"'In the twentieth century, exactly two leaders of major nations deserved the name of statesman, [de Gaulle] (see images) and Konrad Adenaur. The rest -' Edmond shrugged again. 'Eh, bien, I can imagine several of them meant well.'" (p. 155)
This is probably, although not necessarily, the author's opinion. Who agrees? Who disagrees? Which other national leaders should be on the list? If any? Imagine having that as your epitaph: "He meant well"!
(A Latin epitaph that I composed and wrote in remembrance of Ninian Smart (scroll down) and have also suggested for Poul Anderson was "Multa docuit multos," "He taught much to many.")
5 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I discussed this matter of 20th century statesmen in one of my letters to Poul Anderson, in the context of how we should rate Francisco Franco of Spain. Anderson gave Franco a "passing grade," as being better than many other 20th century leaders, but he thought of de Gaulle and Adenauer as being two of the very few real statesmen of that dismal century.
I'm not sure if we also discussed Winston Churchill in these letters of ours (I would need to look them up), but I think it's plain, from more than one of his works, that Anderson thought very well of Churchill. See esp. how Churchill was shown in "Losers' Night."
As for national leaders of the later 20th century, only President Ronald Reagan of the US and PM Margaret Thatcher OF the UK stands out as rising to the level of statesmen. And that's about it for the entire 20th century!
Sean
Sean,
Would you say that there were more in the 18th or 19th centuries?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Hmmm, yes, I think so. Some of the founders of the US and UK statesmen like William Pitt the Elder and Edmund Burke comes to mind, for the 18th century. Clemens von Metternich, Otto von Bismarck, Benjamin Disraeli, William Gladstone, Abraham Lincoln, all of the 19th century, could be called statesmen.
Bismarck, however, I find questionable, personally speaking. I included him because of how important and far ranging were the consequences of his ideas and policies.
Sean
De Gaulle rather spoiled his reputation among Canadians in 1967. His support for the Quebec separatist movement with his shout of "Vive le Quebec Libre" at a celebration of the centennial of Canadian confederation, was seen as at best butting in where he should not. Perhaps he was getting senile by that point.
Kaor, Jim!
More likely De Gaulle was just being De Gaulle, someone who did not really like the "Anglo-Saxons.'
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment