was definitely, absolutely involved and the key player along with Nixon.

There are extensive declassified documents showing his involvement.

2. Testimony presented by Kissinger to the Church Committee was factually inaccurate.

3. Kissinger's downplayed his role in Schneider's murder, essentially claiming he had turned off the coup plotting, when actually he suggested waiting until a more opportune time, but still continuing all efforts to undermine Allende.

   The whole section could be more rewritten more cleanly but I'm trying to preserve others' contributions as far as possible while providing new context. I'd like to address comments by TheTimesAreAChanging has reverted several of my edits repeatedly:

1. First, "The extent of Kissinger's involvement in or support of these plans is a subject of controversy.[40]" is blatantly inaccurate. The source cited is from the 1975 Church Committee report and we now know that Kissinger's testimony was incomplete, further Ambassador Korry said, "He "lied" (the quote occurs 1 hour 12 minutes in an interview in the movie The Trials of Henry Kissinger) regarding his role in the Scheider assassination.

2. Second, there are many reasons the "United States-Chile relations remained frosty during Salvador Allende's tenure,..." and to just call out the nationalization of industries, without supplying context is misleading. I was attempting to provide more context. There was indeed popular outrage after Schneider's assassination and as Anderson uncovered ITT's role, leading to wider investigations, including the Church Committee.

  Perhaps the best solution is to just state the relations were frosty. Otherwise we get into discussions more pertinent to the events of the coup then Kissinger's role in instigating it.

3. You mention Falcoff, a conservative writer. His book, Modern Chile, 1970-1989: A Critical History, was published in 1989, so is based on incomplete information. The commentary you mentioned was from 2003, the same year Kornbluh's book was published. Kornbluh's book came out towards the end of that year, so Falcoff most likely could not incorporate findings from Kornbluh's book. Kornbluh's book is based on an analysis of more than 24,000 declassified documents, including 114 documents reproduced in his book. In contrast, Falcoff's book, as described on Amazon:

"Falcoff debunks the myth of a CIA-inspired overthrow of the democratic forces, placing responsibility on Allende's failure to obtain or even seek a decisive electoral mandate, on a governing coalition internally inconsistent and frequently at war with its constituent elements, on an economic policy that polarized supporters and enemies, and ultimately on the need to turn to the military for the stability that its policy failures could not achieve."

is clearly inaccurate given what we know now.

Unfortunately for Falcoff, we now have the declassified documents to prove beyond doubt that there was indeed a CIA-inspired coup, including extensive economic warfare, psychological warfare, and black propaganda. So, it's not just my opinion. We can of course disagree on how much of a role the CIA versus internal factors played. But the fact of the CIA's role is beyond dispute, which undercuts the authority of Falcoff's argument.

Front Page Magazine is also hardly an independent arbitrer of truth, they are a "conservative online political magazine", according to its Wikipedia site, with contributors such as Charles Krauthammer, who is a noted neoconservative, so they will present articles with a conservative slant. Ultimately, the truth of what happened can be seen from the declassified documents.

I'm willing to appeal our disagreements to higher authorities and editors if you like, and will do so if we cannot reach an agreement.Veritas Aeterna (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply from TheTimesAreAChanging

As TheTimesAreAChanging requested that I not edit his reply, I've posted it in its entirety below, and then followed it with my replies addressing his concerns. Please see both.

Veritas Aeterna, I'm really getting tired of your tendency to conflate a variety of sources together, and then ascribe to them extreme claims they fail to support. In one case, you cite the sensational Overthrow and refer to it as a "declassified document," quoting Kinzer's hyperbolic editorializing as though it were unquestioned fact. That Kissinger "is more responsible for what happened in Chile than any other American" is not merely an inherently subjective judgment with which it is possible to disagree, but also an absurdity. Intelligence agencies rarely change history, and holding any American primarily responsible for the Chilean coup is a dubious exercise. To claim that Kissinger did it all and the President, DCI, and Chileans were all manipulated by the cunning Jew Kissinger is only popular because of the anti-Semitic innuendo in Hitchens' propaganda "documentary".

On the question of whether or not US officials intended Schneider's death, you argue that "declassified documents have substantiated this view." What documents? There are none, so you just conflate Kornbluh's argument that "coup plotting" continued with "proof" that US officials wanted to kill Schneider. Kornbluh's case is pretty shaky to begin with. Kissinger really did turn off Track II when he said he did! Kissinger: "On October 15, I called off Track II before it was ever implemented." Declassified documents: "Kissinger approved the decision to de-fuse the Viaux coup plot." But wait! The message Kissinger authorized the CIA to send to Viaux told him to "preserve your assets...The time will come when you with all your friends can do something." Of course, the US never collaborated with Viaux after that, and US officials might not have wanted to call Viaux a nut to his face, but no matter: According to Veritas Aeterna, this somehow magically proves Kissinger wanted to kill Schneider!

Kornbluh's editorializing is not a "declassified document." Kornbluh writes that "Far from turning off Track II, Kissinger's marching orders were to continue the covert pressure "on every Allende weak spot." Unfortunately for Kornbluh, hitting Allende at the IMF and helping democratic Chilean dissidents is not the same as attempting to orchestrate a military coup. How Veritas Aeterna thinks this irrefutably proves beyond rational doubt that Kissinger killed Schneider, I have no idea.

The facts of this matter are indeed firmly determined:

• "After more than thirty years, no evidence has come to light in either country that the United States played a direct role in the overthrow of the Allende government, but it was certainly a geopolitical bonanza for the United States, as Allende was cavorting with Castro with a particularly irritating relish."-Black, Conrad (2007). Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full. Public Affairs. pp. 921–922. ISBN 978-1-58648-519-1.

• "Was the United States DIRECTLY involved, covertly, in the 1973 coup in Chile? The Committee has found no evidence that it was. There is no hard evidence of direct U.S. assistance to the coup, despite frequent allegations of such aid. Rather the United States - by its previous actions during Track II, its existing general posture of opposition to Allende, and the nature of its contacts with the Chilean military- probably gave the impression that it would not look with disfavor on a military coup. And U.S. officials in the years before 1973 may not always have succeeded in walking the thin line between monitoring indigenous coup plotting and actually stimulating it."-Frank Church et al. (18 December 1975). "Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973". US Government Printing Office.

• "On 10 September 1973 -- the day before the coup that ended the Allende government -- a Chilean military officer reported to a CIA officer that a coup was being planned and asked for US government assistance. He was told that the US Government would not provide any assistance because this was strictly an internal Chilean matter."-CIA (19 September 2000). "CIA Activities in Chile". Chile Documentation Project. National Security Archive. p. 13.

• "The United States did play a role in Chile, though not precisely the one ascribed to it. It attempted--unsuccessfully--to forestall Allende's confirmation by the Chilean congress. But once he was in office, the thrust of U.S. policy shifted to sustaining a democratic opposition and an independent press until Allende could be defeated in the presidential elections scheduled for 1976. To the extent that this opposition was able to survive under extraordinarily difficult economic circumstances--winning control of the Chilean congress in March 1973--one might even credit the Nixon administration with preventing the consolidation of Allende's "totalitarian project" (to use the apt expression of Eduardo Frei). What then followed--a right-wing dictatorship that crushed not merely the Allende regime but Chilean democracy itself--was not and could not have been predicted, partly because of the military's own apolitical traditions and partly because, by mid-1973, the opposition to Allende was dominated by forces of proved democratic provenance. To the contrary, Washington's presumption--that in the 1976 elections, if they were allowed to take place, the opposition would win decisively--was amply supported by the facts. It was only the savagery of the subsequent Pinochet dictatorship that in hindsight altered the historical picture."-Falcoff, Mark, "Kissinger and Chile", Commentary, 2003

• "Just why the Chilean kidnapping plot went forward after Kissinger issued orders that General Viaux be "turned off" is not clear....[Thomas] Karamassines phoned the National Security Adviser who asked if he "cleared everything in advance with you. He said no, you were too busy." In the same private conversation, Kissinger remarks that, although he did not know about the second plot, he might have approved it. Then he adds: "I thought that after we turned off that one thing [the Viaux plot], nothing more had happened and in fact that other thing [the Schneider kidnapping] had happened."-Ibid

I'd add that Allende rightfully boasted that the Chilean military received several times more aid from the US under his socialist regime than it had in the years prior. The US continued humanitarian aid and never invoked the Hickenlooper Amendment; Chile's default alone was an effective transfer of resources greater by many orders of magnitude than that tendered to the Frei administration. The role played by US policy in creating Chile's economic crisis was minor--even if the net affect was negative (although certain US officials might prefer to believe in their own omnipotence). The US did try to hurt Allende at the IMF, but Chile still got $100 million in loans.

Let's get real. Kissinger is not more responsible for what happened in Chile than Nixon. The plan to buy the Chilean election was Korry's idea, and Kissinger wasn’t involved in the provision of arms to kidnap Schneider. Nixon gave the CIA very broad orders, and Kissinger wasn't briefed about everything they did in advance. Chile was a relatively small blip on his radar. Trying to quantify his responsibility is inherently subjective. Falcoff was given access to a treasure trove of declassified documents, and wrote in Commentary, not FPM (which just reposted the piece online). Anyone will tell you that this section should probably be trimmed to match the corresponding section in Richard Nixon, not dramatically expanded with such obvious POV-pushing on a BLP. BTW, please do not break up my comment with your response and thus make it unreadable, as you previously did here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

My Reply to TheTimesAreAChanging

Veritas Aeterna, I'm really getting tired of your tendency to conflate a variety of sources together, and then ascribe to them extreme claims they fail to support. In one case, you cite the sensational Overthrow and refer to it as a "declassified document," quoting Kinzer's hyperbolic editorializing as though it were unquestioned fact.

TheTimesAreAChanging, I too and am getting frustrating with our endless disputes and will appeal our discussions. I am aware that all the books I am citing are not themselves declassified documents, but Kornbluh's very thorough analysis of the declassified documents released in the Chile Declassification Project substantiates all the claims I make. Ultimately, you are arguing against declassified CIA, NSC, White House, State Department, and FBI records. That is why I am appealing. These records factually record what was going on, regarding covert activity, at the time as best we can ascertain at this time.

That Kissinger "is more responsible for what happened in Chile than any other American" is not merely an inherently subjective judgment with which it is possible to disagree, but also an absurdity.

TheTimesAreAChanging, it is hardly an absurdity, given his carrying out of Nixon's orders, and the ramifications of the covert actions detailed in Kornbluh and the declassified documents. The coup ultimately overthrew a democratically elected president, and led to a regime of terror, that can be argued to a fascist dictatorship. You may argue about the word 'fascist' but I don't see how you can argue about it being a fascist regime.

If you read the context, what is referred to is "Kissinger's involvement in or support of these plans":

The extent of Kissinger's involvement in or support of these plans was a subject of controversy until recently declassified papers, part of the Chile Declassification Project, established the key role he played beyond doubt: "Kissinger would be more directly responsible for what happened in Chile than any other American, with the possible exception of Nixon himself."

but I will clarify it to make this especially clear to address your concerns:

The extent of Kissinger's involvement in or support of these plans was a subject of controversy until recently declassified papers, part of the Chile Declassification Project, established the key role he played in these covert plans beyond doubt: "Kissinger would be more directly responsible for what happened in Chile than any other American, with the possible exception of Nixon himself."

Intelligence agencies rarely change history, and holding any American primarily responsible for the Chilean coup is a dubious exercise.

TheTimesAreAChanging, read 'Legacy of Ashes', and you will see that it is not the case although I would agree they rarely change them as they intend to, frequently bungle their plans, and most of all the changes have 'blowback'. Examples we can cite have do with Iran, Vietnam, Hawaii, Guatemala, and Grenada all covered in 'Overthrow'. I don't see why you call it a sensational book. It is accurate. Please cite where it is not otherwise. The contention that the US has intervened, covertly, when the conjunction of perceived Democratic principles and corporate interests are both concerned is substantiated by the examples. Why is that sensational?

 To claim that Kissinger did it all and the President, DCI, and Chileans were all manipulated by the cunning Jew Kissinger is only popular because of the anti-Semitic innuendo in Hitchens' propaganda "documentary". 

TheTimesAreAChanging, your comments veer close to ad hominen attacks on me, implying that I am anti-Semitic, when you know nothing about me. If you bother to read The Pinochet File, the claims are different. Kornbluh quotes Kissinger's book 'White House Years':

In his memoirs, Henry Kissinger identified Chilean millionaire, owner, and publisher of El Mercurio and distributor for the Pepisco Co., Agustín Edwards, a the catalyst of Richard Nixon's September 15 orders for a coup. and declassified documents have substantiated this view by providing additional context. Kornbluh, in his 2003 analysis of 24,000+ declassified documents, The Pinochet File, describes the key omissions:

Later, after the details of the Schneider operation and Track II were publicly revealed, Kissinger would repeatedly claim that he "turned off" all coup plotting at this October 15 meeting. In his still classified testimony before the Church Committee on August 12, 1975, Kissinger asserted that after that meeting "in my mind, Track II was finished." In his memoirs, Years of Renewal, he wrote "On October 15, I called off Track II before it was ever implemented."

But the detailed declassified documents relating to the October 15 meeting do not record any directive to terminate Track II; rather, according to the meeting minutes, Kissinger approved "the decision to de-fuse the Viaux coup plot, at least temporarily," (emphasis added). He authorized a message to Viaux stating: "preserve your assets..The time will come when you with all your friends can do something. You will continue to have our support."... Far from turning off Track II, Kissinger's marching orders were to continue the covert pressure "on every Allende weak spot"—up to the Congressional ratification and inauguration, and thereafter.

More directly, referring to Kissinger's testimony, Ambassador Edward Korry simply said, "He lied.", in The Trials of Henry Kissinger, in an interview 72 minutes into the documentary.

TheTimesAreAChanging, You deleted this quote whereas I did not delete the Falcoff block quote, which is incorrect as it relies on superseded information. I preserved the Falcoff quote as a courtesy to previous editors. At the least we should prevent the controversy or dispute we have here although I think the Falcoff quote should be deleting. As the section would be getting a bit long some of this may need to be moved to a controversy section.

Declassified documents: "Kissinger approved the decision to de-fuse the Viaux coup plot." But wait! The message Kissinger authorized the CIA to send to Viaux told him to "preserve your assets...The time will come when you with all your friends can do something." Of course, the US never collaborated with Viaux after that, ...

TheTimesAreAChanging, I'm afraid that is factually incorrect. The Viaux groups and Valuenza groups were collaborating, although the CIA attempted to portray as two totally separate groups acting independently. See Kornbluh's section on Covering up the U.S. Role, p. 33:

In a secret October 1974 briefing paper, titled "Special Mandate from the President on Chile," the CIA attempted to rewrite FUBELT history, forcefully asserted that "the Viaux group, acting independently" had killed Schneider.

...and, more damning yet, on p. 34 and 35:

In a short paragraph, buried in a September 2000 report to Congress on CIA Activities in Chile, the Agency conceded that

In November 1970 a member of the Viaux group who avoided capture recontacted the Agency and requested financial assistance on behalf of the group.

Eventually 35K was paid.

...and US officials might not have wanted to call Viaux a nut to his face, but no matter: According to Veritas Aeterna, this somehow magically proves Kissinger wanted to kill Schneider!

No, TheTimesAreAChanging, I'm only saying they wanted to "remove" him.

Kornbluh's editorializing is not a "declassified document." Kornbluh writes that "Far from turning off Track II, Kissinger's marching orders were to continue the covert pressure "on every Allende weak spot." Unfortunately for Kornbluh, hitting Allende at the IMF and helping democratic Chilean dissidents is not the same as attempting to orchestrate a military coup. How Veritas Aeterna thinks this irrefutably proves beyond rational doubt that Kissinger killed Schneider, I have no idea.

No, TheTimesAreAChanging, I think the declassified documents are clear enough and Kornbluh is not editorializing. See Document 12, the CIA Secret Cable from Headquarters, October 16, 1970, in Kornbluh's book, where point 2 listed is:

2. It is firm and continuing poliy that Allende be overthrown by a coup.

That's not Kornbluh's writing, but the CIA's.

The facts of this matter are indeed firmly determined:

• "After more than thirty years, no evidence has come to light in either country that the United States played a direct role in the overthrow of the Allende government, but it was certainly a geopolitical bonanza for the United States, as Allende was cavorting with Castro with a particularly irritating relish."-Black, Conrad (2007). Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full. Public Affairs. pp. 921–922. ISBN 978-1-58648-519-1.

Clearly, Black is not accounting for these declassified documents. I believe many people are not aware of them. Kornbluh's book came out very close to 9/11 and was overshadowed by those events. I think 50K kidnapping money, 35K hush money, millions overall, submachine guns, black propaganda count for a direct role in overthrowing the Allende government. If you want to argue that is only an indirect role, then Black is being disingenuous in not mentioning these activities, if he is aware of them.

• "Was the United States DIRECTLY involved, covertly, in the 1973 coup in Chile? The Committee has found no evidence that it was. There is no hard evidence of direct U.S. assistance to the coup, despite frequent allegations of such aid. Rather the United States - by its previous actions during Track II, its existing general posture of opposition to Allende, and the nature of its contacts with the Chilean military- probably gave the impression that it would not look with disfavor on a military coup. And U.S. officials in the years before 1973 may not always have succeeded in walking the thin line between monitoring indigenous coup plotting and actually stimulating it."-Frank Church et al. (18 December 1975). "Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973". US Government Printing Office.

Those findings are dated and there was a CIA coverup to mislead the Church Commission. And they definitely indicated that they would look favorably on a coup. Black propaganda aimed at the military also implied that their positions were threatened if there was not a coup.

• "On 10 September 1973 -- the day before the coup that ended the Allende government -- a Chilean military officer reported to a CIA officer that a coup was being planned and asked for US government assistance. He was told that the US Government would not provide any assistance because this was strictly an internal Chilean matter."-CIA (19 September 2000). "CIA Activities in Chile". Chile Documentation Project. National Security Archive. p. 13.

I'm aware of that. Standing in isolation it looks pretty good. But the context of the remaining documents makes it crystal clear that the U.S. provided support. Guns, money, tear gas...that's all support.

• "The United States did play a role in Chile, though not precisely the one ascribed to it. It attempted--unsuccessfully--to forestall Allende's confirmation by the Chilean congress. But once he was in office, the thrust of U.S. policy shifted to sustaining a democratic opposition and an independent press until Allende could be defeated in the presidential elections scheduled for 1976. To the extent that this opposition was able to survive under extraordinarily difficult economic circumstances--winning control of the Chilean congress in March 1973--one might even credit the Nixon administration with preventing the consolidation of Allende's "totalitarian project" (to use the apt expression of Eduardo Frei). What then followed--a right-wing dictatorship that crushed not merely the Allende regime but Chilean democracy itself--was not and could not have been predicted, partly because of the military's own apolitical traditions and partly because, by mid-1973, the opposition to Allende was dominated by forces of proved democratic provenance. To the contrary, Washington's presumption--that in the 1976 elections, if they were allowed to take place, the opposition would win decisively--was amply supported by the facts. It was only the savagery of the subsequent Pinochet dictatorship that in hindsight altered the historical picture."-Falcoff, Mark, "Kissinger and Chile", Commentary, 2003

I grant that no one anticipated the savagery of Pinochet. But the documents showed the US did much more than just support the opposition. They also waged psychological warfare, supported black propaganda in El Mercurio, funded violent anti-Allende strikes, had false flag operatives contact generals in the Chilean army. Once Allende was in office, the US supported Operation CONDOR, provided Pinochet with significant financial aid that had been turned off for Allende, helped cover up some of Pinochet's human rights abuses (Horman and other US citizens, for example), etc. So Falcoff also ignores the declassified documents and Kornbluh's analysis, or is not aware of them.

• "Just why the Chilean kidnapping plot went forward after Kissinger issued orders that General Viaux be "turned off" is not clear....[Thomas] Karamassines phoned the National Security Adviser who asked if he "cleared everything in advance with you. He said no, you were too busy." In the same private conversation, Kissinger remarks that, although he did not know about the second plot, he might have approved it. Then he adds: "I thought that after we turned off that one thing [the Viaux plot], nothing more had happened and in fact that other thing [the Schneider kidnapping] had happened."-Ibid

I addressed that earlier with more context in the quote you deleted.

I'd add that Allende rightfully boasted that the Chilean military received several times more aid from the US under his socialist regime than it had in the years prior. The US continued humanitarian aid and never invoked the Hickenlooper Amendment; Chile's default alone was an effective transfer of resources greater by many orders of magnitude than that tendered to the Frei administration. The role played by US policy in creating Chile's economic crisis was minor--

The Invisible Blockade is addressed extensively in p. 83-87 of Kornbluh. A more succinct summary appears in Overthrow, p. 185:

The first blows struck were economic. Two principal America foreign aid agencies, the Export-Import Bank and the Agency for International Development, acting under classified instructions from the National Security Council, announced that they would no longer approve "any new commitments of US bilateral assistance to Chile." Then the United States representative at the Inter-American Development Bank was instructed to block all proposals for loans to Chile. When the bank's president protested, the administration forced his resignation. The new president reduced Chile's credit rating from B to D. Private banks followed suit, and the Export-Import Bank, citing the reduction, canceled a $21 million loan intended to pay for new Boeing jets for Chile's national airline. At the World Bank, the American representative arranged for the suspension of a $21 million livestock-improvement loan to Chile, and then announced that the United States would oppose all new World Bank lending to that country.

And, yes, the Invisible Blockade was imposed before Allende could begin enacting his own financial plans.

even if the net affect was negative (although certain US officials might prefer to believe in their own omnipotence). The US did try to hurt Allende at the IMF, but Chile still got $100 million in loans.

Let's get real. Kissinger is not more responsible for what happened in Chile than Nixon.

Agreed, my quote says, "Next to Nixon...".

The plan to buy the Chilean election was Korry's idea, and Kissinger wasn’t involved in the provision of arms to kidnap Schneider. Nixon gave the CIA very broad orders, and Kissinger wasn't briefed about everything they did in advance.

Kissinger was quite intimately involved, as he led the 40 Committee. Korry himself was kept in the dark about Track II activities.

Chile was a relatively small blip on his radar.

Initially, yes, but that changed when Nixon made it a key priority.

Trying to quantify his responsibility is inherently subjective. Falcoff was given access to a treasure trove of declassified documents, and wrote in Commentary, not FPM (which just reposted the piece online). Anyone will tell you that this section should probably be trimmed to match the corresponding section in Richard Nixon, not dramatically expanded with such obvious POV-pushing on a BLP.

I would claim the current POV is not neutral, but instead discounts Kissinger's role in the covert actions.

BTW, please do not break up my comment with your response and thus make it unreadable, as you previously did here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, apologies here. I'll paste your original reply above then. There was no intention to slight you, I'm just new to the protocol of talk pages and replying to others' comments.

Anyway, I think our disputes will not be resolved by discussion so will request additional help.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

References:

• Kornbluh, Peter, The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability. A National Security Archive Book. The New Press. 2003.
• Weiner, Tim, Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA. Anchor Books. New York. 2007. Kinzer, Stephen (2006).
• Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. New York: Times Books. pp. 361. ISBN 978-0-8050-8240-1.
• The Trial of Henry Kissinger

Request for Third Party Review

I requested a third party review. I tried to describe the disagreements above as dispassionately as possible.

1. Talk:Henry Kissinger#The Section on Kissinger's Role in Latin America. Failure to agree on role of Kissinger, whether the article point of view is balanced or not, and on the quality of the sources cited.05:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Um. Latin America is, in the context of Kissinger's career, relatively insignificant. Compared to, say, the Vietnam War (which can be broken down into the Paris peace talks, the Vietnamization of the War, the bombing of Cambodia, the invasion of Laos, etc), the opening to China (in its multiple stages), the SALT talks with the Soviet Union and the emergence of detente, the Yom Kippur War, the OPEC oil crisis, the cohesion of NATO in the light of Ostpolitik, internecine squabbles with the State Department and the CIA, and so on and so forth, I'd rate Kissinger's attention and role with respect to Latin America a distant 9th or 10th on this list of topics. Veritas Aeterna's current section is massively overly long and an example of undue weight. Condense to a paragraph, maybe two, of no more than 100 words each, would go more appropriately with the rest of the article, I think. Ray^Talk 06:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ray, thanks, I agree this section is overly long and should be condensed to accurately describe Kissinger's role. This time of period is quite important, perhaps less so than most Americans realize as it is an example of an American supported coup, led to 1000's of deaths (indirectly) under a dictatorial regime, and state-sponsored terrorism that we (the U.S.) provided some support for. It led to the first US car-bombing in Washington, D.C., and the murder of multiple American citizens.

I could condense it easily to a paragraph or two, but then TheTimesAreAChanging would object that it is inaccurate, when I am actually allowing him to present his view of events, even though it is overly positive with regards to what really happened. What should I do in this situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas Aeterna (talk • contribs) 18:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Veritas, why don't you propose a short (one or two paragraph) rewritten version of this section (the part on Chile), here on the Talk page, and then we can go down it part by part and create a consensus version here, in lieu of having you and TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs) edit warring on the main article page. Ray^Talk 20:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ray, that sounds like a good idea. I've drafted two paragraphs below. I haven't yet changed the references to be Wikipedia-style, and I would seek to add other sources where possible. I don't think TheTimesAreAChanging will agree with these two paragraphs of course. I think ultimately experts will have to be brought in. What happened is quite amazing, and Wikipedia readers deserve to know about the U.S. role. It is a case where truth is stranger than fiction. There is so much more that could be covered. I've tried to focus what I have below on Kissinger's role. I could also add citations for every line but may appear as overkill.

Although initially Chile was regarded as of little concern to the Nixon administration, the perception changed once Salvador Allende was declared the winner of the September 4, 1970 election. Both Nixon and Kissinger were determined to prevent Allende's election, both to protect US corporate interests and from fear that Allende’s brand of government might spread throughout Latin America if unopposed. The CIA operation to prevent Allende’s election and presidency was codenamed Operation FUBELT, and comprised two approaches, one political (Track I) and one military (Track II). Kissinger was the head of the 40 Committee, the group charged with oversight of United States covert operations. He requested “a cold blooded assessment of … the pros and cons and prospects involved should a Chilean military coup be organized now with U.S. assistance” [1]. A bungled kidnapping plot, supported with U.S. weapons and cash, led to the death of René Schneider, the Chilean commander-in-chief. The intention was to remove Schneider as an obstacle to the coup. Not only did the US, under Kissinger and Nixon, support the removal of Schneider, but they also directed a wide-ranging program of black propaganda, psychological warfare, political warfare, and economic warfare that crippled Chile, leading to a "coup climate", as intended.

Kissinger claimed that he had "turned off" the coup, but declassified papers indicate that he had only requested a postponement of action, while assuring full US support. On April 12, 1975, Kissinger testified to the Church Commission that he had turned off all coup plotting a week before the Schneider shooting, that they never received further reports on the matter, and that “Track II was dead as far as my office was concerned.” Asked again, he replied, “I said I did not know.” [2] However, a SECRET / NODIS / XGDS memo of a conversation between President Ford and Kissinger, along with CIA cables dated after the coup plotting was said to be shut down, show that Kissinger’s testimony is incorrect. [3] These declassified papers, released under the Chile Declassification Project, clearly show that Kissinger did not turn off the coup plotting, or attempts to overthrow Allende. Instead, U.S. covert support continued even after the coup of Augusto Pinochet overthrew Salvador Allende on September 11, 1973. The Chilean secret police, DINA committed widespread human rights abuses including political repression, state-sponsored terrorism, rape, torture, and the disappearance of left-wing dissidents. CIA station chief Ray Warren promised “planning, training, and organizational support” to Manuel Contreras, the head of DINA, who later became a paid CIA asset [4]. Furthermore, “the Ford administration—particularly Henry Kissinger’s office and the CIA—had extensive knowledge of” Operation CONDOR, an assassination and terror program aimed at left-wing dissidents living abroad. Although Kissinger publicly chastised the dictator Pinochet for human rights abuses, declassified documents again show that his private communications differed: Instead, he assured Pinochet that the US supported the post-Allende Chilean government, despite international outcry against human rights abuses [5]. Several US citizens were part of those killed, and the involvement of the Chilean military and secret police was suppressed with US complicity. As an example, the student Charles Horman was executed at the National Stadium during Pinochet's coup d'état. When his body was ultimately returned to the US, his family was charged $900 for expenses in a telegram signed by Henry Kissinger [6]. As a final example, Orlando Letelier, a refugee from Pinochet’s regime, and Ronni Moffitt, his U.S. assistant, were victims of Operation Condor, killed by a DINA car bomb in Washington, D.C. in 1976.

[1] Kornbluh, p. 9, and Doc. 4 on p. 46, NSC, Secret Meeting Minutes, “Minutes of the Meeting of the 40 Committee, 8 September 1970, “ September 9, 1970.

[2] Kornbluh, p. 31.

[3] Kornbluh, p. 31-32.

[4] Kornbluh, p. 221,224.

[5] Kornbluh, p. 264. Document 14, SECRET Memorandum of Conversation between Henry Kissinger and Augusto Pinochet, “U.S.-Chilean Relations,” June 8, 1976.

[6] Kornbluh, p. 287. Document 5, Department of State, Cable, “Disposition of Horman Remains,” March 23, 1974.

[7] Kornbluh, p. xiii.

[8] Wikipedia article on Orlando Letelier.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 10:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ray, I'm just wondering what happens next? I thought I'd filed a notice on the Dispute resolution noticeboard, but cannot find it listed. This is my first experience in a dispute, so don't know how it proceeds. Thanks.

It seems the disputed parts could go in some sort of Controversy section, become their own page, be decided one way or another, etc.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Veritas, I think your proposed paragraphs make an excellent start to build on. I have three main concerns. The first is your overreliance on Kornbluh, and your dismissal of other sources. Earlier sources, particularly the Church Committee, are not invalidated by release of classified documents, since they had access to those documents (if you're claiming the CIA conducted a coverup from the Church Committee, you better have really good evidence - deceiving Congressional oversight on this kind of matter is a crime, for which we have sent people to jail, nearly toppled the Reagan administration, etc). In addition, they had direct contemporary access to people involved, whereas official documentation is often subject to cherry-picking in hindsight that ignores appropriate context. Kornbluh is an excellent historian, but a highly biased and opinionated one. His books have titles like "atrocity and accountability" and Google suggests he is a frequent opinion columnist at left-wing opinion sites like the Nation, with strong policy preferences. Overreliance on an ideologically slanted source for a particularly controversial period of history is unwise. The second is that you get too specific too quickly. The specifics of Track II, the 40 committee's deliberations, etc., are appropriately discussed in fuller length articles (such as the one on US intervention in Chile). You should also separate American policy pre-Pinochet from American policy post-Pinochet. Operation Condor is best discussed separately as US cooperation with Pinochet's government after he had achieved a firm grip on power. The third is that you appear to draw overly facile conclusions which are not supported by a rigorous reading of the historical record. Ascribing motivations like "to protect US corporate interests" are closer to cant than any serious analysis of US policy motivations, which occurred far more in the context of a global geopolitical struggle. Kissinger and Nixon could not have personally cared less about any specific US corporate interest - they were worried about a Communist takeover of the Americas. To suggest that small-scale covert action like that approved, hesistantly, by the 40 Committee would have "crippled Chile" is a similar example of an extravagant reading of American capabilities. It is inappropriate in an encyclopedic article to directly argue with the subject of the article in the narrative voice, as you do with respect to Kissinger, and your argument itself is on shaky ground. It seems to me that, having chosen not to support a coup, the American government then proceeded to keep lines of communication open and to preserve future options. Ray^Talk 19:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ray, and thanks for your thoughtful suggestions, which can help refine the writing. It is challenging to cover this area, spanning at least two decades of Kissinger's involvement, and do it justice in two paragraphs without glossing over some key points. Below, I wanted to respond to your suggestions:

• Overreliance on Kornbluh—For this quick draft I did not add in other sources. The corroborating additional sources I can add would be the books 'Legacy of Ashes', about CIA activities, 'Overthrow', about covert regime change in multiple countries, arguing the thesis that it primarily occurs when there is a conflux of both idealogical and economic interests [and no, I don't think that is always the case, as with Iraq where the primary motivation was a neoconservative belief in a positive domino theory of spreading democracy, sadly misguided], Hitchen's book and the documentary 'The Trials of Henry Kissinger, and the Book-TV interview with Kornbluh. However, the main reason for the reliance is, and I quote from The New Yorker review, that it "Weaves together thirty years of declassified documents ... of America's involvement [in Chile] ... The evidence Kornbluh has gathered is overwhelming." It is overwhelming, see the list of declassified documents that merely appear in the book as photostats in The Pinochet File. I can also tie into other Wikipedia articles although many still need correcting as they rely on outdated sources or those that push the Conservative POV. Kornbluh is authorative as he relies on ground truth, the 24,000 declassified documents, and provides a coherent interpretation the reader can check against the declassified documents shown. Additional interviews and other sources are provided in 36 pages of endnotes.

• Regarding the earlier sources you mentioned below:

Earlier sources, particularly the Church Committee, are not invalidated by release of classified documents, since they had access to those documents (if you're claiming the CIA conducted a coverup from the Church Committee, you better have really good evidence - deceiving Congressional oversight on this kind of matter is a crime, for which we have sent people to jail, nearly toppled the Reagan administration, etc). In addition, they had direct contemporary access to people involved, whereas official documentation is often subject to cherry-picking in hindsight that ignores appropriate context.

The Church Committee did an invaluable service in exposing key abuses of the CIA, so they provide key parts of the picture, but not all. Not all as there were indeed declassified documents withheld from them, and because they (I'll be more direct here) were lied to. I'll address these:

• No, they didn't have all the declassified documents. Here is one example from Kornbluh [p. 79]:

The secret/sensitive memorandum of conversation of this cabinet meeting—a pivotal document withheld from the Church Committee on the grounds of “executive privilege” and kept secret for thirty years—records the unyielding White House commitment to undermine Chilean democracy, as well as the reason for it. "Our main concern in Chile is the prospect that he [Allende] can consolidate himself and the picture projected to the world will be his success,” stated Nixon, providing the only candid explanation of his policy to prevent the democratic election of a socialist from becoming a model for Latin America and elsewhere. "No impression should be permitted in Latin America that they can get away with this, that it's safe to go this way. All over the world it's too much the fashion to kick us around," the president continued. "We cannot faild to show our displeasure." (Doc 1)

That document is reproduced on p. 116 of Kornbluh. It is a White House secret memorandum of conversation on an NSC meeting regarding Chile. If it would help I could try to link to the original documents, but photostats are in Kornbluh.

• Were they lied to? Was there perjury? Yes. We can argue that it was intended to protect ongoing covert activities, but still it was perjury. I wouldn't be so direct in the article, of course.

(continuing a bit later...have to go for now!...will resume...)

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

(resuming now...)

Unfortunately, Congressional directives have been ignored, as the FISA restrictions on wiretapping were ignored by the Bush administration. Kornbluh goes into quite some detail on stonewalling against the Church Committee. More directly, Kornbluh quotes on p. 226, Jerome Levinson, Church's staff director:

"It appears that Secretary of State Henry Kissinger deceived the [Foreign Relations] Committee during the course of his confirmation hearing with respect to the extent and object of the CIA's activities in Chile, Levinson wrote. Richard Helms "committed perjury."

Yes, there is really good evidence. They did have direct access to people, but as you can see, they do not always tell the truth. In this case we could argue that Kissinger and Nixon felt that they had to protect ongoing covert activities, but that does not change the facts.

Regarding the issue of partisan viewpoints, that is going to be a challenge. We can argue that most of my sources are from the Left and most of those of TheTimesAreAChanging are from the Right. Given the polarized nature of debate in the US, at least, it may be difficult to find someone both expert and in the middle. Similar to the Pentagon Papers, we would expect an analysis of government misdeeds in the area of Intelligence to most likely come from the Left. However, facts are facts so Kornbluh's must be accounted for. Perhaps the best one can do is the way the section currently stands with viewpoints from both sides. Personally, I feel it is a false equivalency, but may be the best one can hope for. Kornbluh has the ground facts. I don't know about the others, and if their knowledge is up to date.

• You mentioned,

The second is that you get too specific too quickly. The specifics of Track II, the 40 committee's deliberations, etc., are appropriately discussed in fuller length articles (such as the one on US intervention in Chile). You should also separate American policy pre-Pinochet from American policy post-Pinochet. Operation Condor is best discussed separately as US cooperation with Pinochet's government after he had achieved a firm grip on power.

I agree with your comments here. But I don't know how to address them. On the one hand to talk more generally about Kissinger's actions in any negative way invites criticism that one is incorrect and that the specifics are lacking to support them. And I also agree that the focus between actions before the Pinochet coup and after needs to be more balanced. Hard to get all this just right!

In fact, precisely this kind of problem occurs next...

• With regard to...

The third is that you appear to draw overly facile conclusions which are not supported by a rigorous reading of the historical record. Ascribing motivations like "to protect US corporate interests" are closer to cant than any serious analysis of US policy motivations, which occurred far more in the context of a global geopolitical struggle. Kissinger and Nixon could not have personally cared less about any specific US corporate interest - they were worried about a Communist takeover of the Americas.

Yes, I should be more clear in "Both Nixon and Kissinger were determined to prevent Allende's election, both to protect US corporate interests and from fear that Allende’s brand of government might spread throughout Latin America if unopposed." but again I would need more space. I could specify "US corporate interests (e.g., ITT and Pepsico Co.)" to be more specific. Or drop it altogether as I agree the first consideration was to stop the spread of similar governments in Latin America.

Kornbluh discusses massive investments made during the prior administrations (Frei's), and US pressure on "the copper giants, Anaconda and Kennecott" to expand operations. "Between 1962 and 1970, this country of only ten million people received over 1.2 billion dollars in economic grants and loans - an astronomical amount for that era." (p. 5)

On p. 7,

...Helms stated that it was his impression "that the President called the [September 15] meeting [to order a coup] because of Edwards presence in Washington and what he heard from Kendall about what Edwards was saying about conditions in Chile and what was happening there."

Agustin Edwards was the publisher of El Mercurio, Chile's most respected newspaper, and a distributor for Pepsico Co; Kendall was the CEO of Pepsi-Cola.

So I think a case can be made that corporate interests were intertwined. Again without specifics I agree it does sound like 'cant'. But I can clearly show that Kissinger and Nixon did indeed care about specific US corporate interests; they also pressured US corporations to take actions to hurt Allende during his administration (specifically called out on p. 18: Anaconda Copper, Ford, and B of A).

And the last points you mention...

To suggest that small-scale covert action like that approved, hesistantly, by the 40 Committee would have "crippled Chile" is a similar example of an extravagant reading of American capabilities. It is inappropriate in an encyclopedic article to directly argue with the subject of the article in the narrative voice, as you do with respect to Kissinger, and your argument itself is on shaky ground. It seems to me that, having chosen not to support a coup, the American government then proceeded to keep lines of communication open and to preserve future options.

I don't know if $8M is the terms of the 70's would be considered small scale, in conjunction with White House efforts to wreck the economy. But anyway, the CIA has succeeded in engineering coup d'état in other countries. So they can do it, and have done it, although the results have typically not had the long-term desired results, as in Iran.

Regarding the use of "narrative voice", can you clarify? I usually think of that is first person narrative, but I am sure you intend something else. Perhaps you can point me to a reference?

The arguments are on very firm ground, but most people believe the established history, so it is difficult to correct. Perhaps they believe the full story came out in the 70's, but it did not.

Where you say, "It seems to me that, having chosen not to support a coup, the American government then proceeded to keep lines of communication open and to preserve future options. ", we know the US did in fact choose to support a coup.

The cherry-picking actually seems to be on the other side. Kissinger quotes the article about the 'turning off' coup, but not preserving assets. There is a frequently quoted cable directing an officer (Viaux?) that the US government could not support him, ignoring the far, far more numerous cables showing coup support and the larger context of creating a 'coup climate'. There is Kissinger's supposed admonishment of Pinochet for human rights abuses, but we now know he had communicated to Pinochet not to be concerned about these. There are numerous cases of stonewalling (the Church commission, the Chile Declassification Project, the parents of American casualities); all these seem to be ignored by those against any updating.

I agree I should talk more about the post-coup record to balance the pre-coup discussion. Most of all I selected the regions pertinent directly to Kissinger, so as not to reprise the whole coup and post-coup era, but one has to provide enough context to stand alone.

Anyway, where do you suggest we go from here? For Wikipedia to be authoritative it has to be updated.

Thanks again for your advice. I'm still somewhat new to this. Perhaps I should have picked a less contentious topic, but there are quite a few coup-related articles that are incomplete, and in some cases inaccurate. By the way, I am American, so have no particular axe to grind against the US. I'll most likely respond on weekends, as this is much more time-consuming than I every imagined!

Best,

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I've given this some time for the discussion to cool off, and I think, given the particular nature of Kornbluh's claims, the requirements of WP:UNDUE, the BLP policy, and good encyclopedic style, the best thing to do is to chop down to a spare description of events, and leave the tendentious he-said she-said stuff for a breakout article, if anybody wants to do one. In particular, I think it is unhelpful to waste entire paragraphs arguing about the semantic difference between ordering no support for a particular coup and ordering no support for any conceivable coup, which is basically how Kornbluh sets up a straw man and accuses Kissinger of lying. In any case, the Chilean episode was a sideshow, and we've spent far too much time on it here. I invite Veritas Aeterna, if he so desires , to edit the US intervention in Chile article to his heart's content, but honestly, the Chile section was far too long, and the broad facts are not in dispute: the US under Kissinger disliked Allende, supported his opponents through extralegal means, both before and after his overthrow. That's the long and short of it, and should suffice for our article. Ray^Talk 03:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ray, thanks for reviewing this area. I thought we were working together for a resolution on your talk page, including shortening it, and then activity ceased on your talk page, and then the section disappeared. You appeared to be traveling and I was not sure what was going on with the dispute over sources and the facts of this article.

Regardless, I’ll accept your decision, as I agree the broad facts presented can be agreed upon. Unfortunately, there are grave omissions that seriously undermine the authority of the article.

What is missing is that Kissinger played a key role in undermining a democratically elected government, and that he lied to Congress about it. Currently, it sounds as if Kissinger was a bit player, not an active participant, and it provides no mention of any CIA cover-up, or Kissinger’s role in that cover-up. Thus, the article remains misleading and omits facts essential to Kissinger’s biography.

I’d like to clarify what Kornbluh says about Kissinger’s lying. It’s not a straw man. First, Kissinger claimed several times he “turned off” the coup. He implied that he ordered all coup activity to cease, and for it not to resume. The records show that he only deferred action, recommending a later time for General Viaux, and for him to preserve assets for that time, and for the different sets of coup plotters to work together. The context shows the real reason was that Kissinger had no confidence in Viaux, and not that he wanted to stop the subversive activity to undermine Allende, who was democratically elected. So, to claim he turned off coup activity, as he claimed, is untrue. It is not merely a matter of semantics as it pertains directly to whether he was truthful or not to the Congress and American people. Second, Kissinger flatly denied any US involvement in the coup machinations in the Church hearings, which is totally untrue. Apparently, misleading and untrue statements to Congress do not rate a mention for this article, nor does a central role in overthrowing a democratically elected leader. Further, there are other issues of supporting or condoning state terrorism, in Operation Condor, that are only touched upon here.

I don’t think Chile was a sideshow to this article, or to the US, as Kissinger was heavily involved with it. To say Kissinger’s role in overthrowing a democratically elected government is a sideshow marginalizes our role, and what Chile went through as a result of our involvement, with the thousands dead and tortured.

Nor do I think lying to Congress or overthrowing a democratically elected government is a sideshow, nor are these minority opinions, given Hitchens, Weiner, Kornbluh, and Kinzer’s books, the massive amount of declassified documents, and Collin Powell’s admission that the 1973 coup “is not a part of American History we are proud of” (see [[1]]). Citing WP:UNDUE implies these views are fringe or minority views. That is not the case.

Instead, I would argue that the exculpatory views are now in the minority and downplaying Kissinger’s role exhibits Anglo-American Bias by relegating US actions in Chile, and Kissinger’s role, to a sideshow. So, as it remains, the current article violates WP:UNDUE by providing an undue weight to the views that are largely exculpatory to Kissinger’s role that are now discredited and based on outdated sources.

The section was indeed far too long, as I let past viewpoints have a very fair and lengthy representation. I attempted to minimally edit them out of respect for past editors. However, those views have no currency, as they are flatly contradicted by the ground truth of the roughly 24,000 declassified documents released in the Chile Declassification Project, only available after 2000. It is truly regrettable that this page remains so biased in this fashion as to whitewash Kissinger’s role, but I’ve done all I can to correct this page.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"Dumb, stupid animals..."

Indeed, Kissinger's quote is found on pg. 194 of Woodward/Bernstein book The Final Days, which is considered a notable secondary source. However, the quote in the book is in a section highlighting Kissinger's difficult, and often abusive, relationship with White House staff. The specific context is the contentious relationship with Alexander Haig, Kissinger's military aide - the quote is given as a demonstration of how Kissinger allegedly taunted and belittled Haig. Woodward/Bernstein do NOT use the quote as any kind of authentic evidence that Kissinger hated the military, or that this was an opinion that formed any of Kissinger's foreign policy decisions. By placing the quote in that section, WE'RE (Wikipedia and NOT Woodward/Bernstein) attempting to make the connection and asserting this was Kissinger's attitude in approaching foreign policy. That connection is NOT supported by the source so it's not acceptable in a biography of a living person.EBY (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I accept your rationale. There is nowhere else to put it unless I start a new section but I won't because it would be vexatious to do so simply to accommodate the quote. Sqgl (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)sqgl

• It's tough because this kind of inflammatory quote IS indicative of one of the prominent aspects of Kissinger's personality, which is why Woodward/Bernstein included it in their book. But as you say, I don't see a place to integrate it that wouldn't blow the B:LP hatch. EBY (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

He might shoot his mouth off more than others, and he may even be more guilty than others (Hitchens certainly thinks so, as noted), but realpolitik is ugly and examples of it as revealed in CableGate are educational. The reason the leaks were sensational is because so many are in denial of realpolitik and those in power want to keep it that way. Personally Obama reminds me of Gus from Breaking Bad so don't think I am being partisan here.Sqgl (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)sqgl

• I agree that examples are educational. Which makes me wonder about articles and even venues outside the WikiWorld that could advance that knowledge. EBY (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I here what you are saying and defer to your experience on this site.Sqgl (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)sqgl

Misquoting Wikileaks' Press Release

Currently, the "Public Perception" section contains this sentence: "On April 8, 2013, WikiLeaks published what they said were 1.7 million U.S. diplomatic and intelligence documents from 1973 to 1976, calling them the Kissinger cables. The release is part of information that was already previously available from the National Archives and Records Administration, but now contain several corrections of errors introduced by the NARA, the U.S. State Department and other parties, along with updated meta data to assist in searching and organization of the cables."

I don't feel it's correct to label the work done by WikiLeaks as "corrections of errors introduced by NARA, the U.S. State Department, and other parties". Wikileaks' own press release bills their corrections as simple editing, like harmonizing spellings of names or places. The notion that typographical errors in a source document written by an employee of the U.S. Department of State is "an error introduced by the U.S. State Department" is laughable.

I'm correcting this sentence to remove what I believe to be unintended insult to NARA and the Dept. of State, while still recognizing the factual existence of the WikiLeaks "Kissinger Files".

222.129.241.67 (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Federal Cross of Merit in 1977

Kissinger received the Federal Cross of Merit (Bundesverdienstkreuz) in 1977, on June 27th. Does anyone have a source for that? --Rolf acker (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Kissinger at Elbe in April 1945

According to this article, Kissinger claimed to have taken part in the famous meeting between American and Russian troops at Elbe during the closing months of WW2: http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_10_26/Kremlin-chief-of-staff-discusses-Russian-US-relations-with-Kissinger-7128/

I submit this would be an interesting addition to the section on Kissinger's army experience. My question is, does this reporting of a Kissinger anecdote in a chat with a Russian official constitute adequate proof for wiki standards? Pipling (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)pipling

If it's contained in a statement like "At a meeting with …, Kissinger recalled his participation in Elbe Day" with an appropriate citation, that would probably work.-Ich (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone read these articles?

In the section on "Public perception", the article says:

"Since he left office, some efforts have been made to hold Kissinger responsible for perceived injustices of American foreign policy during his tenure in government."

"Christopher Hitchens ... called for the prosecution of Kissinger “for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, and for offenses against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture.”"

It is a near unanimous view worldwide that Kissinger IS responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and so on. There is a widespread call for international prosecution of Kissinger for these crimes.

What planet do the authors of this article live on? ---Dagme (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a good rule of thumb, that whenever somebody says that it's "unanimous" that some living person, not in jail, not tried, and in no danger of ever having being subject to either, is guilty of a crime, that one has encountered a politicized point of view, best excluded from the article. Ray^Talk 13:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What planet are you living on? Kissinger is summoned/wanted by courts in numerous countries, including Chile, Argentina, Brazil, and the EU. He does not travel there anymore because he risks being apprehended. ♆ CUSH ♆ 06:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Ray, if what you are saying is truly your belief, you have no intellectual qualifications to be an editor of this website. It is your responsibility to present the facts, regardless of whether you view those as 'a politicized point of view.' In fact, there should be an acknowledgement that many regard Kissinger as a war criminal, and that his defenders cite his contributions to foreign policy. However, as the article is written, it almost seems that there is little controversy. There isn't even a 'Criticism' section anymore. Why? It does not seem like we are the one playing politics here. 68.119.46.47 (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The article does praise Kissinger highly and downplays any criticism, so I think it is fair to say that the article is not balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.23.228.70 (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, see the references at, and actual taped White House recording:

http://whitehousetapes.net/clips/1972_0803_vietnam/

http://hnn.us/articles/paris-peace-accords-were-deadly-deception

Nixon and Kissinger knew that South Vietnam couldn't defend itself, and would fall. They were trying to extend it out till after the election. This by itself means unethical behavior and even treason, since it would be wrong for even one person to die so that the president could be reelected.

--
I agree with above critiques. Specifically, the article needs to highlight that the bombing of Cambodia was illegal according to both US and International law, because Cambodia was a neutral country. Moreover, the extend of the bombings arguably far exceeded the perceived military need for the Vietnam conflict.

The full extend of the bombings has only been revealed after 2000; "2,756,941 tons’ worth, dropped in 230,516 sorties on 113,716 sites" (pg. 63). "To put 2,756,941 tons into perspective, the Allies dropped just over 2 million tons of bombs during all of World War II. Cambodia may be the most heavily bombed country in history" (pg. 67).
Harrypaul23 (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I read pretty much the whole article, which basically equates Kissinger with Jesus. One line about Hitchens calling him names? Where is the "controversy" section? The "criticisms" section? I realize he is still alive, but there are serious issues with the man and his career. Huw Powell (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

References

Editor/Contributor Keeps Removing Controversial Issues From Article

To whoever keeps removing the (below) statement from the introduction of this article, I will soon seek dispute intervention through Wikipedia's editors and also ask that they tag this article for neutrality review. I strongly suspect that you may be employed by Kissinger and I will have you investigated. The more you seek to delete comments in the Talk page and any discussion of controversies in the Kissinger article itself, the more attention you will draw to this issue. Censorship and a biased perspective towards a figure of such deep historical importance will not be tolerated.

Here is the statement: [Unsourced BLP violation redacted 2600:1006:B12E:AF89:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)]

I plan to continue reinserting this above statement in perpetuity until you either acquiesce or your actions draw intervention from Wikipedia dispute arbitrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:5400:912:9A2:4978:E3AE:5975 (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the text you inserted. Controversial is a mostly meaningless word in this context; its definition "giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement." is so general that it really can be applied to any public figure, even Mother Teresa. Adding that note tells the reader nothing. Further, its bad practice to tell the reader what they should think of a subject. If he is 'controversial' we should explain why, rather than asserting that it is so. Additionally, your edits are totally unsourced. If you want to find reliable sourcing about his indictments, we can evaluate if that should be included, but unsourced material can and should be deleted precisely as TTAAC did. Bonewah (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The OP needs to note that adding entirely unsourced assertions about supposed 'indictments' is going to achieve precisely nothing. We need reliable sources for such content, not just random unverifiable assertions from anonymous individuals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone keeps constantly deleting any criticisms of Kissinger

They are deleting any discussion of Kissinger's criticisms, mainly that he has allegedly committed war crimes. They are also deleting this very Talk thread. That the Wikipedia editors have not intervened to clean up this article and make it more objective reflects very poorly on Wikipedia and its self-professed high editorial standards. I request that the editors immediately put this article under review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkbaba (talk • contribs) 20:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That's right - and they will continue to do so, until such time as you comply with the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy and cite a source for the assertions such as "several courts charging him with crimes against humanity". You are responsible for finding sources, and doing so before the material is added. Do so, and stop wasting our time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you are Andy "the Grump". I don't appreciate your tone at all. One does not need to cite a source in an introductory section, especially when there are no other such citations in that section. The introductory section merely provides a succinct summary of the article's main positions and content points. The body of the article can have citations to support that summary. You also have not addressed the problem with the article as a whole: it is completely biased towards Kissinger and offers no substantive discussion of his criticisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkbaba (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't care what you think of my tone - you have repeatedly violated Wikipedia policy, and have taken no notice whatsoever of the multiple requests to cite a source - this is your responsibility not ours. And no, the article body does not anywhere assert that Kissinger has been indicted for crimes against humanity, and accordingly, the lede will not contain this assertion. If it is true, find a reliable source for it, and stop wasting our time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There were no "multiple requests" to cite a source, just you repeatedly deleting edits in a dictatorial fashion that provided no justification. Instead, you have violated Wikipedia policy for using offensive language and lashing out at contributors. If you choose to aggressively use your editorial "power" on Wikipedia to lash out at anyone who does't agree with your skewed version of an article then maybe we should seek a formal dispute resolution process to attempt to resolve the major issues with this article and your unprofessional attitude as an editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkbaba (talk • contribs) 22:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a requirement under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy that unsourced contentious material be deleted immediately. Just how difficult is that simple statement to understand? And for the record, this isn't my 'skewed version' of anything. I have made few edits to the article, and these have consisted almost entirely of reverts to vandalism and other edits not compliant with policy. My personal opinion of Kissinger (which I suspect isn't actually that far removed from yours) isn't what is at issue here. What matters is that the article complies with policy - which your edits self-evidently didn't. That is my sole concern here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. But you still have not attempted to answer the most basic overarching question here: why is Wikipedia doing nothing to prevent expunging of controversial content in this article? The Talk page is replete with evidence that contributors have cited their sources and yet a few editors/contributors continue to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkbaba (talk • contribs) 22:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Possibly - given my personal opinion regarding Kissinger, I have to agree that it appears something of a hagiography. The way to deal with that however (if it can be dealt with) is to compile your evidence (i.e. reputable sources) and then make a case for revision which may well involve getting input from contributors so far uninvolved, via the methods described in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. 'Wikipedia' doesn't do anything - instead, contributors have to do the donkey-work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Bangladesh Liberation War

We ought to have a section on this, Kissinger and Nixon knowingly broke US law to support Pakistan during the conflict. See The Blood Telegram by Gary J Bass Ping me should anyone want quotes from the book. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Anybody can edit. Just put in your info, with reliable sources, and see if any other editor objects. If you don't know how to do the citations, put them right into the body of the article and somebody will come along and fix them. Thanks for the suggestion, but it is up to each reader to make the article better. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

TheTimeAreAChanging Exercising Unilateral and Arbitrary Control over this Page

It's clear from the history of this page that TTAAC exercises unilateral control over this page. He deletes every edit, including sourced material, that does not conform to his view of Kissinger. I am beginning a running history of the changes so others can see his deletions are petty and autocratic. I will begin to cite my changes here and ask TTAAC to justify why he is deleting my edits.

Edit #1

I added the following line, which is not a POV and hardly controversial. I provided three citations.

"Kissinger's legacy, including the Nobel Prize Award, remains controversial."

The citations are: Time Magazine, The Week, Wikipedia article (Nobel Controversies)

TTAAC keeps deleting it without justification. It's important for the readers to know that Kissinger's Nobel was highly controversial. Two Norwegian Nobel Committee members resigned in protest. When the award was announced, hostilities were continuing. The Vietnam War ended three years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malpaso (talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The reference above appears to be to User:TheTimesAreAChanging. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A gentle edit may be required...

I'm no fan of the man, but the numerous instances of the word "agenda" in the article add no encyclopedic value. There is much more to be written and referenced about HK's involvement in coups and war crimes, but terminology like this violates NPOV. Everything before the "Later Roles" section seems germaine, but after that it kind of dove-tails. Perhaps there is more about Kissenger to add, post-Carter, that can be described professionally. I liked the mention about how he can't travel to certain countries for legal reasons, but it could be inserted into the article more tactfully. Maybe we'll just have to wait until he meets his maker in order to craft a more perfect article. Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes if he did have an agenda, the question would be, what is the agenda? Real Politik? No Real Politik is a means to an end . . . . what is the end, I am not sure, no reliable source that I know of. I think we can say he supported Real Politikm and what resulted from that support. Popish Plot (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Controversy over not totally hagiographical intro

Seeing as mentions of important parts of Kissinger's reputation that are sourced and long existing parts of the article are being excised from the header for inflammatory language I've tried to find a middle path which doesn't make any unsound accusations or implications against a living person. I hope the current version of it works better for everyone. Let me know what you think. 2.223.35.45 (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It says "the never actualized cease fire" this makes it seem like the vietnam war is still going on. Just a bit confusing. Also, what is paladinesque? Popish Plot (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as the war ended with the north taking Saigon I think that "never actualised" works. Especially as the fighting waged long past deadlines and the awarding of the prize. Can you think of alternate ways that include those important parts of information?

Paladinesque in a morally white sort of way. He's a controversial figure for a variety of reasons. 2.223.35.45 (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Do you have a reliable source then tho saying it never actualized? Over here Ceasefire#Vietnam_War it says "On January 15, 1973, President Richard Nixon ordered a ceasefire of the aerial bombings in North Vietnam. The decision came after Dr. Henry Kissinger, the National Security Affairs advisor to the president, returned to Washington from Paris, France with a draft peace proposal. Combat missions continued in South Vietnam. By January 27, 1973, all warring parties in the Vietnam War signed a ceasefire as a prelude to the Paris Peace Accord."" It may seem counterintuitive but I think the mainstream history view is that the ceasefire happened and then Vietnam reformed. Popish Plot (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how long a period of no fighting a cease fire lasts for to become real, maybe short lived would be less controversial?

Though I also have a CBC report that fighting was going on 10 days after the cease fire was meant to start. http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/war-conflict/vietnam-war/canadas-secret-war-vietnam/1973-vietnam-ceasefire-goes-unenforced.html And everyone's favourite reliable source http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cease-fire-goes-into-effect has 70,000 casualties after the ceasefire was signed. Plus it was the reason given by Le Duc Tho on not accepting the prize, but obviously we can only take his word as gospel to the same extent we take Kissinger's. Though the weasel words used by the Nobel Prize awarding committee in Dec 1973 do hint at Le Duc Tho's assessment of the situation being true http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1973/press.html. 2.223.35.45 (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok but I think it's good to mention Le Duc didn't accept it because he said:

"However, since the signing of the Paris agreement, the United States and the Saigon administration continue in grave violation of a number of key clauses of this agreement. The Saigon administration, aided and encouraged by the United States, continues its acts of war. Peace has not yet really been established in South Vietnam. In these circumstances it is impossible for me to accept the 1973 Nobel Prize for Peace which the committee has bestowed on me. Once the Paris accord on Vietnam is respected, the arms are silenced and a real peace is established in South Vietnam, I will be able to consider accepting this prize. With my thanks to the Nobel Prize Committee please accept, madame, my sincere respects.[5]"

So his reasoning is that US and saigon puppets violated ceasefire not North Vietnam. Popish Plot (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

edit request

There is a dispute as to if the following content should be placed in the opening section of the article. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

He is also infamous for his Realpolitik involving support for genocidal actions (as in the Bangladesh Liberation War) and military coups against democratically elected governments (such as Chile).

I am quite happy to discuss wording here, the original is not mine. What is fairly clear is that his policy vis-a-vis Latin America, Africa, and South Asia (all of which are mentioned in the body, and all of which have received more criticism than his Israeli or Vietnamese policy). Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes thanks. Are there any WP:RS that agree with the requested edit? I can't see genocidal actions in the article, that is also a linking to genocide, so in reality, if you support the content you can just remove the word actions and Realpolitik and leave the actual detail which is that you support inclusion of, He is infamous for supporting genocide ? I think that is the basic question to consider this requested edit, is Kissinger really WP:RS infamous for supporting genocide ? Govindaharihari (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I should've read this bit before wading in. I forget that talk pages have newest at the bottom. Hopefully my newer version solves some of the issues. 2.223.35.45 (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The question isn't "is Kissinger famous for supporting genocide. The question is "is Kissinger famous for supporting Real Politik" What is Real Politik? There is a wikipedia article that says so, someone reading this wiki article might click on that to learn more. One part of Real Politic is ignoring ethics. Ignoring ethics leads to genocide. Is this original research? What do reliable sources say. The article on the bangladesh liberation war says genocide happened there. And that the USA, including Nixon and Kissinger supported Pakistan, who are the ones who engaged in the genocide. Assuming there are reliable sources for the info on real politik and the bangladesh liberation war, and maybe more of Kissingers other atrocities, those reliable sources could be used in this article to support a statement such as "Kissinger is famous for his Real Politik which led to genocides in Bangladesh etc. . . . " I will look for the reliable sources, if they don't exist tho, then that means take it out of the article. Popish Plot (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Going from Kissinger supported Pakistan to claiming that his politics led to a Bangladesh genocide is quite a leap, dont you think? You make it sound as if mass murder was done at his request, rather than simply ignoring what was going on for politics sake. There is quite a difference between the two. Bonewah (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• :) I don't believe anybody is suggesting that he ordered a mass killing; but he ignored it, and US support allowed it to happen. Similarly in Latin America, although there US support was even more active. The source for Chile is this one, others forthcoming. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Real politik leads to genocide, reliable sources say so. If (big if) reliable sources say Kissinger's support of Real Politik led to genocide, the article should say that. Does he support genocide? I doubt a reliable source has him saying yes to that! It's more likely he doesn't care either way since ethics aren't important to him due to his support of Real Politik. Popish Plot (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Q: I'm mysified by the mention of HK's reaction to (1989) Tianamen Square Massacre as contributing to détente in the 1970's. Perhaps should be a reference to some other incident? 178.167.254.165 (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

References