Appeasers and Statesmen

[Mikestone8]

An appeaser is an unsuccessful statesman.

A statesman is a successful appeaser.

[politicus]

Nah,you got that wrong. The greatest statesmen knew how to use power. They didn't give in on their countries vital interests. A statesman to me is someone like Bismarck who combined intelligent use of his countrys military ressources with diplomatic skills, and a thorough understanding of the interests and strategies of his opponents.

[Sibboleth]

I suppose if this forum lark doesn't work out, you could get a job writing the notes in fortune cookies.

[Simfan34]

An appeaser is an unsuccessful statesman.

A statesman is a successful appeaser.

But if an appeaser is a unsuccessful statesman, hasn't the statesman inherently failed?

[Mikestone8]

Perhaps I put it a bit clumsily. My point was that it's only "appeasement" if it doesn't work. A bit like the old couplet  about treason.

Frex, in the 1930s Britain and France appeased Turkey quite a bit, in 1936 by allowing her to fortify the Black Sea Straits (demilitarised since WW1, like the Rhineland) and in 1938 by France ceding the province of Alexandretta. Had Turkey later joined the Axis, these actions would be remembered as part of the "Age of Appeasement", and condemned accordingly. But she didn't, so they are remembered as statesmanlike acts by the few (outside Turkey) who remember them at all.

[CathKhan]

You do realize that you can be a statesman without appeasement?

[Mikestone8]

You do realize that you can be a statesman without appeasement?

In principle yes; but a statesman who refused on "principle" to appease anyone probbaly wouldn't be a very good statesman.

It all comes down to when, where and whom you appease.