Talk:Divide and rule/Archive 2

china japan korea
someone please figure in the deliberate division of korea, japan, and china by western countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8979789C7978 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll second this, but because Wikipedia requires "sourced" evidence, I doubt this'll pass someone shouting it down for not having NPOV. I'm aware of very few that write about this kind of thing, and even if some people do, they are most probably speculating themselves, such is the nature of covering events so present in history. For what it's worth, there is this article in the New Left Review that discusses US policy towards Japanese moves for independence.  Wayne Madsen also discusses the earlier ship sinking in this interview.  The AP has published some "analysis" on this, but usually only in relation to Japan as an individual entity.  What would be best would be something that ties (from my scant knowledge of this)... Koizumi visits to Yasukuni shrine, Chinese "anti Japan" demos, pro-US Japanese media, 2009 DPJ election, Okinawa base, S. Korean torpedoed ship, Hatoayama's fall, the Chinese fishing boat and the latest N. Korean incident and lots of economic pressures.... ties all of this together as a continuous policy aimed at dividing Japan and China.     David 218.143.30.1 (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The divide and rule policy of the British-Imperial-Rulers vs the divide and rule policy of the India by "the self-rule" after the the independence.
"The Govt of India-Act -1935", was perfectly, "pre-designed" and passed and imposed by the British-parliament on the  Indian-people,  to have "the divide and rule policy" of the British-Imperial-Rulers, to dis-integrate people of the Nation-India, principally based on the sharing of the executive-power/legislative-power on the % quota basis of the strength of the population of the religions or castes or sub-castes or races or its various-social-groups or the so-called general catagory of the people or the untouchables etc, by making provisions of the separate list of  electorates to elect the members of the legislatures, principally based on the birth-marks of the groups, and never to  unite on the basis of the humanity.This political theory resulted in the partition of the Nation-India. The Secular-Republican-Democratic-Constitution of the Nation-India -1950, is perfectly pre-designed to have the universal-unity and integrity of the Nation-India, by the selecting the  universal-Constitutional-natural-basic-unit of the Indian-people i.e individual-human-person i.e any-citizen i.e any-person and Constitutionally-guaranteed to it the universal-non-discrimination-status available to him from his birth to death. Unfortunately the temporary-special-provisions relating to the certain classes of the citizens of the Nation-India, based on the birth-marks of the caste or religion or race or sex or descent or its various-social-groups or the minority-group of various-religions or the so-called other backward castes or the scheduled castes or tribes etc, is extended 10-yrs to 70 yrs i.e generations to generations (one generation is the period of 30 years ) ,to share the executive-power or legislative-power or the judiciary-power of the Nation-India, based % quota basis i.e on communal-award lines, declared by the British-Imperial-Rulers in the year -1932, and the universal-unity and integrity of the Nation-India, is dis-integrated, and the Nation-India became the  federal  state of the  communal-award; and presently the state of the Nation-India,became un-governable by the anybody or any-power-force only on the account of the divide and rule policy. The Govt.Deptts of the Nation-India, are dis-integrated and became un-governable by the anybody or any-power-force i.e by the self-rule. The white-collered caste-ism and corruption became the day to day business of the Govt-servants and officials.

Article title
Why is it not "divide and conquer"?Rfwh (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Very good question. And where is the most important part about dividing populations up into groups that hate each other in order to rule them more effectively? Haven't seen it in the lede, and haven't read the whole thing, but that vital aspect of this concept should certainly be covered prominently. Must be lots of reliable sources about it.--SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This must be one of those British vs. American things, as I have never heard it as "Divide and rule," in any of my academic textbooks. It's even somewhat logically incoherent, as the most profitable use of the policy is to divide your enemy to make it easier to defeat them. It reminds of the line by Ellsworth Toohey, from Ann Rand's book The Fountainhead, which reads, "Divide and conquer - first. But then - unite and rule." Yes, I know that's not an authoritative source, but it makes the point. It's especially odd since the article repeatedly uses the conventional divide and conquer phrase in the body of the article. Why is that?   __209.179.54.133 (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Divide and rule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070625213056/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/machiavelli/niccolo/m149a/chapter6.html to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/machiavelli/niccolo/m149a/chapter6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Modern Day Examples
Given the current political landscape across the world, one could argue there are some examples of divide and conquer being used today. (i.e Boomer vs Millenial).

Would this be an appropriate section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.211.154 (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump
I've removed a section labeled "The Presidency Of Donald Trump" which included nothing more than a link to the article by that name; as it seemed like a cheap shot of vandalism. If it's a valuable inclusion, I believe it important to arrive to a consensus before simply dropping it in the article. --2605:6000:1806:4153:ED68:EB54:E48:776D (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Good choice. The edit was most likely put there by a partisan editor who wanted to voice their displeasure.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

After seeing a section on D. Trump in the German version of this page, but missing it in the English version, I translated it into English and added a US-American source. I have cited both left-leaning and right-leaning sources, in effort to create a politically balanced chapter. Of course, as mentioned below, more current day examples would be very beneficial for understanding the prevalence of this political strategy in contemporary politics.37.4.228.9 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Julius Caesar
Julius Caesar never wrote it, at least I've not found any sources, even if he used the principle. I put a request of citation in the entry.--Vilnius (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)