About book Nixon And Mao: The Week That Changed The World (2007)
In Nixon and Mao, historian Margaret MacMillan weaves a flowing narrative that recounts the events of one historic week for U.S. foreign relations. In February of 1972, Richard Nixon became the first American President to visit China. While isolationism had been China’s overarching foreign policy, a recent Communist overthrow and Mao Tse-tung’s rise to power made this Cold War meeting finally possible. Both Nixon and Mao prided themselves on their abilities as statesmen, and each recognized an opportunity to establish positive foreign relations, but MacMillan takes great care to point out that these two leaders were not alone in making this meeting possible. Also important were Nixon and Mao’s far-thinking statesmen. The aging Mao entrusted Chou En-lai, who acted as a tour guide and a realpolitical voice for his ailing chairman. For Nixon, Henry Kissinger performed much of the legwork that made this historical visit possible.Of course, by 1972 both sides had something to gain. China was growing weary of its Soviet communist neighbors to the north and also hoped to establish new credibility within the United Nations, especially in the hopes of swaying international opinion against Taiwan. For the United State, China might help Nixon find a respectable route out of Vietnam. Also, the Chinese economy held the promise for immense trade possibilities with American businessmen. In short, by 1972 the historical timing was right, and a few driven individuals helped to make this historic week in U.S. foreign relations happen. Within the span of 338 pages, MacMillan sheds light on the complexities in preparing for and conducting a political meeting of tremendous symbolic importance, a task made all the more difficult because these men had no precedent on which to build. In the realm of U.S. foreign relations, China remained literally uncharted territory, making this meeting all the more impressive and important.Nixon and Mao is the much anticipated follow up to MacMillan’s 2002 critically acclaimed book, Paris 1919. Comparisons between these two works are unavoidable for a number of reasons. Curiously, both books hold different titles on each side of the Atlantic. For example, what Americans know as Paris 1919 is known in England as Peacemakers: The Paris Conference of 1919 and its Attempt to End War. In a similar fashion, America’s Nixon and Mao becomes Seize the Hour: When Nixon Met Mao. The publishers’ choice to alter titles may say much about Americans disdain for complex titles and our inclination towards world changing events. Also, both American publications share eerily similar subtitles: Six Months that Changed the World and The Week That Changed the World respectively. So, did Nixon’s week in China actually change the world? To be fair, the title is a direct quote from Nixon, and not the author’s own estimation. But readers will note that MacMillan never takes a strong stance on Nixon’s statement; in fact, she never clearly defines a simple argument. This lack of a clearly defined thesis statement can most likely be attributed to the complexities of subsequent Sino-American relations. MacMillan’s argument is subtle. Nixon and Mao’s conclusion does help to explain how history unfolded for these men and their countries after meeting, and this pastiche of biographical and historical information shows that, yes, the world did change. America and China established tense but working foreign relations. But did either side really attain what they wanted? Mao hoped that an alliance with America would help China gain international prestige, as well as conduct technological exchanges with the United States. Also, Mao hoped for U.S. support in the U.N., especially regarding international acceptance of Taiwan as an autonomous entity separate from China. Put simply, MacMillan may have been astute in avoiding a clearly defined thesis statement, as the complex nature of international Cold War politics do not always lend themselves to simple answers. Most likely, it is safe to assume that Nixon’s week may have changed the world, but not in one single, clearly recognizable way.
This book has been riveting to read. All of this history happened during my lifetime.. I was just too small to remember any of it. C said that the only thing that he really didn't like about President Nixon is that the Watergate hearings bumped his favorite program The Flintstones. You can see that point of view I'm sure. Anyway we were young, but are living in a time now where Nixon's opening of China has made great changes in the world we live in today. I honestly don't know that there would have been a lot of other men who would have been able to wrangle this deal other than Nixon and Kissinger. There were so many who were morally opposed to the trip.William F. Buckley, someone I greatly admire, was invited on the trip by President Nixon and attended a banquet in China given in honor of the Americans by the Chinese. He had this to say about it, "It is unreasonable to suppose that anywhere in history have a few dozen men congregated who have been responsible for greater human mayhem that the hosts at this banquet and their spiritual colleagues, instruments all of Mao Tse-tung. The effect was as if Sir Hartley Shawcross had suddenly risen from the prosecutor's stand at Nuremberg and descended to embrace Goering and Goebbels and Doenitz and Hess, begging them to join with him in the making of a better world." An exaggeration.. Not hardly. Estimates suggest that Mao Tse-tung is responsible for the deaths either by political persecution or starvation of more than 40 Million people. There are many books that detail the brutality of Mao and his followers among them, the famous Life and Death in Shanghai extremely well written by Nien Cheng. My friend Circe also recommended a book I read several years ago called Mao's Last Dancer that chronicles the peasants struggle to avoid starvation due to the policies of Chairman Mao. At one point the author relates where as a child he realizes that his family is competing for their food sources with rats.. either they will starve or the rats will starve. It's heartbreaking.And yet, Nixon wanted desperately to talk with the Chinese. His objective was complicated. The United States was in the middle of the Cold War with Russia; talking with the Chinese gave that government a sort of 3rd power status that created a thaw in U.S. / Russian relations and more caution on the part of Russia. Our relations with China after the Korean conflict and during Vietnam were difficult and possibly dangerous. Also, businessmen in the United States saw huge and lucrative markets and wanted in. There is no question that Sino/American trade has made untold fortunes for both countries. There were many other reasons Nixon wanted to go, but paramount among them was to ensure peace. That's a good reason I think. And, I don't know if Nixon thought of this because it wasn't mentioned in the book, but I think that it's obvious that contact with the western world has brought a measure of liberty to China.. not yet what one would hope for, but I think it's coming. Nixon, who is remembered by most of the populace for Watergate, wanted to be remembered for this one week which he considered his greatest achievement.
Do You like book Nixon And Mao: The Week That Changed The World (2007)?
I enjoyed MacMillan's treatment of this important event. Without sugar-coating Nixon's weaknesses, she went into great detail and included Kissinger's and Chou En Lai's important roles. In fact, she probably wrote more pages relating to these two than on Nixon or Mao.It was enlightening to learn that Kissinger was passing secrets of Soviet security to demonstrate good will, and that he and Nixon did all they could to keep the US State dept out of the event, much to their dismay and anger.You can see the seeds of Nixon's downfall with the demonstrated paranoia towards his own administration, the press and, in fact everyone outside his small circle of trusted aides sown in these years just before Watergate.Still, you must agree with Nixon that he and Kissinger deserved credit for opening this important door that maybe nobody else could have.In so many ways a fatally flawed man, who you cannot admire. Still, despite those inexcusable faults, he accomplished a major change in world history.
—Terry Earley
Book nine of the "Joey B reads himself some presidential goodness" series. I had been dreading reading about Richard Nixon. All I knew was that he is universally accepted as a horrible president and a horrible person. Was he? Mostly, but this book does raise some interesting issues.I decided to read this book as opposed to a general biography because I wanted to focus on the one act of his presidency that is widely seen as a triumph: his trip to China.I had always heard about this trip but didn't realize all the behind the scenes wrangling that had to occur to make it happen and then, once there, to make it a success.Nixon almost completely cut out the state department and was dealing with China directly and through Henry Kissinger. You have to admire his desire to cut through all the bureaucracy. This same desire to micromanage and control everything is what would ultimately lead to his downfall with Watergate.One of my favorite lines from the book said that Nixon wasn't a good person, but he wanted to be. He tried to be. He just wasn't that guy.I only gave this 3 stars because there was a bit too much China and not enough Nixon for my taste. It was interesting to hear about the behind the scenes struggles in China. I suppose if it had been just the Nixon side, it would have been a very short book.The biographical information on Nixon and Kissinger was fantastic and definitely makes the book worth a look. This helps to remember that even the worst presidents are still capable of doing good, even if it is for the wrong reasons. I mean, he founded the Environmental Protection Agency for Pete's sake!
—Joe
I'm adding Margaret MacMillan to my list of favorite authors of history. Quite simply, she did a masterful job weaving together a complex story using the structure of Nixon's historic week long visit to China. It does not hurt that the narrator was pretty spectacular too.MacMillan walked a delicate line as she weaved back and forth between narration of the specific events of that particular week and several background biographies of the principal characters, American and Chinese, and of the countries themselves. (Not entire biographies obviously, but biographies tailored to the theme of the book.I have to admit though that this book requires careful attention, more than I gave it as I listened. At times the audio became a bit like background noise and I missed transitions from past to "present" or vice versa which became a bit confusing. This confusion also increased a bit as the book drew to a conclusion and the time gap between past and "present" narrowed.That being said, this book more than peaked my interest in a whole variety of topics, such as the extremely perplexing one of how Richard Nixon was elected to the presidency, twice. :)I definitely recommend this book.
—Jeni Enjaian
