▁anything ▁but ▁liberal . ▁In ▁this ▁light , ▁Met tern ich ' s ▁methods ▁have ▁been ▁seen ▁as ▁pat ernal istic , ▁protect ing ▁Aust ri ans ▁from ▁real ▁d angers ▁outside ▁their ▁borders . ▁ ▁Those ▁who ▁have ▁attempted ▁to ▁re h abil itate ▁Met tern ich ▁like wise ▁cont end ▁that , ▁along ▁with ▁contempor aries ▁Vis count ▁Cast l ere agh ▁and ▁Charles - M aur ice ▁de ▁Tal ley rand , ▁Met tern ich ▁" un question ably ▁[ a ] ▁master ▁of ▁diplom acy ", ▁someone ▁who ▁" per fect ed " ▁and ▁indeed ▁sh aped ▁the ▁nature ▁of ▁diplom acy ▁in ▁his ▁era . ▁For ▁them , ▁Met tern ich ▁was ▁" hand some , ▁w itt y ... ▁[ and ] ▁t ena cious ", ▁by ▁his ▁own ▁ad mission ▁" bad ▁at ▁sk irm ishes ... ▁but ▁good ▁at ▁campaign s ". ▁Like wise , ▁Henry ▁K iss inger ' s ▁Ph D ▁dis sert ation ▁about ▁Met tern ich , ▁later ▁published ▁in ▁ 1 9 5 7 , ▁pra ised ▁Met tern ich ' s ▁role ▁in ▁holding ▁together ▁the ▁cr umb ling ▁Aust rian ▁Empire , ▁though ▁K iss inger ' s ▁work ▁has ▁generated ▁controvers y ▁in ▁academic ▁circles ▁among ▁such ▁histor ians ▁as ▁Paul ▁W . ▁Sch ro eder , ▁inter ▁al ia ▁attract ing ▁criticism ▁for ▁the ▁absence ▁of ▁foot notes . ▁C ertain ly , ▁if ▁he ▁was ▁a ▁good ▁diplom at ▁he ▁certainly ▁attract ed ▁a ▁great