DO NOT BE NEUTRAL | The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli

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?

---

Ideas from Machiavelli's, The Prince...

DO NOT BE NEUTRAL: YOU ARE HERE

[wach]

"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"

[fleetcenturion]

"Your enemy will always ask that you remain neutral. An ally will demand that you declare yourself by action."

[taylorphoenix]

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.

[martymcfly]

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 =)

[schizoidboy]

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.

[_Muzolf]

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.

[khatack]

"A friend to all is a friend to none" -Aristotle

[FoxMikage]

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.

[TalonAshlar]

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.

[IShallNotSubmit]

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.

[LSC]

this video is so well made, you deserve more subscribers

[contentpolice]

You gained a new subscriber mate. Hope your channel grows fast

[TexasEmperor]

Thanks my friend. I’m proud to called you friend.

[italiancapo]

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.

[bkygames]

48 laws of power: law 20 don't commit to anyone

[bucketsessions]

Then what about Switzerland? She was neutral through and through.

[jamiejamie]

One of bismarcks best plans to 'wait until circumstance became so that a beneficial plan coul be made' roughly paraphrasing 3rd hand knowledge

[nineeye]

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.

[mr.e]

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?

[huntergman]

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.