Appeasers and Statesmen
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:06:22 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Appeasers and Statesmen
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Appeasers and Statesmen  (Read 1061 times)
Mikestone8
Rookie
**
Posts: 84
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 23, 2012, 04:59:52 AM »

An appeaser is an unsuccessful statesman.

A statesman is a successful appeaser.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2012, 05:58:59 AM »
« Edited: April 23, 2012, 06:33:45 AM by 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.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2012, 02:10:50 PM »

I suppose if this forum lark doesn't work out, you could get a job writing the notes in fortune cookies.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2012, 06:28:54 AM »

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?
Logged
Mikestone8
Rookie
**
Posts: 84
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2012, 02:29:52 AM »
« Edited: April 26, 2012, 01:48:10 AM by 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.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2012, 09:57:07 PM »

You do realize that you can be a statesman without appeasement?
Logged
Mikestone8
Rookie
**
Posts: 84
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2012, 01:50:02 AM »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.212 seconds with 12 queries.