Deceitful Diplomacy

I know that during the months before Operation Barbarossa, Stalin "knew" that the British were sending him fabricated intelligence in order to stoke a war between the Nazis and the Soviet Union.

Morally, if you were a leader, would you have a problem doing what Stalin thought the British were doing?  Instigating war between two of your enemies?

As I'm sure anyone who is an observant reader of my posts would know, I wouldn't have a problem.  If two of countries I didn't like were at war, I'd probably do things like give intelligence (satellite photos, signal intercepts, human intelligence, etc.) to whichever side was losing, so that they could come back, and bring the war back to stalemate, and then if they start winning, help the other side.  And you could also make a ton of money by selling both of them weapons.

Rarely do such golden opportunities to have one's enemies destroy each other come along, and I would make the most of them and make sure each was bled white.

When I finally feel they've been sufficiently exhausted, then I'd do something like set up a peace conference and end up looking like a peacemaker instead of a war stoker.  I might even get a Nobel Peace Prize, which would be quite ironic.

Originally posted by Kubrat That is why the US is the most powerful country in the world right now.  Because(this is just an opinion now) many of the  leaders of the US share Genghis's opinion on this.

That's what made the British masters of the world, supporting the weakest European powers against the strongest so that none could achieve hegemony and threaten Britain, or assert too much power outside of the Continent. 

Originally posted by Kubrat Or do you see countries as entities to which adjectives like evil and enemy can be applied?

I would never say entire nations are totally or even mostly evil, but if their interests stand in the way of mine, they are my enemies, but it's nothing personal

You would be an idiot NOT to do it, it would accomplish the debilitation of two or more enemies in a quicker time than action just against one.

-

Edited by Jalisco Lancer

Originally posted by Stillhawk It's a pretty good tactic. [...] In the end neither Iraq nor Iran gained anything but lost lots of civilians and soldiers.

[sarcasm]yeah, that's indeed great[/sarcasm]

Oh come on!

Nothing gives a country the right to cause another to go to war with someone.  Nothing!  The fact that you don't like the country doesn't mean that innocent civilians should die.

From Tolkien:
"Can you give life to people who are dead?  Then do not be so ready to to give death to people who are alive." <- Not the exact wording.


Edited by Kubrat

Well, looking at the Iran-Iraq case, I would not say that it worked so well: they did not make each other harmless, and the West eventually has/had to face both of them.

Besides, the same (and on a higher extent) can be said of Nazi Germany and Soviet USSR

Originally posted by Kubrat Oh come on! Nothing gives a country the right to cause another to go to war with someone.  Nothing!  The fact that you don't like the country doesn't mean that innocent civilians should die.

If it saves your own citizens from fighting a war against your enemies, and therefore keeps you from having to spend your riches on a war and spill your nation's blood, I think it is sometimes justified.

"Not all that die should live, and not all that live should die."

Right, I was thinking of what Gandalf said in The Fellowship of the Ring. 

Hitler was a motivational genius, but he was no strategist.

If it saves your own citizens from fighting a war against your enemies, and therefore keeps you from having to spend your riches on a war and spill your nation's blood, I think it is sometimes justified.

I don't think so.  Because you can never tell whether the other country would attack you or not.  Take for example the Soviet Union, America, and China.  After the Russo-Chinese split, China might have thought along your lines.  And then there wouldn't be an Earth left as we know it.

The point is, the future is not set.  That is why pre-emptive strikes without concrete proof that the enemy will attack you are in fact, aggressive attacks.


Edited by Kubrat

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by Serge L they did not make each other harmless They did make each other weaker though, and the Iran-Iraq War can be said to have destroyed Iran's dreams of spreading Islamic Revolution, and it certainly kept Saddam from forming an Iraqi empire at Iran's expense.

I concede that, of course. Yet, in the end, it only procrastinated things. The US-lead coalition attacked Iraq twice, and the country is stil the mess we all know.

Iran, on the other side, is close to achieva nuclear weapons.

 

I'd say that could be a general rule, the "divide et impera" (yes, it's a Roman invention) tactic is usually just good to gain some time.