Quote Originally Posted by RabbitDynamite
Great examples of this are the treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Versailles in WWI. This was the first true "total" war and despite that both Russia and Germany agreed to crippling peace treaties because they knew they were doomed if they didn't. Even the Nazis, in the last weeks of WWII, were clinging to a desperate hope they could exploit tension between the allies to put a separate peace together.
Brest-Litovsk wasn't really signed because Russia would be losing the war, was it? It was because of internal troubles in Russia (commies had just come to power)
or am I totally messing it up?
Perhaps history turns it that way that nations that didn't sign to these kind of treaties, actually won, won against low odds...

after the two series of Total War the world witnessed in the 20th century, the way of war changed dramatically. I don't mean the weapons and stuff (pressing a button and *boom*) however it certainly has to do with it. What I mean is that nowadays, since the Cold War, alliances and diplomacy is much more important...the Cold War never actually broke out directly, the Capitalist powers won because of...let's say they had better friends (I know this is simplistic and there are other factors as well, but I'm referring to the warfare).
The war in Iraq (Iraq, NOT terrorists) for instance, is quite an ancient manner to settle a conflict.

And Iraq didn't actually fought against the US outside it's homeland

Methinks that EB diplomacy is just what it should be: "Wanna be friends?", "If it's war you want, it's war you get" or "Please don't hit so hard"
The rest of the conflict is determined shield on shield, sword against sword, under the sound of the horns, harps, drums and Screeching Women...