Talk:Realpolitik
Doesn't this belong as part of an article on "diplomacy"? This is a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article.
- It is a pretty important concept, not very well fleshed out here yet, but if an article includes a definition that alone doesn't make it a dictionary entry. This article suggests some historical and cultural context. A dictionary would never mention Machiavelli, for instance. Ortolan88
- Yes, but I would suggest that it is better dealt with as a part of a wider discussion of diplomacy. I think this is a wider point that sometimes just because something is worth discussing in the wikipedia, it's not necessarily best dealt with in a seperate article. --Robert Merkel 13:45 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)
Realpolitik seems to extend beyond diplomacy, although patterns of alliance often reflect it, for example the current alliance of the United States and Saudi Arabia or the alliance of China and Pakistan. Could it be said to apply to the internal affairs of a country? Mostly it seems to be an attitude supporting action independent of principle. User:Fredbauder
I would be wanting to say realpolitik is also about achieving a greater goal by any mean necessary. __earth 00:43, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
I feel like the phrase "sentimental illusions" is inherently biased. It's true that realpolitik involves disregard of ideals, but "sentimental illusions" seems like a phrase that would be employed by supporters of a realpolitik outlook.
Was Nazi Germany doomed from the start?
"the unsuccessful war of Nazi-Germany would be considered unrealistic from the beginning."
I don't know the military history, but a German friend has argued that Germany would have won if they hadn't made a major blunder: declaring war on the U.S. right after Pearl Harbor.
Pearl Harbor got the U.S. "into World War II", but (the argument goes) would naturally have focused their attention on Japan. With the US shifting resources to the Pacific, Germany would likely have been able to take over Europe including England. At that point, with no foothold from which to launch invasions, we would probably have had to cut a deal.
It could be argued that Hitler's personality was both the genesis of Nazi Germany's aggression and the genesis of its overconfidence. But that's an indirect and speculative argument. The question is, if Germany had been just a bit wiser (in which case they maybe wouldn't have attacked Russia so soon, either), did they have the military ability to take and hold Europe? If so, it does not appear that their war was "unrealistic from the beginning."
Cphoenix 17:23, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I see more problems in WWII for Germany - GB was technologically superior(???): They had electronic computers, while the Germans only had mechatronical calculators(???). They had efficient Radar, while the Germans always lagged behind(???). They had airplanes about as powerful as the first (German) jets, but much more usable(???). Their industrial output was comparable to Germany's, even after the occupation of northern France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Western Poland. They had access to oil, precious metals, and so on, unlike the Germans. They didn't loose many a talent to racist ideology, partly helping their enemy, unlike Germany. They didn't have a Fuehrer-Ideology which made everything dependent on the decisions of one non-specialist person(???). Also, the intensely concentrated German economy had positive synergies at the beginning - but after some time, the lack of competition lead to corruption, inefficiency and so on. Similar is true for the political workings inside Germany, where strong competition lead to a lot of confusion after the first positive effects faded. The V1 could be handled by the British, while the V2 cost the Germans as much to produce, as it cost the English in damage. As I see it, even GB alone had good chances of winning the war(???). After Hitler declared war on Russia, the war was effectively decided. The US only made the war end a year or two earlier.
I wont go into a lenghty debate about Germany's chances in WWII, but I'm quite sure what you say about Germany being technologically inferior is wrong. At the outbreak of the war they were far superior to any other nation when it came to warfare technology, they had superior U-boats, planes and tanks, and they were also well ahead in electronics (?), rocketry and many other important military sciences. Their technological lead was one of the major reasons for their extreme success in the first year of the war. That being said, I agree the war was over when they started the war on the east front (against Russia), or at least when it stranded so catastrophically that first winter.
62.119.95.2 14:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
No matter how strong a military is, after wining a war you have to deal with the aftermath. Germany occupied various countries but the majority of the people there where dissatisfied. In Greece during the German occupation even members of the fascist party started guerrilla groups against the german forces. The same happened in every nation nazi Germany concurred. There was no way that Germany could keep the concurred countries for ever because of the way they governed them.
- 'What-if history' is for silly people, not for driven intellectuals like us wiki-editors ;) Krastain 17:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Is this referring to the EU?
Ironically, the very cautious European approach has led to one of the greatest unifications and expansions ever seen on this planet - though with a slight danger of a reversal of this process.
Is this referring to the European Union? If so, I think it would be better to state so explicitly and what the author thinks the "slight danger of reversal" is exactly.
- I did mean the European Union and it's expansion over the last 40 years. And the slight danger of reversal is the possibility of some disagreements, rising nationalism or economic turmoil making the member nations go back all or some steps of the unification process - maybe even similar to former Yugoslavia.
Questioned paragraph
The following text is moved from the article. It's no good style to argue in the article. That's what talk pages are for. Maybe some kind of agreement on the talk page could lead to the re-introduction of parts of the text?
- Accordingly, the term Realpolitik is often also used to distinguish successful foreign policy, which is usually within realistic limits, from unsuccessful foreign policy, which is often based on wars motivated by greed or ideology. The successful expansion of Prussia under Bismarck would be called Realpolitik, while the unsuccessful war of Nazi-Germany would be considered unrealistic from the beginning [questionable; see discussion page]. Difficulties in determining what is realistic has lead to a very cautious foreign policy in war torn Europe, while victorious or less ravaged countries are usually less cautious. Ironically, the very cautious European approach has led to one of the greatest unifications and expansions ever seen on this planet — though with a slight danger of a reversal of this process.
--Johan Magnus 22:28, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How about this one:
- In Germany, the term Realpolitik is more often used to distinguish modest (realistic) politics from overzealeous (unrealistic) politics. Not demanding territory from defeated Austria-Hungary was coined with this term, as was the sometimes very slow or indirect steps towards German unification under Prussia. Avoiding values like justice, nationalism or religious goals is in this definition only a temporary means to avoid loosing everything. Today, the "Realos" of a political party don't mind making compromises on issues to ensure at least some progress, while the "Fundis" (fundamentalists) avoid compromises, even if it means they can't join the decision making.
- The "Realo-Fundi" thing solely applies to the Green Party. That may be partly because all other major parties only have "Realos" --Gafyr 16:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Back in school they told me Bismarck came up with realpolitik, well I think they did. Should he atleast be referenced somewhere?
- Almost twenty.
Timor
Why was "green-lighting" Suahrto's invasion of East Timor realpolitik? What American interest was served? This area needs more explanation. Ehusman 02:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Kant Example
This example makes no sense. Can someone shed some light on this? It seems like a shoddy example of realpolitik, considering that there is no penalty to the questionee to lie to the assailant.
Maybe a better example, as far as an historic example, would be the political procedures of Stalin. There are other examples of realpolitik thinkers, but Stalin is a very appropiate one. Just throwing that out there.
Applying ethics and ideals is not simple, and this section is biased in favor of realpolitik
This absurd and obviously biased attempt to paint anyone who believes that the ends do not justify the means as a radical, outsider, or simpleton is quite offensive. The application of ideals to behavior that aims at being truly ethical is far from simple or easy, as this section seems to suggest. The idea that realpolitik is more in accordance with reality completely neglects the fact that a person's soul can be negatively affected in the process of pursuing some supposedly noble end by whatever means necessary, and that the person whose soul(or heart, or mind, say it how you like) is thus affected will then negatively influence the society he is in contact with. This is, I would say, how the Holocaust happened. People wanted a strong Germany and believed the end justified the means, so they ignored or overlooked the atrocities going on in the name of that strong Germany. The very term realpolitik, according to the article, has roots in that very part of the world, and its gradual effect can be seen in the Holocaust. The souls and minds of these people(those who knew-and many did) were so affected by the idea of realpolitik that they allowed these atrocities to begin, continue, and lead to the deaths of millions. There are laws of spirit and/or heart that need to be attended to for the soul's protection from harm, just as there are physical laws that need to be attended to for the protection of one's body from harm. When a person knowingly does something wrong, even for a supposedly greater good, he damages his own and sometimes others' souls. This damage is not without consequence, any more than having a heavy object fall on you is without consequences.