DO NOT BE NEUTRAL | The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 лют 2018
- Almost everything I know about Machiavelli, packed into a short digital book: eudaimoniayoutube.gumroad.com...
Machiavelli advised against staying neutral in a conflict, stating that decisive and bold action is required to gain (or stay in) power. In his eyes, many leaders who try to stay neutral, end up being destroyed. This video explains why.
---
WANT TO CREATE VIDEOS LIKE THESE?
This is the software I use: bit.ly/2CdPdwF
---
Ideas from Machiavelli's, The Prince...
BE FEARED: • BE FEARED | The Prince...
NEVER BRING OTHERS TO POWER: • NEVER BRING OTHERS TO ...
ACQUIRE WHEN YOU CAN: • ACQUIRE WHEN YOU CAN |...
DESTROY, DO NOT WOUND: • DESTROY, DO NOT WOUND ...
BE BOTH THE MAN & THE BEAST: • BE BOTH THE MAN & THE ...
DO NOT BE NEUTRAL: YOU ARE HERE
BE PRESENT: • BE PRESENT | The Princ...
📖 View all The Prince videos • The Prince by Niccolo ...
👊 Subscribe bit.ly/-Eudaimonia
![Machiavelli & Sun Tzu | The 33 Strategies of War [Colorized Summary]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mPcrXEcyMWA/mqdefault.jpg)
Mastering Machiavelli: eudaimoniayoutube.gumroad.com/l/master-machiavelli
"My Fuhrer Italy has joined the war"
"Ok, send 10 divisions to deal with them"
"No, they are on our side"
"Oh dear, send 25 divisions to help them"
"Your enemy will always ask that you remain neutral. An ally will demand that you declare yourself by action."
Neutrality is not indecision. One can be militantly neutral as in; “I have not picked a side, I will not pick a side, and if you try to force me to pick a side then you will not like the choice I will make.
Don’t confuse kindness for weakness. And do not mistake inaction with fear to act.
I do not believe Machiavelli’s true belief to be against that of neutrality, for he is a seasoned liar and a deceptive opponent. I believe rather it is his intention to force the hand of others prematurely so as to give himself the strategic advantage. Fill others heads with fears of looking weak so that they will rush to rash decisions (tipping their hand) while you take your calculated and decisive time. That is right up his lane.
Taylor Phoenix Comment deserves to be at to for actual
correct constructive criticism.
If you are entangled with both parties, with treaties and such you should pick a side as early as possible, if you truelly don't have anything to do with their conflict then be neutral
Neutrality in most cases is indecision because one of the both parties will demand your loyalty, it depends on who you are dealing with but in most cases it is indecision.
@Ge RuiYi no one read your comment lol take some pages from Machiavelli’s book dumbass
Then there's switzerland
User with a long ,worthless and imbecilic name we'll Switzerland wasn't neutral in the beginning now where they
User with a long ,worthless and imbecilic name
Except the Swiss were and still are frightening as hell.
Bloodthirsty fucks. How's the old saying go?
_No money, no swiss_
Luis Acuña haven’t Norway or Sweden been neutral for over 200 years?
Greentiger_420 Sweden has. Norway is a member of NATO. In fact, the current Secretary-General of NATO is former Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg.
Switzerland is a bad ass country. basically told Hitler they're not joining anyside but if he tries to fuk around and attack them they're ready for war.
That is Machiavelli's opinion.
Rothschild would say: just fund BOTH sides of the war. The Looser will be highly indebted to you and the Winner will be highly indebted to you. You will have control over BOTH of them =)
Machiavelli greatly underestimated bankers and monetary power....armies need to be paid at the end of the day 🧐
I was thinking about Ireland and Switzerland during WWII. Both nations were declared neutral during the war, however both nations mobilized their militaries in the event they were invaded. Switzerland, while known for dealing with the Nazis especially with their banking systems, also made sure their borders were protected and their military ready. They even shot down some Nazi aircraft when they flew over their territory. Ireland was also mobilized and while they remained neutral they were also keeping ties with the British in the event they were invaded. As for American neutrality during the war it can be safely said that America was never neutral and they immediately took the side of the Allied powers rather than the Axis powers, and this was abundantly clear with the Lend Lease Act and Europe first approach during the war.
The thing is, Switzerland dealt with both the axis and the allies equally during WW2. The commercial balance was equal for both sides despite the country being surrounded by the axis for most of the war.
The German invasion plan "Operation Sea Lion" was to invade both Britain and Ireland simultaneously. Ireland needed to be invaded as Hitler feared that the United States, realising that if Britain fell, German forces would be in Canada within months (they'd win Canada by default when Britain surrendered), could use Ireland as a base.
Invading neutral Ireland would prevent the US being able to interfere, should they declare war on the Axis.
The US War Department knew that if they remained neutral they'd be forced to go to war with a poorly equipped US Army when Germany annexed Canada.
In 1940 the US Army, starved of funding during the 1920's and 1930's had a tank force of only 87 x WW1 Renault FT-17 light tanks, 2 x WW1 steam powered flame thrower tanks, 6 x Christee T-3 fast tanks (BT-1 in the Soviet Red Army), 1 x M-1 medium tank prototype and a few WW1 Mark.VIII. heavy tanks plus other prototypes.
To prevent this the US War Department came up with "Lend Lease" and other methods to give military aid to Britain and later Russia in order to outwit the pro-Nazi isolationists in Congress.
Eh. The Swiss tried to protect their airspace, briefly. But then the Germans said: “it’s time to get real, son. And I mean REAL real. You shoot down our shit and it’s curtains for you, capiche?” And after that they stopped trying to intercept German aircraft in their airspace.
In general staying neutral may be a bad move, but nobody is in a position that is "in general". Also, i happen to have read The Prince, and i recall that his advice was not that staying neutral is bad. But that you should side with those who are asking you to help, as opposed to listening to those who are asking you to stay out of it. Because the latter one is not your friend, it is an enemy stalling for time and not even pretending that they would ever see you as a possible ally.
"A friend to all is a friend to none" -Aristotle
For me the smarter move would be to stay neutral, and then invade the winner as their army is weakened and stretched far from warring the loser. I've won tons of domination victories in Civ5 and Civ6 games using this strategy.
then get called warmonger and have coalition against you
But if you took the winners side, you’d not be a threat, which makes attacking them easier. You’d also have good intel on them from working together dumbass
Franco did pick a side in WW2 he simple did not back the axis unreservedly and demanded large territorial concessions in Africa for combat involvement. Spain did however provide massive amounts of raw materials and especially tungsten vital for anti tanks shells and jet engines along with allowing german U-boats the right to refuel and re-provision in Spanish ports, 40'000 Spanish volunteers also fought on the eastern front. Franco was scarcely impartial even if officially neutral.
dale osborne it's believe that Franco had spies within Hitler inner circle, so they gave him information of what Hitler wasn't willing to give to Franco to join the war. Now about the volunteers, the Blue division was send as a kind of payment for the Cóndor legion send by the Germans during the Spanish civil war, and to show Hitler that if he invade Spain, the Spaniards would fight to dead
Which is not neutrality...at best it is non belligerency. Republican exiles actively fought against against Hitler within the Free French Armies or else pursed a Stalinist Agenda in Southern France.
Franco was an astute practitioner of Real Politik, he could make win-win offers and was able to hedge his bets in the event either side won by giving what the axis wanted in the form of economic, logistic, and ideological support and he gave the allies what they wanted by promising never to antagonize or attack them, quietly the Western powers also loathed the alternative of Spain possibly becoming a communist state. In return the Axis helped him defeat the Republicans and win the civil war and the allies allowed him to stay in power long after the war until the day he died. He may have been sympathetic to the Axis but had no problem adapting his stance and supporting the other side if need be, as long as he could stay in power and promised to be a reliable anti-communist bulwark in the post war years the fact he once supported Hitler and that the allies had originally backed the Republicans against him was all water under the bridge.
If I remember it right about the Blue Division, after the Krasniy Bor (?) battle in which out of thousands of volunteers only a dozen survived the division told the Germans that they had paid back the blood debt of the Legion Condor freeing Spain from the reds and they came back to Spain.
Lets not forget that Franco came to power after a bloody civil war in Spain and was not eager to go to another war with the Axis who helped him in the civil war. He demanded from Hitler so much material supplies and stuff in order to eventaually join the Axis in WW2 that Hitler told his aide that he would prefer to visit the dentist to pull a tooth rather to deal with Franco.
Fantastic video once again, the perfect level of detail and demonstration for concepts that are still relevant today
hipstershit Yes sir
this video is so well made, you deserve more subscribers
Bad advice. The Ottomons chose to side with France during napoleonic wars and later with the axis during WWI. In the end, their whole empire was dismantled.
The Germans were progressing and industrializing at the end of ninteenth century. If they chose to remain neutral in the Austro-Serbian affair they could have avoided the first world war. Because they sided with Austrians and declared war on Russia, they ended up in war with France and Britian and lost much power. The US chose to stay neutral in that war until the end and gained the most advantage at the least war cost.
Mussolini and Francos examples also prove that remaining neutral actually helped the Spanish dictator survive for much longer.
The lesson to take is stay neutral as long as possible, and only throw in with a side once a winner has become clear, or when both sides are exhausted and your support will be the tipping point to end the war.
IShallNotSubmit Then you are without honour. You might say that honour has no purpose and is simply a social construct, and you'd be right, but if others care about it, than it is valuable. Just as lumps of metal and paper are universally accepted as the most powerful resource in the world, so to is principle and the bravery to stick by it the judge of who is and isn't a good ally.
Manchester Senator One can remain neutral while maintaining a strong stance.
The key part of doing so is to pick your battles wisely, and fight the ones that matter rather than throwing yourself into every single opportunity for conflict that passes by.
Dexxus True. But there is more to deciding when to intervene then simply waiting until victory is assured. Besides, the best way to remain strong when neutral is to have something both sides want, and then entertain the possibility of intervention so that both sides waste effort trying to court you.
IShallNotSubmit you probably mean Central Powers in ww1, not axis
Oh I always mix them up. I blame that board game Axis and Allies 1914..
You gained a new subscriber mate. Hope your channel grows fast
Such a good video, keep up the work!
I'm going to need to see some cases where somebody picks the wrong side but still gets taken care of. Most examples I've seen "get taken care of" in the other sense of the term.
If you mean the people, the marshall plan rebuilt infrastructure in Europe, much of that went to West Germany. If you mean the government which was on the wrong side, I'm not to sure about that one.
Japan after ww2. We took the country and then gave it right back. (With restrictions on military).
These are delightful videos!!!
Thanks my friend. I’m proud to called you friend.
Amazing video!!!
This can also apply to other things like debates.
For example, in the PC vs Console debate, the ones who are neutral are often dishonest, assuming they are not new. One argument is that it's purely subjective, however, that can only be applied to the games, as the platforms can be objectively compared. Examples include power, features, and total cost. Problem of said neutrality often lets companies get away with things. For example, Practices like exclusivity and paid online plague the consoles.
One of bismarcks best plans to 'wait until circumstance became so that a beneficial plan coul be made' roughly paraphrasing 3rd hand knowledge
I don't need to be a neutral when you're on your own party... also I got lucky to found this great channel.. you've gain a subscriber
Then what about Switzerland? She was neutral through and through.
Switzerland is in the middle of the alps of Europe, so is fucking difficult to invade!
How many troops should Hitler have thrown at Switzerland to conquer it in your opinion?
Mike Spearwood what about Sweden
what about it?
Sweden didn't have the terrain advantage of Switzerland and could have been fairly easily conquered yet stayed neutral and gained from it.
Bosscascade that's cause Hitler and the Nazis liked the Swedes, and had a good trade relationship with them, why would he invade Sweden for?
I would very much like to see Machiavelli's list of references. I'm sure there are statistics supporting his opinion.
This one actually has me thinking. Outside of war strategy and dealing with real life would it be better to anything neutral or would it better take a side?
Let's say two friends are arguing and neither one is obviously right, is it better to side with one over the other or is it better to remain neutral.
As Machiavelli said remaining neutral can make both sides hate you.
I also know that countries like Sweden and America is supposed to be neutral that's what we're founded on. But then again it's not usually how things that we turn out usually the us does pick a side.
What do you guys think I'm still trying to figure out this one?
These rules and mentality are used heavy in the streets LOL I also have always thought this way.
Oh look, a fake gangster
How do you make these amazing videos do you draw them by hand or in soms sort of program
This came up in the simulation Attila total war last night. I was West Rome and I refused to help my ally east Rome against a trading partner of mine. I had hoped to go neutral and take some provinces later, but it ruined my relationship with my ally, led to a very harmful war, and the trading partner did not survive, now east Rome won't trade with me, as I had to inflict great pains to get them to reconsider persisting with their war machine.
1:14 partnership over neutrality
This is the opposite of what Robert Greene teaches in the 48 laws of power. He teaches to stay neutral and play both sides which is ironic since he is a staunch follower and fan of Machiavelli.
Great video. What the name for the accent in the video?
When my father and sister where fighting they where both acusing eachother for the same things in my face. With my sister I was honest and said. Dad said the same about you and stayed neutral. I have not seen my sister again and she abondened me. When I was in real need she wasn't there for me and even lied when she could save my life with a simple truth. Just don't mingle but do not be neutral. Humans are not intelligent enough to be neutral.
"Always side with the winner", got it
Machiavelli was writing in a world where the Prince was the state (feudalism). While some parallels can be drawn, not all his lessons translate into the modern world, where the state is a separate entity (post-Westphalia) and certainly not into today's far more complex system of interdependence and overlapping allegiances. There is still a lot to be learned from Machiavelli, but anybody that believes his ideas can be transferred whole-cloth into today do not realize the importance of context. Neutrality makes a lot more sense today then it did in Machiavelli's time.
Also Machiavelli does not account for other third parties to the conflict, who may prefer you stay neutral, in order not to be dragged into the conflict them self. This quite frankly leaves his argument a little weak if you look at a broader context.
Keep in mind that The Prince was written in contradiction of the views of much of Machiavelli's other work. Comparatively, it is very light reading, and I've heard some people consider it satire.
The exception to this rule on picking sides and who to pick is when one side is truly benevolent (e.g. Western Allies and NATO). Had the WAllies not been benevolent they would have carved up Frankist Spain, Switzerland and Sweden too would have been carved up. The character of the two sides really does matter. This goes to the exception to not picking a side stronger than yourself, if that side is benevolent it is advantageous to pick that side.
Only The Prince is one of his shortest works, contradicts his other works, and was probably satirizing what NOT to do as a ruler. Most people think Tyranny is bad...
I usually agree with mackiovelli...
This time, no.
Yes, if you are the mightiest party you CAN stay neutral.
More so, you can say if they bring you into the conflict, you will take the land of who you help...as well as take the land of who you defeat.
Might....controls....everything
Our country India saved itself from rising Extremist groups and proxy war, which would have taken place if India sided with any Bloc in Cold War era.
India helped in easing tensions between the blocs by getting into Non-aligned Movement.
India is respected by western powers because of it doesn't unnecessarily interfere in matters, which could create a strife.
true. i've never seen india try to act like some sort of world police.
and i thank you for that.
you seriously need to brush up your post independence history, you are wrong on so many levels.
India is a shithole country, that values the lives of cows more then its citizens. To be “respected” is a massive overstatement. India is tolerated by many.
So this explains perfectly well why Henry Kissinger; the real power of death behind fifty years of Presidents always counceled to Act and Act fast even if it is wrong; better to appear decicive as a leader than to seem impotent because your analizing the situation.
Please tell me you get around to his Discourses
I throw my hat in the ring finally
This is Much Better Better Personal advice, than Political.
Worked well for the swiss.
The Swiss is lucky because the terrain create a natural fortress, making it near impossible to besiege back in 15th century. Then come WW2, no one want to attack them, because there are banks located in Swiss, and attacking it means they'll lose money.
What if you hate both sides?
Declare war on them both!
Oh you mean the Russians?
Temporarily ally the weaker one and have him help you kill the stronger one.
The Vengeful Engineer was that your attempt to out-edge me?
Google "defeat in detail"
Hmmmm.
Moussilini also made himself hated by his own people and chose a friend who was not only crazy, but an idiot. So he was in a pretty unique situation. I'm not sure Franco was very much respected, but no one wanted another war, so they left him alone.
There's also the example of Polk who not only didn't chose a side, he made everyone figure he was on their side. So there's a lot go goes into these things.
Remember that Machiavelli's advice was for people with power and who wanted to keep power. Franco definitely used Machiavelli principles when he executed anyone expressing values of the Spanish republic (right to vote, regional autonomy, women's rights, etc). His side was not neutral.
Franco wanted to join Germany real bad, he asked many times nothing to do with staying neutral he thought an axis defeat would be an end to his regime but he was denied because strategically Spain cost more than they were worth as a formal ally of the axis Germany would've had to send food and aid to his country and the allies could attack the weak Spanish military and they didn't want a second Italy who was terrible. But as a neutral nation bordering Germany with heavy axis sympathy they provided a great proxy to trade with especially guns which was massive in Spain.m
Neutral Countries 2019
A neutral country is a country that doesn’t take sides. This could be during a certain war, or it could be for all conflicts. Countries that are neutral in future conflicts do not enter military alliances. The definition of “neutral” varies from country to country. Some nations, for example, do not have a military. Others do have a military in place to protect themselves if needed but do not deploy their militaries to other nations.
Throughout history, there have been various nations around the world that have been neutral. Currently, nations that are neutral against future conflicts are:
Austria Costa Rica Finland Ghana Ireland Japan
Liechtenstein Malta Mexico Mongolia Moldova Panama
Rwanda Serbia Singapore Sweden Switzerland Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan Vatican City
Applicable only when there are conquerors and the vanquished. As it is with modern politics, the losing side never is truly annihilated. They come back and win some other time. Precisely why some industries donate to both Republicans and Democrats (Wall Street, health insurance, etc.)
Wow. This actually seems like one of the times where, even when being fiercely pragmatic, Machiavelli was wrong. (Not that neutrality should always be chosen, but that it actually is sometimes an option.)
48 laws of power: law 20 don't commit to anyone
Tell that to the Swiss and Nordic Countries who mainly stayed out of the Wars and benefited from this greatly.
Depends on the case.
Middle of the road is where the yellow is.
ANONYMOUS
I will rather say that it is best to stay neutral untill you are forced to draw your sword for what side. Meanwhile staying neutral, you can try to trade with both sides. Something Denmark did tried (If I recall) doing the run up to WW2. I mean Denmark did stay neutral during WW1
Two issues here I wonder: Neutrality doesn't necessarily mean indecisiveness. I agree that indecisiveness, or the impression of it, must be avoided for leaders, which leads to my next issue. There's a sense of a false dichotomy here, a sense because the argument here is there is the neutral side besides the two sides. BUT, what if the neutral side is the stronger of the three? Prudence is sometimes the side of valor (read that somewhere), and the two sides may "flame" themselves out and undermine the whole scenario? (looking at you U.N. and "rogue" nuclear states). And by prudence, for some situations it could be Machiavellian?
Interesting topic and very nice animations, but I feel like the points are repeated too much throughout the video.
The main point is "remaining neutral will make both sides dislike you", and "the winner will be in a position of power where they might punish you for not being on their side". You covered all of this by 0:58.
Just as example for an alternative video structure, you could have started with the Milan example, but after the friend's question, already describe what reasons could speak for neutrality (which you cover at 1:25). Then say Machiavelli was of a different opinion and advocated for taking a side, then directly skipping to the quote at 2:07, which conveys all of the main points. Then add the other points you want to make but don't point everything out explicitly if it already was implied previously.
Making this more concise would have left more space to discuss historical situations where neutrality has or has not worked out (like the Franco/Mussolini example), or look at what other thinkers had to say about this topic, maybe even looking at criteria for situations where being neutral might be a good choice and when not.
All that matters is you secure your own power
You need power to have an identity right?
To be neutral.....is to be the winner's future dessert.
What if I help both sides?
Machiavelli was not used to modern total wars, that ended with the overthrow of the governments of the losing side. In his time, princes stayed in power even after several defeats.
I think TVtropes said it straight, better to lose together where you can both work together to recover forging a stronger culture unity between your people and your fellow losers people, then to be on your own and hated by both.
A reasonable and peaceful resolution is logical.
the example of franco seems to negate the whole idea.
I'm learning English and i find very hard to fallow the video due to the accent, it is what they call British accent?
yes
but what if the conflicting parties were the horrendously hated by the neutral party(cruel without moral sense and justice)?
ill give you a description of the neutral. they are severely weaker ones than the warring ones. both A and B (the warring ones) were hated due to their nature of politics, armed forces and downright totalitarian.
whats tips should be given for the neutrals as their prime priority is security of the masses, economy right amount of arms they gained but lesser standing to the other two?
To be fair to Franco, World War II began 5 months after the Spanish civil war ended and he was probably more concerned with not being overthrown. Joining the war probably would have resulted in further instability in Spain.
Translation, Neutrality by itself isn't the problem, Neutrality due to waffling and indecision is.
"Apathy is Death"
Treaties and alliances are meant to be broken.
Or, what was written in a more popular book: "Because you were lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I spit you out".
And why was my Neutral status in my EU4 games as Brunei so sacred. Demak and Malacca didn't hate me or declared war on me. Well it was mostly because I dominated the Philippines and Conquered Ming allies was probably enough for them to realize that it is futile to become my enemies and let me stay neutral in their wars.
This idea is directly against law 20 in the 48 laws of power
Alcantara Daniel but your forgetting the last law. Be water my friend
Alcantara Daniel well all the laws contradict each other. What you have to learn is when to follow which.
I beg to disagree.
Law 14 - Pose a friend, work as a spy
Law 31 - Control the options - get others to play with the cards you deal
So allying with someone doesn't necessarily mean you are their "puppy".
i'm grateful that my country, denmark, has stayed neutral throughout the world wars,
as we took minimal damage, and could indirectly influence what little german armies were implemented.
meant the british had a fair chance, instead of had we joined their site, everything would've been accessable by air and sea :)
Portugal was even more Machiavellian... we rented Azores to the Britts with whom we have the oldest alliance in History keeping our colonies after the war, and sold volframiun to the Nazis, in return he prevented Franco from invading Portugal...Salazar was a clever ruler and inteligent too , he was a rather good economist, even if he failed on the political side by being fascist
I prefer to side with both sides where they are Right and against them where they are wrong at the same time...
Explained what some of the Roman empowers thought us?
you can choose to not take sides and not be neutral at the same time... yes... stay detached
For non all-in scenarios only
In an all-in scenario picking the wrong side means DEATH
In the context of his time, Machiavelli was right. (Europe:team death match? Team death match!)
But Franco is illustrates the real message: be decisive. Even if the decision is neutrality, be decisively neutral.
But what if you are very powerful, and can afford to lose relations with other nations. If you stay neutral, but get attacked, you can with almost 99% certainty win over an attacker, but have nothing to gain from picking a side? What then?
The good thing about being neutral is that you avoid major clusterfucks. (switzerland didn't get attacked during both world wars, right?)
Just because you side with A against B doesn't necessarily mean A will not conquer you after B is jointly defeated.
Example: in Romance of the Three Kingdoms, where alliances formed and dissolved as the balance of power shifted because neither party wanted any of the other two to become too powerful.
However perhaps European politics is different? The idea of choosing war reparations over annexation has always boggled me. Surely the expense of the war in men and lost revenue cannot be recouped by a mere indemnity. A bloody toil for unsatisfactory status quos.
Now, side with Machiavelli or Franco?
But I think there is a distinction to be made. being neutral, and being on your own side. The Swiss were on their own side during WW2. They would not tollerate either Axis or Allied incursions on their territory and would shoot anyone who entered. They had cockholds on both parties and neither wanted to fight them, in the end, they won.
Spain didn't join because of internal affairs. There was little to gain and much to lose. Not to mention the fact that as long as the war did not come to them, which it had no reason to, they would be safe. In a global war, the only way to win is to not play, otherwise the best you can do is to lose less than the other guy.
You missed Portugal on the WWII context
I choose you PIKACHU!
I mean Spain was behind France and Italy was literally neighbouring Germany and France. Of the two, Italy had a lot more reason to side with someone
Machiavelli's teaching on this matter didn't work for Mussolini because they are they are designed for pre-20th century total wars where, unless you are a minor power, the war is only a matter of life and death for your soldiers and not your nation nor yourself.
So, yes it's obviously doesn't work if you can't expect an aftermath where you are still on the board if you lose.
Everyone’s bringing up Switzerland, but they weren’t taken over mostly because of geography, not politics. When ‘asked’ to hand over tax records on Americans the Swiss tried that ‘sovereign neutrality’ trash and were informed that US was sovereign as well and threatened to deny them banking access to the US market, well, let’s just say the Swiss warmed up to the American position rather quickly.
Dont be neutral only applies to when the situation affects you directly. For an example, you are at a bar, then a fight broke out because of an argument between 2 people you don’t know about Manchester United (while you only watch college football). Why the hell would you pick a side between them, while on the other hand you can be on your own side and call the cops on them for disturbing your drinking rime.
This is true when countries are ruled by leaders who have few members in their decision making circle. But when there are more people (IE: Democracies) it isn't so true anymore. There's a whole section on that in "The Dictator's Handbook" when they talk about War. It's essentially "The Prince" of our time
Trully Machiavellian...
"They would not immediately turn on their allies."
I wonder who this advice would be of greatest use too? Politicians............ maybe.........or any prominent player in time of war?
Politicians and generals; this was before the modern era but I suspect this still rings true for them today
Specifically in times of war
Doesn't that mean just be the top dog first and then be neutral, no one will take you for granted nor will you need their support
Well well now netralety is the best strategy lock at the ritchest country in europa/world👌👍🇨🇭
So it would have been wrong for Turkey, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland to be neutral in WW2 ?