Talk:Realpolitik

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.

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.

Sun Tzu

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)

Agree, the Sun Tzu connection seems specious. Without a correct citation I would argue it should be removed. Slorps (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

When did American Realpolitik begin?

"American Realpolitik began in the 1960s". Really? "It was in the period from 1900 to 1914 that America might be said to have awoken to the Realpolitik that was causing such a stir in Europe." It has been argued that the 19th-century annexation of Hawai'i was Realpolitik: "Mahan made it clear that America's 'right' to annex the islands was based on realpolitik". It was definitely the antithesis of Idealpolitik.  ​‑‑Lambiam 07:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)