- This topic has 8 voices and 20 replies.
-
Posts
-
What have been some of the greatest diplomatic or peace-ushering strategies or tactics of all time? For one, I would have to say inter-marriage. I recall that Alexander the Great used this tactic to blend conquered areas under his dominion; the so-called "Rape of the Sabine Women" also helped Rome; and inter-marriage during the history of Europe seems to have had the effect of allying nations which may have otherwise been at odds. So inter-marriage is a key strategy in diplomacy throughout the ages.
OK, I'm stuck in the here and now.Petreaus and Co. are geniuses. If they can pull this off, especially after the mess we created, IMO this will go down in history as the greatest diplomatic strategy of all time.
I heard in a video lecture about the Persians (I think) who had a very interesting way of maintaining control over conquered territories. They would have a combination of Persian and local people in charge of conquered territories. The local people who were given power were those who otherwise would have held modest jobs. This provided assurance that these local people would not betray the Persians since it was the Persia which gave them their status in life, and and end to rule under Persia would mean an end to their heightened status and power. Pretty interesting.
How about the First Triumvirate of Rome (Crassus, Pompei, and Caesar)? Or the Second Triumvirate formed by (Octavian, Marc Antony, and Lepidus)? I'm not sure this is a diplomatic example like you are asking, but it's diplomacy of some sort anyway.Or how Muhammad allied with the Jews to take Medina and Mecca away from the Quraysh tribe?
Forget religion. Mix the skins. When we are all the same color, nobody can point a finger. The only problem with this concept is nobody will ever forget religion. Thus it can be argued that religion is harmful in its natural configuration becuase it naturally leads to disputes, bloodshed, and so on. But, so do women, so what are we going to do? Survive?
Nope, we'll find something else.
No we won't. The masses will find something different, believing it to be better. Like another religion.
Nope, we'll find something else.
No we won't. The masses will find something different, believing it to be better. Like another religion.
How about Global Warming as the new religion? It seems to be founded just as much on faith as on science.
What have been some of the greatest diplomatic or peace-ushering strategies or tactics of all time? For one, I would have to say inter-marriage. I recall that Alexander the Great used this tactic to blend conquered areas under his dominion; the so-called "Rape of the Sabine Women" also helped Rome; and inter-marriage during the history of Europe seems to have had the effect of allying nations which may have otherwise been at odds. So inter-marriage is a key strategy in diplomacy throughout the ages.
Sounds good, and I used to have hope for this concept. But facial recognition technolgy, indeed all technolgy, will continue to defeat any attempt for us to get together, as far as race, skin tone, et ceteral. I predict whole new generations of biggots, based on whom knows what?Inter breeding is a short range solution to a far longer range problem: Inbred distrust of anything even remotely different. No, I think we will forever divide into factions, and fight each other to extiction. I hope I am wrong.
How about Bismark's strategy of isolating and outmaneuvering potential opponents and making treaties and alliances to keep potential enemies at arm's length? This worked very well for the Prussians until the accession of Wilhelm I and his his deliberate policies to upset the balance of power of Europe.
I would agree that much of Bismarck's strategies were masterful, but after reading that book about him, I think now that much of his foreign policy actual created huge animosity against Germany. He publically embarrassed (even insulted) British, French and even his own German officials often. Out maneuvering them is one thing, but humiliating them is another. JMO.
Isn't the effectiveness of his policies telling though? I have never thought that being polite was a necessity in diplomacy. Politeness is a tactic just like everything else, the job of the statesman or diplomat is to look out for the interests of his own nation and if that means some nations get insulted that is just the nature of the beast. The game must be played whether we like it or not and diplomacy is the world's best game after war.
They were completely effective. Bismarck got what he wanted nearly ALL the time. There's a fine line between politeness and firmness. He could have still stood his ground and not used personal insults to achieve what he wanted. He lost a lot of popularity when he started doing that.
Antoher great diplomatic strategy:1)Michael Collins declared Ireland a republic after the 1916 Easter Rising. 2)He used world public opinion (especially U.S. public opinion) to achieve Irish freedom. A lot of the philosophy behind WWI was "attention upon the principle of self-determination and the reign of law based upon the consent of the governed" and Collins pointed out Britain's hypocrisy when it came to Ireland.
They were completely effective. Bismarck got what he wanted nearly ALL the time. There's a fine line between politeness and firmness. He could have still stood his ground and not used personal insults to achieve what he wanted. He lost a lot of popularity when he started doing that.
Popularity with whom? He was catering to the king not the public. That is one of the biggest differences between democracies and other forms of government, public servants in Monarchies or other autocratic governments are only beholden to the executive and not the man on the street. I have my doubts about the man on the street's ability to make realistic judgments on what's best for a country anyway.
