1) Diplomacy in the early 20th century involved major European powers seeking to expand their global empires and acquire new markets, fueling tensions that contributed to World War 1. 2) In 1908, Russia denied Serbia's request for help after Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina, owing to Russia's weakened state after its recent war with Japan. 3) Dollar diplomacy referred to U.S. efforts to increase its economic and political influence in Latin America in the early 1900s through large loans to governments in the region.

1. Russian Diplomacy Essay
Diplomacy
There were many reasons for WW1. There was the assassination of a European archduke and many
building rivalries between most of the european countries. Italy, Russia, France, Austria–Hungry,
Germany and England all sought the goal of acquiring new market and establishing global empires.
Russia had already had influence over Manchuria and hoped to take control of Dardanelles and
Bosporus.
In the year of 1908, Russia had been called upon to bail out Serbia after Austria–Hungry had annexed
Bosnia–Herzegovina. Russia just turned their back and denied the help to Serbia and there were two
reasons for this. First, Russia had just ended the Russo–Japanese War and had no room...show more
content...
Instead of just surviving we wanted to conquer and rule all that we could.
In the Spring of 1901 we played it safe by moving a fleet to Romania, and army yo Sevastopol,
and army to Silesia, and a fleet to the Gulf of Bothnia. Then in the fall of 1901 we moved the fleet
in Romania to the Black Sea, the army in Sevastopol to Romania, the army from Silesia to Berlin,
and the fleet from Bothnia to Sweden.
As you could Probably tell, in the spring our strategy was to expand but the expand cautiously. Then
in the fall we started to capture near by stations and expand more towards the north. It payed off
because we
took control of most of the north later in the game with this one year.
In the spring of 1902 we started out with seven game pieces. We had won a new fleet and two
armies. This came in good fortune when we now had a fleet in the Black Sea, Gulf of Bothnia,
and Sweden. Also we had an army in Sevastopol, Galacia, Silesia, and an army attacking Berlin
from Serbia with support from a fleet in the Black sea. Then in the spring of 1902 a fleet and army
attacked Bulgaria while Denmark was taken and everyone else stayed the same or went to a neutral
spot.
In the Spring of 1903 I failed to hand in my movement sheet which set us back a tad. It didn't really
kill us but we could have
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

2. Essay about Dollar Diplomacy
Dollar Diplomacy
Ever since the 17 republics of mainland Latin America emerged from the wreck of the Spanish
Empire in the early 19th century, North Americans had viewed them with a mixture of
condescension and contempt that focused on their alien culture, racial mix, unstable politics, and
moribund economies. The Western Hemisphere seemed a natural sphere of U.S. influence, and this
view had been institutionalized in the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 warning European states that any
attempt to "extend their system" to the Americas would be viewed as evidence of an unfriendly
disposition toward the United States itself. On the one hand, the doctrine seemed to underscore
republican familiarity, as suggested by references to "our sister...show more content...
rights to the naval base.
In the Roosevelt Corollary (1904) to the Monroe Doctrine the United States assumed "an
international police power" in cases where Latin–American insolvency might lead to European
intervention. Foreign intervention in Latin American resurfaced as an issue in U.S. foreign policy at
the turn of the century as European governments began to use force to pressure several Latin
American countries to repay their debts. For example, British, German, and Italian gunboats
blockaded Venezuela's ports in 1902 when the Venezuelan government defaulted on its debts to
foreign bondholders. Many Americans worried that European intervention in Latin America would
undermine their country's traditional dominance in the region. Quoting an African proverb,
Roosevelt claimed that the right way to conduct foreign policy was to "speak softly and carry a big
stick."
Roosevelt resorted to big–stick diplomacy most conspicuously in 1903, when he helped Panama to
secede from Colombia and gave the United States a Canal Zone.
Construction began at once on the Panama Canal, which Roosevelt visited in 1906, the first
president to leave the country while in office. He considered the construction of the canal, a symbol
of the triumph of American determination and technological know–how, his greatest
accomplishment as president. As he later boasted in his autobiography, "I took the Isthmus, started
the canal and then left
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

3. Diplomacy Versus Military Action Essay
Through much of our time as a nation, there has been a major question asked when our people
and allies are faced with evil. That major question is "do we go to war or do we engage in
diplomatic solutions?". This is has been a point of contention that varies depending upon where a
person was raised, what the person's basic belief structure is, and even what demographic they fall
into. One thing is for certain, partisan affiliation in America has a great deal to do with how a
person will answer an affront to the United States. Since most women tend to go the Democrat route
due to the standard beliefs of women versus men, I will be highlighting women's roles; but mostly
leave the discussion as one between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats...show more content...
The French may have been the first people to mold the future of American Foreign Policy with
their alliance to the Colonies in opposition to England. The French met frequently with the
Founding Fathers and provided vast amounts of knowledge on foreign affairs during the
American Revolution. During this same period, there were many loyalists who had the view that
we shouldn't be at war and that the French should not have been on our soil. They believed that
diplomacy and making compromise with England was the only way to keeping a civil society.
These people had grown dependent on England and saw themselves as subjects of the crown, as
opposed to free citizens. These men, being loyal to a direct government and following it blindly,
may have been the first of what we now see as the political left. They valued diplomacy and
loyalty towards those who command them. Saying that they were void of pure freedom and
independent thought would be an understatement. At this time, women were mostly homemakers
who supported their husbands and families in what had to be done to make a living. It was a very
submissive and obedient time for women during which a husband was a staple to provide for the
family. There were no true political figure heads in the Colonial period, but the wives of the
Founding fathers did a great service by rallying support for their husbands. There are very few
records to show the political prowess of loyalist wives, but it is well
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

4. Diplomacy Is Diplomacy
To what extent has diplomacy failed to adapt to the international system brought by globalization?
Diplomacy which came into play thousands of years ago before they concept of globalization was
conceived have gained much recognition over time in the world today. Diplomacy and Globalization
are all major aspects in the study of study of International Relations. The concept of an international
system brought by globalization and fostered through a varrying number of mechanisms in which
diplomacy is a part of has affected and shaped how nations today interact and our present day
communities. Adina Borcan in his book titled "Diplomacy and Cosmopolitanism in a Globalized
World" 'wrote that, "due to the fact that there is a new world culture, with...show more content...
Roberts (2006), suggested that it has its roots in Greek and was later used by the French
(diplomatie) to refer to the work of a negotiator on behalf of a sovereign. There is a long history of
diplomatic activity going back at least two millennia. Sovereigns sent envoys to other sovereigns for
various reasons: to prevent wars, to cease hostilities, or merely to continue peaceful relations and
further economic exchanges. The first foreign ministry was created in Paris by Cardinal Richelieu in
1626. Other European countries followed the French example. As absolute monarchs gave way to
constitutional monarchies and republics, embassies and legations became more institutionalized all
over Europe, and by the end of the nineteenth century European–style diplomacy had been adopted
throughout the world.
The ability to practice diplomacy is one of the defining elements of a state. Diplomacy has been
practiced since the inception of civilization. In Europe, diplomacy begins with the first city–states
formed in ancient Greece. Diplomats were sent only for specific negotiations, and would return
immediately after their mission concluded. Diplomats were usually relatives of the ruling family or
of very high rank in order to give them legitimacy when they sought to negotiate with the other
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

5. Soft Power Approach To Public Diplomacy
The typical image of public diplomacy is that it is nice and warm and comforting in contrast to the
harsh realities of hardball diplomacy and military action. In the soft power approach to public
diplomacy, the United States seeks to promote its interests through attraction (as opposed to
coercion); soft power is the use of the attractiveness of a country's culture, political ideals, and
policies to get others to admire those ideals and then follow one's lead. This approach to public
diplomacy uses such devices as pamphlets, Voice of America, books, and other means to explain U.S.
policy, cultural exchange programs especially with emerging leaders of other countries to create an
appreciation and understanding of American culture, and the...show more content...
forces were using chemical weapons in Honduras and Grenada and AIDS was created by the CIA.
In Rwanda in the early 1990s, Hutu propaganda portrayed the Tutus as a separate, evil race
committing acts of rape and murder. In the mid–1990s, Serbian forces took over major lines of
communication and used these media to present distorted accounts of the 1389 Battle of Kosovo
and the "Croat genocide" of Serbs in WWII, thereby creating a belief in the eternal martyrdom of
Serbs. Today, in the Dafur region, the Janjaweed preach a propaganda of Arab superiority, resulting
in a mission of cleansing the area of Africans. Usama bin Laden blames the United States as a
crusader in the Middle East in order to promote terrorism and his personal rise to power. In each
of these cases, soft power attracts, not through positive ideals, but by invoking such raw emotions
as hate, fear, and insecurity. Soft power has a very hard edge. Another way to look at the hard edge
of soft power is to explore the competitive strategies and tactics used in a single conflict. The Persian
Gulf War of the early 1990s involved three main actors each trying to influence the hearts and minds
of the world's citizens: Saddam Hussein, the Kuwaiti government, and the U.S. government. Saddam
attempted to convince the world that he was a tough dictator that was not guilty of atrocities. He
attempted to accomplish this strategy by (a) providing tours
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

6. Future of Diplomacy
The Future of Diplomacy
HANS J. MORGENTHAU
FOUR TASKS OF DIPLOMACY
Diplomacy [is] an element of national power. The importance of diplomacy for the preservation of
international peace is but a particular aspect of that general function. For a diplomacy that ends in
war has failed in its primary objective: the promotion of the national interest by peaceful means.
This has always been so and is particularly so in view of the destructive potentialities of total war.
Taken in its widest meaning, comprising the whole range of foreign policy, the task of diplomacy is
fourfold: (1) Diplomacy must determine its objectives in the light of the power actually and
potentially available for the pursuit of these objectives. (2) Diplomacy must...show more content...
If the answer seems to be in the negative, A must try to induce B to abandon its objectives,
offering B equivalents not vital to A. In other words, through diplomatic bargaining, the give and
take of compromise, a way must be sought by which the interests of A and B can be reconciled.
Finally, if the incompatible objectives of A and B should prove to be vital to either side, a way
might still be sought in which the vital interests of A and B might be redefined, reconciled, and their
objectives thus made compatible with each other. Here, however – even provided that both sides
pursue intelligent and peaceful policies – A and B are moving dangerously close to the brink of war.
It is the final task of an intelligent diplomacy, intent upon preserving peace, to choose the
appropriate means for pursuing its objectives. The means at the disposal of diplomacy are three:
persuasion, compromise, and threat of force. No diplomacy relying only upon the threat of force
can claim to be both intelligent and peaceful. No diplomacy that would stake everything on
persuasion and compromise deserves to be called intelligent. Rarely, if ever, in the conduct of the
foreign policy of a great power is there justification for using only one method to the exclusion of
the others. Generally, the diplomatic representative of a great power, in order to be able to
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

7. Diplomacy Of Imperialism
Colonialism affected state development and contraction around the globe. Against majestic
resistance prompted to the withdrawal of the Ottoman Empire, for example, the foundation of free
states in the Balkans, semi–autonomy in Egypt. French and Italian provinces in North Africa or later
British impact in Egypt.
The Diplomacy of Imperialism, 1890 to 1902, initially distributed in 1935. Langer depended broadly
on recorded material that had not been accessible or had not been used by different researchers,
including the journals of the Russian Foreign Minister Count Vladimir Lamsdorf. Because of the
successful association of the Euro–African armed forces, combined with the all the more intense
weapons of the day, the idea of warfare was totally
Get more content on HelpWriting.net