I always liked Khrushchev. A word on Russian meddling in American elections. Khrushchev himself admitted that Russia did all that it could to tilt the 1960 election to Kennedy because he saw Nixon as a much stronger-willed and capable adversary then Kennedy.
American government meddled in elections of more countries than anyone in history, and went beyond that, financing coups and doing regime changes around the world. The US wasn't just medling, but it controlled all of the Russian elections during 1990s and the US media bragged about that, Times Magazine dedicated an entire issue to brag how the US advisors and CIA agents illegally rigging the elections in favor for Yeltsin.
@@jerrytom7104 That's ultimately something that seems to follow power and its hardly restricted to the U.S. The Soviets were just as busy doing the same thing. And before the U.S. ascended to great power status, Britain, France, Russia and Germany (amongst numerous others) were doing the same thing. And its been done to us as far back as 1800 when French money and propaganda swung the U.S. Presidential election to the Francophile Thomas Jefferson and away from the Anglophile John Adams. As far back as the ancient Roman Republic, foreign agents were bribing Roman Senators to throw and influence elections.
Oh boy - that was something. Two tricky customers desperately trying to find common ground. Shows despite the mistrust and war-talk over decades, both sides (at this point anyway) were attempting to pump their own ideology, whilst giving a little respect to the "sworn enemy". Nixon was a dyed in the wool Commie-phobe - perhaps with good reason. Yet there was warmth between these two - and humour also. Those attributes are the great conflict-diffusers between all and every people. Maybe we're not entirely doomed...
Kruschev, at least, seemed to have genuine affection for Nixon. From Wikipedia: One visitor whom Khrushchev regretted not seeing was former U.S. Vice President Nixon, then in his "wilderness years" before his election to the presidency, who went to Khrushchev's Moscow apartment while the former premier was at his dacha.
This is an excellent primary source for Nixon to communicate changing new norms after the Great Depression and the changes in roles brought about by the Second World War. Nixon argued freedom meant having good consumer products and being able to consume content made by others.
@@johnnotrealname8168 Khrushchev went to Disneyland and Nixon focused on consumer gadgets. He said new gadgets and a variety of them creates freedom. New home appliances make lives easier for women in the kitchen. Nixon said that the Soviet Union was ahead in rockets but the United States had color television. Khrushchev asked if they were going to make something that would chew food for people and claimed that the Soviet Union would surpass the US as the US was an older country (using the Russian Revolution as a starting point.) There’s a longer version at the Library of Congress that shows them getting ready but it’s hard to understand because of translation and original spoken language are too similar in volume.
These captions are really good, and I can't find them anywhere else. Is it cool if I make a backup of this? Whoever did the subtitles for Khrushchev was excellent, I'd like to know that too if possible.
I will give Khrushchev credit for being more outspoken compared to his counterpart, but the content in not exactly top tier. He is rude at times, he is quite the dickhead. He dominates the discussion, that is true, but this is not a way to claim superiority. Nixon is probably interested only in keeping good spirits here, but he was making concessions he shouldn't have made.
Although he was "a silly little guy," in the words of my great-grandfather, Khrushchev proved himself to be very shrewd in politics, and could be called tyrannical in the same way later Soviet Leaders (with the exception of Gorbachev) were. His shrewdness is seen in this debate.
I was in a history seminar at a British university and we watched this and I thought Khrushchev was far more charismatic and engaging than Nixon. I am American, everyone else was British. They all thought Khrushchev was a blithering idiot and Nixon came off much better. I don't see it. Nixon feels slimy. Maybe it's just cuz he's Nixon.
I felt the same way as you. Nixon was more the blithering idiot with his pithy "communication" comments, repeating himself over and over again. I wonder if he was hoping to see his barb sting a bit on Kruschevs face, and was offput by the cheeky grin beaming back at him.
It is because you are preconditioned to have a negative opinion of Nixon. He deserves better but unfortunately we’re all products of the Media Age in one form or another and the Media never forgave Nixon for his part in bringing down Alger Hiss.
@@danaarden8373 They also clearly do not understand that Nixon was treating this like a diplomatic mission the goal of which was, you know, improving communication and understanding between the United States and the Soviet Union. Debating politics with a pig-headed man who's essentially an authoritarian dictator isn't exactly productive to that end.
It was amazing to me that Nixon didn't point out to Khrushchev that communism is antithetical to competition when Khrushchev was advocating for it between the two nations. If it was good between nations why wasn't it good for the people of your country?
communism isnt about destroying the idea of competition, that is to say competition isnt "antithetical to communism". thats stupid thats like saying in communism sports would not exist, even though theyve continued to exist across human history and economic epochs. Also, the only thing even maintaining competition in capitalism is the state. if the state couldnt regulate monopolies we would devolve into feudalism in five years. And why would competition being positive in one scenario mean it is absolutely positive for humanity in any? many flaws in the way you think
@@ezrahart1790Monopolies are naturally unstable as others want in on the monopolies profits. In any case the dispute is not over whether government is good.
