In my experience, strong, lasting alliances between two nations throughout the early- and mid- game are overrated. While such bonds do have their place, so does a quick one that lasts a mere few years. The key to this article is that I am not just advocating the backstab of former allies once your mutual enemy has been vanquished. No, that I see all the time. I am advocating the backstab of your ally with the help of your mutual enemy before it has been destroyed. But let us backpedal. Diplomacy, as you know, is a game primarily of triangles — and winning such triangles is imperative to winning the game. Often times, players view “winning” such triangles as simply NOT being the odd one out. And while that is all very good, you haven’t really won your theatre if one of your original neighbors is just as powerful as you are. Usually, properly winning your triangle requires an early double cross. But how does one successfully do this? Consider the following: players A, B, and C can all attack each other from the outset. Each of the players take two neutrals; then A and B ally against C. They each take one neutral from C, but C’s still got their three home supply centers. THAT’S when A backstabs B with C’s help. Most likely, C will agree — anything to no longer be the odd one out. Most likely, B won’t be making similar plans — why would (s)he, with things going so good? And so, A and C make gains on B; but A more so, as (s)he was stronger to begin with, and has more leverage. Soon enough, B is dead. C has recovered, more or less, and is back up to five centers. But A? Having taken three supply centers from B, now has a total of 9 supply centers, and can crush C if (s)he wishes. But it might be easier to comprehend if we didn’t speak in the abstract. Take the Northern Triangle: England, Germany, and Russia. (For the sake of the example let’s assume France is off fighting Italy.) In the first year, Germany and England ally against Russia. Germany bounces Russia out of Sweden and England convoys to Norway. The second year, England takes Sweden and Germany takes Warsaw. Russia looks all but dead. But then, all of the sudden, England backstabs Germany. England lets Russia back into Sweden in return for support into Denmark. While Russia manages to take back Warsaw because of Germany’s new two fronts, England captures Holland and Kiel. After the first four years, Germany is down to two supply centers. In the north, Russia simply has its usual Sweden as well as its home supply centers.. England, however, now has seven, with the addition of Norway, Kiel, Denmark, and Holland — and can probably take Sweden back now as well. England has won the triangle due to its early backstab. But that is a secondary triangle. Let us look at a more major one: the Eastern Triangle (Austria, Russia, Turkey). Say Austria and Turkey move against Russia early on. Spring 1901 sees bounces in the Black Sea and Galicia; etc., etc. The end of 1902 sees Austria in Rumania and Turkey in Sevastopol. Instead of delivering the finishing blow and marching up to Moscow and Warsaw, Turkey makes a deal with Russia: they will give back Sevastopol in return for support into Rumania. With Russia’s help, Turkey storms on to take Serbia, Budapest, and Greece. They may or may not eventually give back Rumania; either way, clearly this is a juggernaut more in Turkey’s favor than Russia’s. A third example is the Western Triangle: England, France, and Germany. Say France and Germany pull a Sealion and attack England. England loses London to France and Norway to Germany. But then, instead of taking Edinburgh and helping France take Liverpool, Germany supports England back into London. England helps Germany take Belgium and Brest in return for Norway back. Germany slaps the hammer down on France, taking Paris and Marseilles as well. Germany is by far the dominant power in the west. I apologize that I cannot give more specific examples of this tactic. The problem is that it involves several years, and everything is situational. I do hope you understand the general concept, however. Also, beware: using this tactic could lead to stop-the-leader alliance against you. You’ll just have to play your cards right. Dash Yeatts-Lonske (dashiell999@gmail.com) If you wish to e-mail feedback on this article to the author, and clicking on the envelope above does not work for you, feel free to use the "Dear DP..." mail interface.