"Realpolitik" is one word. If you were redirected to here and it says "Real Politik" or something similar, please change it on the original page you linked from. Thank you.
"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible."If you ask a diplomat who is not an ideologue exactly why their country is behaving in a ruthless or manipulative manner they will usually, if you can blast your way through all the skillful deflections and rhetoric, respond with this argument: "We're protecting our interests. It is what every other country is doing, and we'd be foolish not to do so too. My Country, Right or Wrong." This line of cynical philosophy is essentially Nice Guys Finish Last among states, and has been around since two groups of people got together and decided that there were issues which could only be resolved by one side getting what they wanted at the expense of the other. If you ask The Empire, "Why are you taking over our country?" they will respond, "To make sure the other empire doesn't first." Proponents of this way of thinking would say that there are a lot of big, nasty states committing Gambit Pileups against each other out there, and that if you try being nice, your rivals will simply exploit this, so you must always further your interests where you can as no one else will. Besides, if you try to "help", you could be accused of interfering with the business of other countries to further your own influence. Critics would, of course, point out that it is this kind of thinking which perpetuates Chronic Backstabbing Disorder among nations, and that it is essentially "Might Makes Right" as a political philosophy. A more benevolent follower of this philosophy would be content to be nothing more than A Hero to His Hometown. Compare Hobbes Was Right, Well-Intentioned Extremist, The Empire, My Country, Right or Wrong, Gambit Pileup. Contrast Machiavelli Was Wrong, as well as Enlightened Self-Interest, where countries act to benefit each other in order to advance their own interests. Proxy Wars are a specific execution of realpolitik.
— Senator Harry Truman, June 1941 note
open/close all folders
Anime and Manga
- In Heavy Object the four supernations were created based on a core ideology, but despite this they make concessions in order to avoid open war with one another. A number of antagonists are extremists who refuse to accept this trope and want to stay true to the ideology, no matter the cost.
- As much as every super-hero in the Marvel Universe agrees that The Kingpin is pure evil, they realize that completely removing him from power would create a struggle for control of the New York City underworld that would get even more innocent lives hurt or killed in the process than leaving him where he is. So the Kingpin stays in power, and the city's heroes try to thwart his criminal activities one operation at a time.
- The machinations of Maledict and Allysion in Sonic X: Dark Chaos are based entirely around this trope, using entire galaxies as chess pieces in their endless struggle for power. Both are willing to do literally anything, good or bad, to gain any advantage over each other.
- This trope is prevalent in Child of the Storm, with the colossal Gambit Pile Up. Nick Fury's goal of protecting humanity, for instance, is noble and he's unquestionably on the side of the good guys, he's willing to use some very shady means to bring it about, with much of the story being a chess match between him and Lucius Malfoy. And that is but the tip of the iceberg.
- Fury's protege, Director Peter Wisdom of MI13, is an even worse offender. He takes advantage of Parliament's fears over the current global situation in order to amass resources and power at a rate that frightens the rest of British Intelligence, uses blackmail and bribery to secure the aid of superpowered individuals, and is working to control, or outright supplant altogether, the Ministry of Magic as Britain's magic response organization.
- In Event Horizon: Storm of Magic, this is The Company™'s M.O. through and through, often resorting to underhanded tactics to get what they want. But they are also pragmatic and otherwise pretty decent in their conduct, at least compared to the other, considerably more outright genocidal villains in the setting...
- This is what The Prince is actually about — not about tyranny and cruelty, but about unfettered pragmatism and realism.
- The Tau in the Ciaphas Cain novel For the Emperor use this as their justification for occupying sections of the planet. Cain points out that the Imperium have used exactly the same rationale to then seize said planets soon after.
- In a Robert A. Heinlein novel, Have Space Suit – Will Travel, the Three Galaxies organization of many alien races puts Humanity on Trial. Our hero Kip says this is unjust. The alien moderator responds that the Three Galaxies don't bother trying to understand "justice" but are a defence organization that destroys any race that will be a threat.
- One of the post-Asimov Foundation authors claimed that aliens never showed up because robots killed them to protect humans.
- The Andermani Empire in the Honor Harrington series is known for determining all foreign policy by realpolitik, which is unsurprising, since they model themselves after Prussia. In a subversion of how this trope is usually portrayed, they are just as famous for expanding their empire by rescuing planets in trouble, for entirely pragmatic and selfish reasons — a tradition that started with Gustav Anderman's rescue of Kuan-Yin, now known as Potsdam.
- In Operation Massacre, that is the excuse for the political violence of Aramburu's regime. And this book, too, was used as a proof for Aramburu's execution by the left-wing guerrilla Montoneros.
- Doorstopper Medieval European Fantasy and Realpolitik met one night, both got seriously drunk on History... and A Song of Ice and Fire is their Deconstructor Fleet, surprise baby. Yes, you get dragons, magic, kings, queens, assassins, guards, "faeries", taverns and bards: but, what you mainly get is a whole zoo full of political shenanigans (national, international and personal) played out quite cynically, pragmatically and violently. People work together when they hate each other, refuse to work with others they admire because of differing goals, the setting up or killing of anybody to get ahead... the whole enchilada. Consequences for the smallest actions produce massive, unpredicted (not necessarily unpredictable) repercussions. Agendas and counter-agendas tighten around each other in the Game of Thrones. The best players play with cleverness and pragmatism (which often works for quite some time, barring the odd Spanner in the Works), some try to use it with a dash of cruelty (newsflash: it tends to work... until it very seriously doesn't), some try to mix in some idealism (iffy: often backfires when they get the mix wrong, or other players misread the moves): but, ultimately, luck has the final say on how the game plays out thanks to the sheer number of factors involved — some quite outside the known board layout.
- Herhor in Pharaoh is completely ruthless. Pentuer, his understudy, gives up politics in disgust.
- In Stargate Atlantis the "heroes" are put on trial for their previous actions. Shepard basically argues that they aren't fighting for right or wrong, but rather they are fighting for themselves.
- On Babylon 5, this is the philosophy espoused by most of the Centauri (except for Vir, who is the Token Good Teammate, and Emperor Cartagia, who is The Caligula).
- On Star Trek: The Original Series, in the episode "Wolf In the Fold", Kirk explicitly refuses the suggestion that he help Scotty escape the planet on which he had been charged with murder. While he does his best to, and eventually does, get Scotty cleared of murder, Kirk says that he'll allow Scotty to be jailed and executed if he's found guilty—even if Kirk believes him innocent. Why? Because the planet is a strategically vital port, and helping Scotty escape its justice would sour them against the Federation.
- Characteristic of Romulan foreign policy in Star Trek: The Next Generation and beyond. For example, the Klingons and Romulans are old enemies, and so the Romulans are quite happy to provide support to the House of Duras when they rebel against Chancellor Gowron because it means they get to Divide and Conquer the Klingons and screw over the Klingons' allies the Federation in the bargain.
- And when we get to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, it becomes the order of the day, with some very underhanded episodes such as "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" and "In the Pale Moonlight".
- A friendlier version than most is seen in relations between the Russian Federation and the United States in Stargate SG-1. The two are officially allies and by later seasons the Russians operate their own SG team under the auspices of Stargate Command. In "Disclosure," though, Col. Chekov notes that part of the reason Russia is willing to take a backseat to America is because that way, the United States foots most of the bill for adapting Imported Alien Phlebotinum, then Russia can turn around and build from American blueprints for a fraction of the cost.
- In "Crusade", when the Russian Federation briefly supports the People's Republic of China bid for control of the Stargate. Chekov later admits that it was simply a ploy by his government to leverage plans to build their own Daedalus-class battlecruiser. While the Russians have long-desired to run the Stargate program, they're content (for now) with the arrangement to simply loan the Gate to the Americans and make them pay through the nose to use it. Both Landry and Chekov admit that their governments would rather maintain the deal than let another nation take control of offworld affairs, especially not the Chinese.note
- Game of Thrones
Littlefinger: The realm. Do you know what the realm is? It's the thousand blades of Aegon's enemies, a story we agree to tell each other over and over, until we forget that it's a lie.
- Robb Stark is great at battle tactics, but when it comes to politics he made two MAJOR political mistakes that would eventually cost him dearly, all because he refused to play Realpolitik.
- His Arch-Enemy, Tywin Lannister, is the embodiment of Realpolitik and it is extended to the rest of his family, whether they like it or not. To wit, the continued success of the Lannisters — beyond military might, and the sheer amount of gold the family rests upon — is due largely to Tywin's cold, critical knack for impersonal politicking.
Lord Tywin: The house that puts family first will always defeat the house that puts the whims and wishes of its sons and daughters first. A good man does everything in his power to better his family's position regardless of his own selfish desires.
Tywin: You don't form alliances with people you trust.
- He forges an alliance with the rival Tyrell family (via Littlefinger), the second most powerful family in Westeros, by marrying his grandsons to them and they help him crush Stannis Baratheon. He offers his enemy house member Roose Bolton (Robb Stark's second-in-command) the title of Warden of the North and Walder Frey (a potential Stark supporter) the lord paramount title of the Riverlands. Robb Stark is murdered by these two soon after. He'd also (as much as he'd prefer not to) sell out his own attack dog Ser Gregor Clegane to the Martells if it means solidifying the Lannister power base.
- He further explains this reasoning to Cersei after winning the war, noting that there's only so much the Lannisters can bully and push people around and the space for that is even less when they are broke and in debt. So Tywin has to curry favor with the Tyrells with marriage alliances even if he doesn't trust them at all:
- On the other hand, while brilliant in politics, Tywin's less pragmatic attitude towards his family and personal affairs is ultimately what leads to his downfall. Interestingly enough, his second term as Hand of the King follows a similar trajectory to Ned Stark's tenure. Even though he's a ruthless and feared administrator with almost no lengths to which he won't go to secure his family's power, he still fails to prevent an assassination of the king, is made into a Xanatos Sucker by Littlefinger, agitates an old enemy who has one of his family in their power to the point of conflict, and dies.
- Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish gives several speeches embodying this perspective. He also practices it, creating alliances between the Tyrells(who had supported a rival claimant Renly Baratheon) and the Lannisters and managing to negotiate for himself a sweet position as Lord of the only region in Westeros that hasn't participated in the war. He gives a "World of Cardboard" Speech to this effect, noting that the Kingdom, the traditions of honor and chivalry, even the Iron Throne are essentially fictitious constructs that embodies the values of order rather than enforces it and the realm actually functions on an elaborate deception.
Lord Varys: But what do we have left, once we abandon the lie? Chaos? A gaping pit waiting to swallow us all.
Littlefinger Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, are given a chance to climb. They refuse, they cling to the realm or the gods or love. Illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.
- In JAG, this way of reasoning is often used by Clayton Webb and other CIA characters to justify their actions.
- In Warhammer 40,000 this is the basic approach the Imperium of Man takes in regards to the Tau Empire and vice versa. For example, in the wake of the Damocles Crusade, many Imperial worlds were stripped of their defenders in order to make a stand at Macragge against the tyranids of Hive Fleet Behemoth. The Tau expanded their empire in the wake of the Imperial muster, going into now-defenseless systems and offering to protect them in exchange for annexation rights. Those who would not accept the deal were simply curb stomped as most of their defenses were already removed. The Tau defend their aggressive actions by saying that if they had not "expanded defensive interests" to those Imperial worlds, then other, less benevolent powers would have taken them anyway before the Imperium could build its forces back up to keep them.
On the other side, while the Imperium of course wants to be rid of the Tau eventually, they generally refrain from taking direct offensive action against them, except to try and liberate Imperial worlds that the Tau have annexed, preferring instead a policy of trying to contain the Tau Empire's expansion. This is in part because of the huge drain of military resources that would be required to completely rout the Tau, but it also is because the Tau Empire functions as a bulwark against Tyranid hive fleets, Orks, and other local powers around the Eastern Fringe where the Imperium's power is limited. As long as the Tau Empire exists, it will distract other potential threats away from Imperial worlds, and the Imperium is only too happy to let that happen. On the flip side, both nations are more than willing to cooperate in the face of major regional threats, such as when Hive Fleet Kraken invaded in 992.M41.
- The trope name would be an entirely legitimate alternate title for the Spycraft D20 system. While not necessarily a spy in the literal sense, every player is an agent, tasked with achieving an objective with few restrictions on methods and many restrictions on exposure.
- All major forms of diplomacy, negotiation, and some forms of combat can be replaced by a large wallet and a highly-developed "bribe" mechanic.
- Combat is intentionally designed to favor people that play dirty, set up traps, and hit weak points. Unlike other d20 games, it's almost unheard of for combat to move past 5 or 6 rounds— someone will have found a weak point and exploited an instant-kill long before then. You also mostly use combat to remove troublesome civilians and diplomats, so that you can replace them in a disguise.
- The tabletop game Diplomacy is all about this trope.
- The Eberron setting for Dungeons & Dragons downplays the realpolitik elements of the setting in the core book but still plants the seeds for any Game Master who wants to use them, mostly to subvert Character Alignment tropes in the rulers of the various nations, who just got out of a long and bloody war with one another:
- The nation of Breland is probably least interested in it - King Boranel is an old Chaotic Good adventurer at heart - and can get away with it thanks to the riches of Xen'drik that funnel through their land, but the laid-back attitude and fantastic wealth leave the nation rife with corruption and plagued by political factions lead by people who do not shy away from realpolitik.
- On the other end of the spectrum you have Aundair, whose Neutral Good Queen Aurala is The High Queen for her own people, but is working hardest behind the scenes to prepare for and get a jump on everyone else for the next big war she sees on the horizon, because it would be best for her people to be ready. But also because she thinks it would be best for everyone if she really did lead them all.
- BattleTech runs off this trope. Multiple star empires fighting for control of Terra and each other. Word of God is that the setting will never see sentient alien life because a hostile non-human force would break the dynamic too much.
- You can easily fall into this way of thinking in games developed by Paradox Interactive, most all of which have you play as a single nation through a turbulent part of history.
- This is especially the case when playing multiplayer with real people, since wars in Paradox's games tend to heavily favour those who mobilize their troops first. And due to the excessive costs of having your troops at full maintenance during peacetime you'll find most people having minimal maintenance during peacetime. Thus he who mobilizes and attacks first gets the upper hand, by gaining several victories before the opposing side gets to a comparable level of mobilization. Due to this multiplayer games often devolve into people legitimizing their declarations of war by saying "We're only attacking you so as not to have our nation wiped out in case you decided to attack us..."
- The example right above applies to any 4X and Grand Strategy games, regardless of settings or degree of realism. Why would you ally with a power that decimated your people or offends your sensibilities? Because there are bigger, nastier powers out there gunning on both of you.
- In Mass Effect, most of the major galactic powers engage in this, especially the Citadel Council. In Mass Effect 3, Humanity is left to fight the invasion of Earth alone because their fellow Council Races would rather concentrate on the Reapers encroaching on their borders first. This is also the reason why the Asari refused to share their intact Prothean Beacon with the rest of the galaxy, despite writing the laws that made sharing Beacon knowledge mandatory for all other races, as data-mining it was the only way they maintained their position as the dominant race in the galaxy.
- Not well-followed by Lord Regent Burrows in Dishonored. The Empire of the Isles wanes in power under his rule because his decision making is based mostly on his severely neurotic need for order, rather than on making decisions that will strengthen the country. This is largely his motivation for staging the coup that gets him into power in the first place. He later blames his ineffectiveness on the inability of everyone else to do as they're told.
- Downplayed in Just Cause 1 and 2, and comes to a head in Just Cause 3. The protagonist, Rico Rodriguez, is a "dictator removal specialist" working for The Agency, which is basically a parody of the CIA that destabilizes countries mainly through car-surfing and Stuff Blowing Up. In the first game, Rico deposes a bloodthirsty nuclear-armed dictator by helping mostly-decent rebels as well as a not-so-decent drug cartel. In the second game, he again deposes a bloodthirsty nuclear-armed dictator, but the three factions he helps are the local crime syndicate, hypocritical Dirty Communist rebels, and ultra-nationalist thugs. And in the third game, The Agency outright refuses to let Rico go to his homeland and depose yet another bloodthirsty nuclear-armed dictator, because he possesses a very powerful new type of Unobtanium, and that makes him The Agency's best goddamn friend - prompting Rico to strike out on his own and work with the local rebels to free his homeland.
- The main quest of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim features a quest that involves complex negotiations between the two Civil War factions. Tullius was seen ready to behead Ulfric at the beginning of the game, but then is seen negotiating with him because the dragon threat is too large for either side to ignore anymore. Elisif and Galmar are both miffed at the idea of just freely giving away territory, but Tullius and Ulfric both see the value. The player can influence these negotiations, though favoring one side too heavily will make the other side dislike you more.
- Girl Genius has a lot of politics causing problems in the setting. The cliffnotes:
- The Empire is run by Baron Klaus Wulphenbach, who is from a minor house but still managed to conquer via sheer power. He rules rather fairly after a vassal state joins, allowing all states freedom for their rules to rule as they see fit unless they posses forbidden Other technology or try to start a war. His "Pax Transylvania" is noted to mostly mean "don't make me come over there." Klaus' general paranoia, borne of running this empire and teaching with the Other, have left him unable to view Agatha as anything but a threat.
- There's also the Storm King conspiracy, which intends to unseat Klaus by putting forward some member of the Sturmvoraus family (initially Tarvek but Gambit Pileup and the outcome of the Battle of Mechanisburg both led to more contenders). A major idea of the conspiracy was that the nobles would prefer a king with the proper lineage to a lesser noble like Klaus who simply has power.
- As part of the the Storm King conspiracy we found out that Tarvek's father was a servant of the dead Lucrezia Mongfish (potentially the Other) and intended to resurrect her into her daughter, Agatha, so she could rule by using mind control. This clashed with another plan that had Zola pretend to be Lucrezia's daughter to try and take over Mechnisburg, the seat of the House of Hetrodyne (of which Agatha is heir).
- Tarvek mentions rules had to be put on bringing people back to life and how that affected succession so things didn't spiral out of control.
- After Klaus' disappearance and a timeskip the massive wars across Europa have killed off over forty of the fifty ruling noble families. Seffie (a von Blitzenguard related to the Sturmvoraus family) insists that the best bet to end this is for her and Klaus' son Gil to marry, as leader of the two largest factions still involved. Gil hates that she has a point.
- Its gotten so bad to where the Storm King conspiracy has done a 180; they're gonna ensure that Gil gets back on top (though they do have a back-up plan with Tarvek, albeit one done in such a way he is refusing against).
- When Martellus meets Rerich, an old Jäger, they have a lenghtly conversation about what this trope entrails.
- Otto von Bismarck, a 19th century Prussian statesman who served as the First Chancellor to King Wilhelm I, advocated realpolitik as a means of uniting Germany.
- Richard Nixon made his political career being a stalwart anticommunist, yet he and Henry Kissinger (his Secretary of State) were the ones who started the push for greater diplomatic ties with the People's Republic of China starting with "ping-pong diplomacy" in 1971 and kicked off on a government level with Nixon's visit to China in 1972 - both held mutual distrust and suspicion of the Soviet Union at the time. Formal diplomatic relations were established in 1979, when the US ended official diplomatic recognition of the Republic of China (i.e., Taiwan).
- This was also to help leverage better relations with the Soviet Union, intending to goad the USSR into becoming an ally out of jealousy of China's situation. (i.e. "Hey, China is Communist like us, and they're being friendly with the US while getting some benefits from doing so. Why can't that be us?")
- Not coincidentally, Nixon's strong anticommunist reputation was a big reason his administration was able to initiate the move to establish ties with China in the first place - said record helped to shield him from accusations that he was coddling to Dirty Communists (something a more moderate president wouldn't have had). This legitimacy-by-previous-emnity is what is meant when it is said that "only Nixon could go to China" (regardless of how much the Vulcans may claim is theirs).
- Charles De Gaulle summed this attitude up nicely: "Nations don't have friends, they only have interests."
- Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston said it better in the nineteenth century: "Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." The phrase "Perfidious Albion" - referring to England's history of foreign affairs infidelity - has been recorded in use since at least the 13th Century.
- Alexander III of Russia once said: "Russia has two allies: the Army and the Navy". His reign of peace earned him the name of Peacemaker. However, he did initiate the Franco-Russian alliance of 1894 (which would play a crucial part in the run-up to World War I).
- Like The Stuarts for Charles I, all Alexander III really did was sweep the country's burgeoning problems under the rug and hope they would go away (forever). This just retarded the country's economic development and modernisation and made the shock of Nicholas II's reign (when everything seemed to happen at a break-neck speed) all the greater.
- The Melian dialogue in Thucydides' account of the Peloponnesian War. The Athenians asserted their dominance over the Melians due to the fact that they had far stronger military force, and could blackmail the Melians into accepting either submitting peacefully or being killed. The idea was that "the strong will do what they will and the weak will accept what they must".
- During the Cold War, Finland was in the awkward situation of being a liberal democracy with a mixed economy but also very vulnerable to direct attack by the Soviet Union. Or should we say, renewed direct attack by the Soviet Union, since the Soviets had actually tried to conquer Finland before (to the point where Helsinki was desperate enough to turn to Nazi Germany for help). As a result, Finland had every reason to want to join the West...but also every reason to not piss off the East. The result was a policy of doing everything in their power to avoid unnecessarily offending Moscow while trying to maintain good relations with the West; President Urho Kekkonen defined this policy as art of bowing to East without mooning to West, and stated Find your friends near and your enemies far. Nevertheless, the policy was criticized in some anti-Communist circles, to the point where Willy Brandt's Neue Ostpolitik ("New Eastern Policy", i.e. detente with the Soviet bloc in general and East Germany in particular) was derogatorily called "Finlandization" by many members of the CDU/CSU.
- A staggering example of this occured during The '70s, when the Soviet Union asked Finland to help them find a way to invade Norway. Finland obliged, but decided to work so slowly that the whole thing was stalled, and the Soviets eventually forgot about it.
- One of the most well-known examples of this was the Western Allies allying with the Comintern during WW2. On one side was a series of deeply racist empires who despised but just-barely tolerated the racially-acceptable poor, and on the other there were ruthless Communist dicatorships. What brought them together— the only thing, even —was a common Enemy Mine in the form of Those Wacky Nazis. While this did lead to beneficial co-operation between the two powers, it also led to things such as what some have called the Western Betrayal. Winston Churchill, a vehement anti-Communist, rather famously summed it up as:
If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.
- Allied Realpolitik after the war resulted in actions such as "Operation Paperclip", the de-Nazification of scientists and technical personnel who had built the V2 Rockets for Germany, often using slave labor from concentration camps in dreadful conditions. Indeed, more people were killed making these rockets than the rockets did on its own. The most notorious is Wernher von Braun. The reason for this absorption was that the USA wanted to make sure that the Soviet Union, in the early stages of the Cold War, didn't get a leg-up in the space race (they failed). Another notorious case is the story of General Scobie, a British officer appointed by Churchill to sideline the Greek partisans who had resisted Nazism and its collaborators, mostly because several of them were communist, socialist and leftist. This resulted in Scobie arming and putting into place Nazi collaborators and Greek fascists who unleashed three decades of dictatorship, and this manifested itself in British and American troops firing at Greek crowds at a victory-rally.
- Joseph Stalin was also one hell of a pragmatist - firstly, he organized mutual aid with Weimar Germany, as they were both troubled pariah states, despite Germany being a capitalist republic. He also abandoned Lenin's ideas of world revolution, focusing on "Building socialism in one country", and hijacked Trotsky's ideas of hyper-industrialisation. After Hitler's takeover, he still traded with Germany; then he tried to ally with the Entente against Hitler; after seeing their reluctance to stop him, he negotiated with Hitler, despite his rabid anti-communism, while re-arming and organizing the army. During World War II he united Russians with ideas of succession between Tsarist Russia and the USSR, glorifying old-time heroes like Alexander Nevsky or Admiral Ushakov, painting old invaders like Napoleon Bonaparte or Teutonic Knights as A Nazi by Any Other Name. After the war, despite anti-Semitic politics, he lobbied the UN for the creation of Israel.
- Let's not forget how the US protected the majority of war criminals from the infamous Unit 731 in the Imperial Japanese Army and giving them political and legal immunity from prosecution in exchange for their cooperation for American bioweapons research. Almost all the core members of Unit 731 are infamous for conducting truly horrific experimentation on unwilling live subjects (mostly Chinese, White Russians and Koreans), such as vivisecting people while they were unconscious, throwing prisoners in pressure chambers to watch them die and herding men, women and children into huge chambers to be killed by the full effects of bubonic plague or frostbite. By securing cooperation from the war criminals, the US demanded that they shared the data obtained through those experiments with them.
- During the Cold War, the rationale for the democratic US to prop up, support, and aid autocratic strongman regimes and dictatorships with dubious, if not outright brutal and horrific human rights records just to fight Communism, even overthrowing democratic regimes to make way for such autocracies, was based upon realpolitik. Whether it worked or was effective or not, or whether more humane decisions could have been made to fight Communism (i.e: letting the countries remain democratic and try to work with them) is a very controversial topic when examining US history, and let's leave it at that. The U.S. has pursued a similar policy (and this Wiki will use similar tact) in their dealings with the Middle East, with the goals being (a) keeping oil prices reasonable, and (b) minimizing overt hostilities between Israel and her neighbors.
- This also happens in domestic elections, where (most) candidates, if they're losing in the primaries, will graciously bow out so as not to "fracture the party" and allow someone who they'd vehemently disagree with win over someone they only partially disagree with. Not doing so is what led to Theodore Roosevelt causing Taft's defeat to Woodrow Wilson, and is largely credited as being a main factor in the 2000 US election, where Ralph Nader split the vote from Al Gore.
- This also contributed to the defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016. Bernie Sanders' supporters were disillusioned with Clinton's primary victory, especially in light of tactics used by the DNC that favored Clinton over Bernie. In the lead up and initial follow up, many feared that defeat would happen if enough of the Sanders' supporters were ticked off enough to vote for third-party candidates. As it turns out, they took a fourth option and didn't vote at all. It should be noted that this isn't the first time Hillary's primary support caused trouble. In 2008, she stayed in the primary for far longer than most Obama supporters wanted and turned to some tactics that turned off many independent voters. While the party still managed to win in the general election, a Democratic victory wasn't nearly as assured as it had been in the beginning of the primary season.
- A variation on the above can also happen during general elections where there are more than two major parties, if a voter finds their preferred candidate is not popular enough to get elected so they will vote for a candidate they only mostly agree with to keep out someone they really dislike.
- In Canada, prior to the 2015 federal election, there were open discussions among voters about strategic voting between the NDP and the Liberals in order to knock the Conservatives—who had been in power for 10 years, never with an absolute majority of the vote—out of office. What they suggested was that in ridings where it was quite clear that either the Liberal candidate or NDP candidate would probably be in third place that said third-place candidate's potential voters should instead vote for the candidate (Liberal or NDP) who would be in second place, which would, theoretically, allow them to beat the Conservative who would otherwise win a three-way (or more) race by a plurality.
- In the 2016 US Presidential elections, both candidates were polling below 50% for much of the campaign. (One poll among millennials found that both candidates polled lower than a third term for Obama, a machine that would select at random one eligible person who wasn't Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton, and a meteor the size of Texas striking the planet.) A few optimists saw the possibility of a third party voting would increase, but in the end, many people voted for one candidate because they could not stand the other. In the end, overall voting was a record low (in spite of record early voter turn out), but exit polling revealed that Donald Trump actually did a few points better with minority votes than 2012 candidate Mitt Romney while Hilary Clinton had lost a larger percentage of minority voters than the gains seen by Trump (indicating other candidates or non-voting).