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.

This claim seems to be unjustified: "Otto von Bismarck, a Prussian statesman who coined the term balance of power. Balancing power means keeping the peace and careful Realpolitik practitioners try to avoid arms races." But it seems the concept appeared well before Bismarck. According to Machiavelli, The Prince (Oxford World's Classics) (ISBN-13: 978-0199535699) footnotes on page 109: "historians of political thought often credit Francesco Guicciardini's History of Italy (1561-4) with the concept of the balance of power. ... From Machiavelli's remark, it is clear that the notion was one shared by other thinkers before it was popularized by Guicciardini's influential history." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soid (talk • contribs) 21:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

20 years have passed, let it go. --91.248.90.59 (talk) 02:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

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.

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.

Prominent proponents of Realpolitik include Otto von Bismarck, Henry Kissinger, George F. Kennan, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Hans-Dietrich Genscher, as well as politicians such as Deng Xiaoping, Charles De Gaulle, and Lee Kuan Yew.[2]

So Bismarck, Kissinger, Kennan, Brzezinski and Genscher weren't politicians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.149.74 (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

So realpolitik (or rather, ethical rules) ARE based on given facts about the world. Everyone’s doing realpolitik they just don’t know it. This word shouldn’t even exist. 2001:56A:FCFE:E200:BD40:8579:3AB2:8E37 (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

You sound upset. A7BA (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Writing a piece like this seems like a lot of work based on impressive knowledge. I haven’t done it, so congrats for that. I just want to suggest that Sun Tzu is deeply moralistic and incompatible with practical politics and realpolitik (compare to von Clausewitz). For example, Sun Tzu writes that commanders should never attack “walled cities,” and must only do so out of irrational “wrath,” whereas Clausewitz suggests the theory of strategy comes into full historical view with the appearance of sieges. Sun Tzu advises the student to allow trapped enemy units some escape route, whereas Clausewitz would probably suggest letting them waste away and not resume the initiative. In all places, Sun Tzu stresses compassion, disgust for violence, and a preference for non-violent means, but this is not practical and would quickly get a state trampled by opposing powers, which is why Clausewitz warns against such temptations, which “proceed from a spirit of benevolence” and cause the most dire mistakes.

If you’ll excuse the speech, I just mean Sun Tzu seems deeply incompatible with realpolitik in his moralistic themes, which also disqualifies him as politically practical, as war is a decisive political instrument that he understands through moral precepts rather than practical or strategic principles. StreetQuant (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply