Patience played a significant role in Germany’s decision to join and shape the Triple Alliance. German leadership, particularly under Bismarck, approached alliance-building with careful, deliberate diplomacy, allowing the nature and stakes of the decision to dictate the pace rather than succumbing to external pressures or hasty proposals.

Historical records show that German diplomats were wary of rushing into agreements, especially when approached by Britain about joining the alliance. The German government interpreted Britain’s urgency as a sign of British weakness and saw no reason to accelerate their own decision-making process. Instead, they used the opportunity to negotiate from a position of strength, raising their own terms and ensuring that any agreement would serve Germany’s long-term strategic interests.

Additionally, the process of forming and maintaining the Triple Alliance itself was marked by careful negotiation and patience. Germany prioritized frontier security and the stability of its alliances with Austria-Hungary and Italy, weighing the benefits and risks over time rather than making impulsive decisions based on immediate diplomatic overtures. German diplomats often delayed or slowed negotiations, insisting on clarity and thoroughness before committing to any binding agreements.

In summary, Germany’s approach to joining the Triple Alliance exemplified the national logic that the timing and nature of major decisions should be determined by strategic considerations and patience, not by the urgency of external actors or short-term pressures.

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact exemplifies several core German decision-making strategies, particularly the emphasis on strategic patience, pragmatic calculation, and allowing the nature of the decision-not external pressures-to dictate timing and terms.

Deliberate Negotiation and Timing:
The pact was the result of extended negotiations between Germany and the Soviet Union, following the breakdown of talks between the Soviets, Britain, and France. German leaders did not rush into an agreement but instead waited for the optimal moment-after other diplomatic options had failed-to secure a deal that would best serve their interests. This patience allowed Germany to negotiate from a position of strength and maximize its strategic advantage.

Pragmatic, Interest-Driven Approach:
Despite deep ideological differences, Germany prioritized practical considerations over ideology, focusing on immediate military and territorial objectives. The pact included secret protocols dividing Eastern Europe into spheres of influence, demonstrating a willingness to set aside personal or political animosities in favor of concrete, performance-based outcomes.

Control Over Decision Pace:
Germany resisted external pressures-such as the urgency from Britain and France to form an anti-German alliance-and instead set the tempo of negotiations to align with its own strategic timetable. This approach reflects the German logic that the time allotted to a decision should be determined by its complexity and importance, not by outside urgency.

Patience in Execution and Adjustment:
After the pact was signed, Germany continued to renegotiate and adjust its terms, as seen in subsequent agreements modifying borders and managing resource exchanges with the Soviet Union. This ongoing, patient adjustment process ensured that decisions remained aligned with evolving strategic needs.

In summary, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact demonstrates German decision-making strategies through measured, pragmatic negotiation; patience in timing and execution; and a consistent focus on achieving well-defined, interest-driven objectives, regardless of external pressure or ideological differences.