Re: Diplomacy ethics
Militarist, it's impossible to judge the situation, given that you are only providing the story of one party in a larger tale.
The responsibility of each nation is to its own welfare, and it would be distressing to say the least for your presumed ally to join in the war as he had agreed to, if between making the agreement with you and the time to go to war, events conspired to make joining in this gankfest disadvantageous to your intended ally.
I do agree that if you had made some sort of payment to him, in return for him joining you in the war, it would be unfair for him not to return that payment, if he has changed his mind.
It's not exactly like ganging up on a nation 2-to-1 is an honourable enterprise in the first place, unless you intended target was as strong as the two of you.
__________________
Whether he submitted the post, or whether he did not, made no difference. The Thought Police would get him just the same. He had committed— would still have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper— the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever.
http://z7.invisionfree.com/Dom3mods/index.php?
|
Threaded Mode