Free Book Online
Book Real War

Pdf

Real War

4.3 (1344)

Log in to rate this item

    Available in PDF - DJVU Format | Real War.pdf | Language: ENGLISH
    Richard Milhous Nixon(Author)

    Book details


The former president examines the forces contending for power in today's world, assesses their goals, strategies and relative strengths and weaknesses, and weighs the implications of current trends

4.2 (6566)
  • Pdf

*An electronic version of a printed book that can be read on a computer or handheld device designed specifically for this purpose.

Formats for this Ebook

PDF
Required Software Any PDF Reader, Apple Preview
Supported Devices Windows PC/PocketPC, Mac OS, Linux OS, Apple iPhone/iPod Touch.
# of Devices Unlimited
Flowing Text / Pages Pages
Printable? Yes

Book details

Read online or download a free book: Real War

 

Review Text

  • By Stephen Winkler on September 17, 2010

    The President's in depth knowledge of foreign affairs is amazing. Obama should be reading this book, instead of the Communist propaganda he gets from Hugo Chavez. I only wish by some miracle, we could get him back into the White House. The wisdom, the understanding, and the discernment of Richard Nixon is something not available from the finest minds of Princeton, Yale, or Harvard. I do not have enough words of praise for this book or for this very great president, our greatest Republican president. I only wish we would have a national holiday honoring his birthday; a national monument in Washington, D.C.; and a coin or bill with his likeness on it. Any serious student of history or politics must read this book.

  • By craig r. gronning on October 25, 2014

    did not seem to be Nixon's words but a ghost writer to embellish. Too much emphasis on Russia as the main bad guy.

  • By Ron Housley on September 3, 2012

    If only today's political leaders had half the intellect and insight as Richard Nixon, we'd be entering a new Renaissance rather than teetering on the brink of an irrevocable plunge into statism.I used to lament that I had to launch my own voting career with two successive votes for Nixon. Just after my second vote, the entire narrative became that Nixon was a crook and that he was a traitor for selling out to communist "Red" China.In 1972, my limited perspective demanded a condemnation of Nixon's outreach to China -- as utter appeasement of a brutal dictatorship which I felt should be our sworn enemy. I was outraged. But now with today's grasp of Nixon's context, I was perhaps mistaken.Nixon was a visionary on the global scale. So dangerous to US security had the Soviet threat become by 1972 that "opening up China" was America's best chance to thwart the ever-expanding Soviet menace. Who knew?!Nixon's thesis is that we are currently fighting World War III; his book is from 1980.Only from the vantage point of 32 years later can we marvel at his insight and depth of his understanding.Nixon foretold of today's terrorist movement which would comprise much of WW-III.He foretold of how China would rise up -- and, coincidentally, serve as an important force in containing Russia.He foretold of how only technological prowess could defeat Communism; he knew that only economic (not military or political) power could beat Communism. He, of course, didn't know we'd have to wait for Reagan for that to materialize.But he thoroughly foresaw the fall of Communism, if not the literal tearing down of the Berlin Wall. His outlook was that "the Soviet Union is vulnerable to the innate resistance of man to tyranny." And in the end, the wall fell because the Soviet leadership couldn't maintain its tyranny in the face of worldwide moral outrage.What he did not see was how altruism would allow Communism to rise back up after the fall of the Berlin Wall.But Nixon did see that World War III is, importantly, an intellectual war, not just a hot war.****************From the moment I began with page one, the profound soul of this under-credited politician breathlessly revealed itself on ever-deeper levels.He offered insights in a wide range of areas, insights which were brand new to me after six decades on this planet.There are chapters on Vietnam; on the Middle East; on China; on Japan; on the Soviet Union; on strategic thinking about military power. And everywhere there is new insight.Middle EastImportantly, Nixon pointed out how Iran nationalized (read: stole) Western oil interests in 1951 (Iran nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company); Iran's economy tanked; Russia came close to taking over the entire country; the CIA in 1953 engineered the Shah back into power as our only alternative to stopping the "Red" menace from advancing.But what Nixon does not point out is that America let them get away with the theft: America embraced the policy of appeasement -- emboldening the Islamist movement which years later would rise up against the "Great Satan." America was so relieved that Russia's advance had been temporarily blocked, that nobody seemed to notice that we allowed Iran to steal (and get away with it) crucial Western oil properties(!).Nixon has some prescient observations about the political dynamics of those Middle Eastern countries; but he does not one time mention this critical American mistake. But even with this shortcoming, just the chapters on the Middle East alone are worth the price of admission.VietnamI had not realized that everything changed when, after the Bay of Pigs, General Maxwell Taylor wrote a report recommending that America's Vietnam efforts be taken away from the CIA (which had a sophisticated and on-the-spot feel for local conditions) and given to the military (which had no such perspective).America gave up its critical finger on the pulse in order to conduct large scale bombings, which, it turned out, were mostly ineffective. Who knew!?It turns out that the Buddhist temples were headquarters for the Viet Kong -- just like Islamic mosques today are headquarters for planning acts of terrorism against the West. And I did not realize that South Vietnam President Ngo Dinh Diem was a Roman Catholic who was being painted as a repressor of the Buddhists. When Buddhist monks burned themselves up, it was easy to spin it as caused by Diem's repressive rule.So when Diem was assassinated in 1963 and when Kennedy was too timid to offer support, the perceived American appeasement emboldened the Communist north to step up their aggression.ChinaAs with the other hot spots, there are some interesting points about China, as well. Nixon makes a big point about China having enormous natural resources as some kind of gigantic plus. But then he misses the central point about Hong Kong and Taiwan: they have little to NO natural resources but became productive giants. He does not explain clearly how that came to be.Nixon does tell us that the mainland's failings have been mainly "political," but then he does not clearly point out that "political" here means that the difference lies in the protection of individual rights in Taiwan and Hong Kong, and no protection of individual rights on the mainland.The actual reason why Hong Kong and Taiwan did so much better than the "mainland" remains obscured by Nixon because he was imprecise in telling us what "political" actually consisted of in this case.Soviet UnionThe world might be designated as a struggle to protect individual rights vs. the relentless attempt to squash individual rights -- and to say that the world stage is merely "ideological" seems to assign moral equivalency between the two sides here.Today's MainStream Media uses the term "ideological" to smear any politician who has reasons for his positions. "Ideological" is taken to imply closed minded, racist, simplistic and small. The MSM is always calling for someone who isn't "ideological."Nixon grasped all of this in his discussion of the Soviets, as if he had a crystal ball to see how the issue of "ideological" would be handled 3 decades later by the media.Japan"The reason for Japan's stunning economic success is that it never hobbled itself with communist dogma or a socialist system." (p. 144)Nixon can say all that, but he can't seem to bring himself to clearly make the point that it is the communist dogma itself that denies individual rights, and that without protecting individual rights there can be no prosperity.Strategic thinking about military power"What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.....next best is disrupt his alliances.....the next best is to attack his army." (p. 162)How many American presidents would assess the facts from such a perspective?Here was another area where I became more enlightened. I had not realized that Jimmy Carter unilaterally cancelled the B-1 bomber program, which then threw the already-tense missile negotiations completely to the Soviet favor. After Carter committed that treasonous act, his administration gave in to the Soviet position on every important point for the years ahead. Did you know that?The balance of power had shifted significantly to the Soviet favor and that was the disaster that Reagan inherited, not the inflation, oil embargos and high unemployment.I had pretty much forgotten all about the neutron bomb fiasco, the SS20 and Backfire bomber that American had no defense against. I did not know that the SS18 Soviet missile was 16 to 40 times as powerful as the meager Minuteman III missiles that the Americans had opposing them at the time(!).At the time, all the machinations about military tactics and military strategy were unknown to me. In an era marked by the goal of Soviet containment by the West, Nixon's orientation was to craft a policy that would lead to Victory for the West. Very few understood what energized him. His orientation is entirely lost on today's generation of so-called "leaders."Nixon stands as one of the few politicians who deeply understood John David Lewis's dictum: in order to win any war, you must take the war to the homeland of the aggressor; and the corollary: a negotiated peace always leads to further aggression down the road -- always.Today: 32 years later"A major strategic goal of the Soviets in World War III is to weaken and destroy our economy." (p. 215)Imagine what Nixon would have said if he had seen D'Souza's movie ("2016: Obama's America"), where it is pointed out that the current American President has figured out how to use Debt as his own personal secret weapon to hobble the American economy, to cut America down to size. It turns out that America had to destroy its own economy, as the Soviets were never quite able to pull that one off on their own.But for all of his insights and understanding, there were still important points that Nixon was unable to bring into focus. And for all of his cleverness, neither Nixon nor any of the Republicans has ever figured out how to frame any national argument without allowing the statists to appear in possession of the moral high ground. And so it remains today.The Real War"There are only two powers in the world, the sword and the spirit. In the long run the sword will always be conquered by the spirit." (p. 310)So, Nixon ends his warning to future generations telling us that victory without war requires us to engage our enemy on the battlefield of ideas. This, he tells us, is the way to win World War III.He is prescient enough to grasp that on the "dawn of the twenty-first century," we can expect "a new age of barbarism on a global scale." (p.309) He didn't specifically know about the World Trade Center nor about the Iranian atomic arsenal, but he knew that, in pattern, anti-Western mayhem was coming.He would have been sad had he been able to see the deplorable intellectual fight that the West would wage against Middle Eastern mysticism. (After all, one can't successfully fight Islamic mysticism with Christian mysticism.)But nevertheless, the West still has a chance to preserve its sacred liberty if only it can make the moral case for liberty and capitalism.In the three decades since Nixon's book, Westerners have continued to cede the moral high ground to the statists. The West still comes up short as a conquering spirit.

  • By Eric Mayforth on October 29, 2015

    Half a decade after President Richard Nixon left office, our situation in foreign policy had deteriorated markedly. We were, to say the very least, not as respected around the world, and the Soviet Union had strengthened its position greatly in the last half of the Seventies. It was a time of peril for the West, and Nixon wrote "The Real War" to sound an alarm and to attempt to chart a path out of the ditch in which we found ourselves.In this volume Nixon refers to the Cold War as World War III and rightly cites the failure of will on the part of America and the rest of the West in the years leading up to 1980. He also makes clear what could easily have happened in regard to our geopolitical position and economy had the Soviets been permitted to continue on the path they were on then toward military supremacy.The former president takes the reader through some of the key historical events in the twentieth century that influenced the geopolitics of 1980. He also explains why Communism appealed to some in the Third World and elsewhere, but also noted why that fetid system always fails.Nixon provides what amounts to a briefing of many of the world’s strategic places and flashpoints of the time, putting forth superb analysis concerning such sites as the Persian Gulf, Vietnam, China, and other places--especially fascinating is his recollection of our 1972 rapprochement with China and his commentary on Sino-Soviet tensions.The author extensively analyzes our military and economic situations, and reminds of the importance of a strong will to remain free in response to the Communist threat on the part of the people at large and especially on the part of the President of the United States. Nixon closes by laying out solutions and the steps he thought the country should take to win the Cold War.Nixon thought that this was his most influential book, but he was wrong on one point--he thought that the challenge of the Cold War would not be solved in a decade, but thanks in large part to the actions of his successor Ronald Reagan, who agreed with and implemented many of the principles in this book, the Soviet Union was cast onto the ash heap of history in 1991. "The Real War" is a fascinating snapshot in time and a reminder of what can in some situations be accomplished when clear thinking, wise solutions, and an iron will are applied to even the most menacing and seemingly intractable problems.

  • By Wikipedia Brown on February 13, 2017

    This book is essential for any Foreign policy undergrad. Grads too if you didn't read a lot in undergrad. Doctors in addition to that if you are teaching.

  • By Dayton Lavon Kitchens on December 11, 2016

    Given the turn of events over the last decade or so, Richard Nixon's "The Real War" is more relevant than ever. Particularly given the current Russian regimes apparent willingness to use anything at their disposal to dominate their near abroad and marginalize U.S. interests.When he wrote "The Real War" originally, Nixon's position was that the U.S.was in a very real struggle with the Soviet Union that began immediatelyafter World War Two ended and was continuing up to the present day (1980 give or take when the book came out).Change the words "Soviet Union" or "USSR" to "Russia" and the book easily couldn't been written in 2016.A must read for anyone who takes modern world affairs seriously.


  • Name:
    Email*:
    The message text*: