How and why is "an internationalist Englishman" different from "an English internationalist"?

Question

There is the following passage in Benn Steil’s “The Battle of Bretton Woods.”

(John Maynard) Keynes was more an internationalist Englishman than an Englsih internationalist. Therefore it was not surprising that “Keynes’s advice,” in the words of his great contemporary Joseph Schumpeter, “was in the first instance always English advice, born of English problems” – Chapter 6. The best laid plans. page 140.

I assume that Keynes was an internationalist who attached more importance to, or prioritized British interest in drafting his post-war international currency plans than being a neutral, or cosmopolitan economist as well as British economic policy advisor from this context, but am not sure.

How and why is an internationalist Englishman different from an English internationalist, the difference of which comes from just reversing the order of the words ?

Answer 1

Internationalist :

• an advocate of internationalism (the condition or quality of being international in character, principles, concern, or attitude.) (TFD)

• The expression 'internationalist Englishman' is used to stress the English aspects of John Maynard character and attitudes. In other words he was more an Englishman than an internationalist. The main term of the expression is Englishman.

• "was in the first instance always English advice, born of English problems”

• the sentence above clearly reflects his prevailing English attitude of dealing with international issues.

• The expression English internationalist indicates that you are mainly an internationalist and as a secondary aspect English.

Answer 2

The emphasis changes, because the roles of the words reverse—noun vs. adjective. To say he was an "English internationalist" means that he was an internationalist who happened to be English; to say he was an "internationalist Englishman" means he was first and foremost an Englishman, but one who also happened to be an internationalist.

It doesn't mean he was biased toward solutions that benefited England over other countries; only that his perspectives were necessarily shaped by his experience of economics as practiced in England.