Backlinks
1 Raison d'etat
Each state depended on the other. The well being of the state justified whatever means were employed to further it. The national interest supplanted the medieval notion of a universal morality. — KBhHIST201Kissinger
A method of "sensible government" that promises to set aside personal ideological differences for the betterment of the country as a whole.
This makes politics non-secular, which means… Nonsecular wars less violent than holy wars because CLAIM KBhHIST201Kissinger: they did not involve emotion
1.1 Exhibit A: France!
1.2 Exhibit B: Federick the Great
CLAIM @KBhHIST201Kissinger: Federick the Great's decision to invade Silesia was pure strategy move
- Conquest made Prussia a "bona-fide Great Power"
- Prussia joined by France, Spain, etc. in war of 1740-1748
- In 1756-1763, switched sides
CLAIM @KBhHIST201Kissinger: the side-switching was a pure result of calculations of benefit
1.3 Failure and Overextension
CLAIM @KBhHIST201Kissinger — too much power without morality is no good, for instance
1.3.1 Exhibit B: Still France!
- Louis XIV, under the guidance of KBhHIST201FrenchRichelieuAndRaisonDeEtat, gone trigger happy on the expansion
- Ultimately, this is detrimental
- When most states starts being fully rational and not at all moral, this becomes less fun
- If no one else is expanding, a country will keep taking advantage of others, which… does not make you a lot of friends
Under Raison d'etat, "The stronger would seek to dominate, and the weaker would resist by forming coalitions to augment their individual strengths"