Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/13/2006 9:18:21 PM EDT
During a discussion on Fox news today over Israel/Hamas, it was mentioned that no two countries that were both democracies, have ever fought each other in a war. The guy said one or the other is always a dictatorship or whatever. Anyone know of any war in which both countries were democracies?
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 9:20:35 PM EDT
Hitler was elected.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 9:20:55 PM EDT
uh...mex and US

really, i cant think of any right now.....
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 9:20:56 PM EDT
From what i can think of off hand that seems true.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 9:21:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
Hitler was elected.





dictatorship
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 9:31:21 PM EDT
The US Civil War was a war between democracies....


Several Greek conflicts in the ancient world could well be called war between democracies.


The real problem is the definition of "democracy." The USA isn't a true democracy per se, and there haven't been many actual democracies in practice.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 9:38:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By USAFhack:
The US Civil War was a war between democracies....


Several Greek conflicts in the ancient world could well be called war between democracies.


The real problem is the definition of "democracy." The USA isn't a true democracy per se, and there haven't been many actual democracies in practice.




I really wouldnt call the CSA a 'sovereign' or a 'real' country.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 9:40:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tyman:

Originally Posted By USAFhack:
The US Civil War was a war between democracies....


Several Greek conflicts in the ancient world could well be called war between democracies.


The real problem is the definition of "democracy." The USA isn't a true democracy per se, and there haven't been many actual democracies in practice.




I really wouldnt call the CSA a 'sovereign' or a 'real' country.



But they were a democracy... at least as much as the north was, and some would claim they were more of a democracy than the north at the time.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 9:42:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2006 9:43:22 PM EDT by raven]
Greek poleis. Athens attacked the colonies in Sicily.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 9:46:53 PM EDT
i guess that statement is true to a point,.........................I would have to agree with it.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 9:53:15 PM EDT
What we have here is a representative republic, not a democracy.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 9:56:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ak4784:
i guess that statement is true to a point,.........................I would have to agree with it.




Upon more thinking I've got to disagree with the basic statement. Since there haven't been any true democracies since the Greeks ( and even they are in dispute on that fact ) I think the question translates as "Have there been any wars between like-minded governments?"

Have any communists states gone to war against each other? Technically, no, just as "technically" there haven't been any wars between "democracies."

But the whole of the 16th thru the 18th centuries is full of monarchies in europe that went to war, even though their governments and people shared some very common christian principles. They went to war on nationalistic principles.

So my bottom line is that the statement "Democracies have never gone to war against each other" is basically flawed based solely on Greek and USA civil war experience, and the further premise that "like" governments have never gone to war is also flawed.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 9:59:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By USAFhack:

Originally Posted By tyman:

Originally Posted By USAFhack:
The US Civil War was a war between democracies....


Several Greek conflicts in the ancient world could well be called war between democracies.


The real problem is the definition of "democracy." The USA isn't a true democracy per se, and there haven't been many actual democracies in practice.




I really wouldnt call the CSA a 'sovereign' or a 'real' country.



But they were a democracy... at least as much as the north was, and some would claim they were more of a democracy than the north at the time.



They were never a country.
No nation ever recognized them.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:28:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2006 11:31:16 PM EDT by 71-Hour_Achmed]

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
Hitler was elected.


Hitler was APPOINTED after the Nazis did so well that some of the elected dudes decided they had to appease him. Hitler didn't win election.

ETA:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Hitler.27s_appointment_as_Chancellor


Hitler's appointment as Chancellor
Meanwhile Papen, resentful because of his dismissal, tried to get his revenge on Schleicher by working towards the General's downfall, through forming an intrigue with the camarilla and Alfred Hugenberg, media mogul and chairman of the DNVP. Also involved were Hjalmar Schacht, Fritz Thyssen and other leading German businessmen. They financially supported the Nazi Party, which had been brought to the brink of bankruptcy by the cost of heavy campaigning. The businessmen also wrote letters to Hindenburg, urging him to appoint Hitler as leader of a government "independent from parliamentary parties" which could turn into a movement that would "enrapture millions of people."[3]

Finally, the President reluctantly agreed to appoint Hitler Chancellor of a coalition government formed by the NSDAP and DNVP. Hitler and two other Nazi ministers (Frick, Göring) were to be contained by a framework of conservative cabinet ministers, most notably by Papen as Vice-Chancellor and by Hugenberg as Minister of Economics. Papen wanted to use Hitler as a figure-head, but the Nazis had gained key positions, most notably the Ministry of the Interior. On the morning of January 30, 1933, in Hindenburg's office, Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor during what some observers later described as a brief and simple ceremony.

Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:46:40 PM EDT
When the Union attacked the Confederate States of America in 1861.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:47:17 PM EDT
You're talking about the "Democractic Peace Theory". Its one of THE major cornerstones of international relations over the past 150 years or so. For the purposes of this theory, the U.S. is a democracy, but Britain was not pre-1850 or so, because the vote was restricted to the aristocracy only- there was no popular franchise. Germany wasn't a democracy until 1919, and ceased to be in 1933 or so. The USSR was a democracy for about 5 minutes in 1918, Italy ceased to be one when Mussolini took over, etc.

SO, the War of 1812 upholds the theory, as does WWI and WWII, all of the wars in the Cold War etc. No liberal democracy with the popular franchise has ever gone to war. The U.S. Civil War doesn't count because it was a Civil War.

HOWEVER, a corollory to this theory is that democracies, especially new democracies, go to war against non-democracies. Look at the first hundred years of U.S. history, the first hundred years of Australia's history as a soverign nation (hint- Federation was in 1901, in the middle of the Boer War, and we've been at war every 15-20 years or so) etc.

There are problems with the theory, such as the definition of democracy etc. It should be called the "Euro-American model of democracy Democratic Peace theory" because it doesn't take into account non-Western forms of deomcracy, if any exist. If you go completely post-modern, you can relativise the theory out of existance. Yes, Post-Modernists are idiots.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:47:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:
When the Union attacked the Confederate States of America in 1861.


Fort Sumter?
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 12:01:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 12:03:35 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 12:06:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tyman:

Originally Posted By USAFhack:
The US Civil War was a war between democracies....


Several Greek conflicts in the ancient world could well be called war between democracies.


The real problem is the definition of "democracy." The USA isn't a true democracy per se, and there haven't been many actual democracies in practice.




I really wouldnt call the CSA a 'sovereign' or a 'real' country.



Well, the secession was perfectly legal, but nobody recognized them as a sovereign, independent nation.

Except maybe France. I seem to recall them selling a lot of guns and ammo to the Confederates.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 12:22:54 AM EDT
I don't think I would call a country that allows slavery a democracy.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 12:31:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
I don't think I would call a country that allows slavery a democracy.



How is slavery different from any other systematic exclusion from the franchise?
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:28:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By USAFhack:

Originally Posted By tyman:

Originally Posted By USAFhack:
The US Civil War was a war between democracies....


Several Greek conflicts in the ancient world could well be called war between democracies.


The real problem is the definition of "democracy." The USA isn't a true democracy per se, and there haven't been many actual democracies in practice.




I really wouldnt call the CSA a 'sovereign' or a 'real' country.



But they were a democracy... at least as much as the north was, and some would claim they were more of a democracy than the north at the time.



They were never a country.
No nation ever recognized them.



Thanks, I was getting ready to post this.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:34:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:

Originally Posted By tyman:

Originally Posted By USAFhack:
The US Civil War was a war between democracies....


Several Greek conflicts in the ancient world could well be called war between democracies.


The real problem is the definition of "democracy." The USA isn't a true democracy per se, and there haven't been many actual democracies in practice.




I really wouldnt call the CSA a 'sovereign' or a 'real' country.



Well, the secession was perfectly legal, but nobody recognized them as a sovereign, independent nation.

Except maybe France. I seem to recall them selling a lot of guns and ammo to the Confederates.



France never recognized the CSA as an independent country. No nation on earth did. Not one.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:45:17 AM EDT
One could argue that the Boer War refutes this thesis. Both sides in the conflict were types of democracies. People get around it , just like they do with the India-Pakistan wars, by saying one or the other was not a REAL democracy. Whatever that means.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:49:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By llanero:
What we have here is a representative republic, not a democracy.


i thought we were an autonomous collective?
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:50:47 AM EDT
England declared war on Finland during WW2.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:52:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 10:52:54 AM EDT by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:
England declared war on Finland during WW2.



This is yet another case were believers in the theory will simply dismiss Finland as not being a "democracy" at the time, since they were in league with the Nazis.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:54:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
One could argue that the Boer War refutes this thesis. Both sides in the conflict were types of democracies. People get around it , just like they do with the India-Pakistan wars, by saying one or the other was not a REAL democracy. Whatever that means.



This thoery is kind of useless. Everytime someone cites an counter-example, a reason that one of these democracies "doesn't count" will be invented.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:54:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:
England declared war on Finland during WW2.



This is yet another case were believers in the theory will simply dismiss Finland as not being a "democracy" at the time, since they were in league with the Nazis.



finland WAS a democracy at the time. the fact that they were allied to a non democracy has no bearing over whether or not finland was a democracy.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:57:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By USAFhack:

Have any communists states gone to war against each other? Technically, no, just as "technically" there haven't been any wars between "democracies."



Vietnam and PRC in 1979.

Was Cambodia communist at the time? The war was a move by China to keep pressure off their Cambodian allies.

Russia and China have exchanged fire over their border numerous times.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:06:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 11:12:39 AM EDT by thedave1164]

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
I don't think I would call a country that allows slavery a democracy.



Guess what, slavery was not abolished in the north at the time of northern aggression against the south. Ergo the Union still allowed slavery.....

April 12th 1861 civil war started:

Civil War.com

April 16 1862 Nations Capital ended slavery:

African American Registry

And yet Slavery was still legal in the North.....
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:11:00 AM EDT
Wasn't Egypt a democracy when they fought the 6 day war?
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:12:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Wasn't Egypt a democracy when they fought the 6 day war?



Thats what I was wondering, but what 'democracies' in the MidEast are really democracies? (Except for Israel)
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:13:48 AM EDT
Well, no two MAJOR WESTERN DEMOCRATIC POWERS have fought against each other in war......yet.

The UK and the US aren't going to be shooting at each other anytime soon. But India and other "democracies" (Venezuela, Iran....) might well end up shooting it out with us eventually.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:29:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:
England declared war on Finland during WW2.



This is yet another case were believers in the theory will simply dismiss Finland as not being a "democracy" at the time, since they were in league with the Nazis.



finland WAS a democracy at the time. the fact that they were allied to a non democracy has no bearing over whether or not finland was a democracy.



Oh, I agree with you. I was pointing out how the apologists for this theory get around the fact that several democracies have gone to war. I cited an example on the first page.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:47:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 11:56:29 AM EDT by rjroberts]

Originally Posted By Lert:
You're talking about the "Democractic Peace Theory". Its one of THE major cornerstones of international relations over the past 150 years or so. For the purposes of this theory, the U.S. is a democracy, but Britain was not pre-1850 or so, because the vote was restricted to the aristocracy only- there was no popular franchise. Germany wasn't a democracy until 1919, and ceased to be in 1933 or so. The USSR was a democracy for about 5 minutes in 1918, Italy ceased to be one when Mussolini took over, etc.

SO, the War of 1812 upholds the theory, as does WWI and WWII, all of the wars in the Cold War etc. No liberal democracy with the popular franchise has ever gone to war. The U.S. Civil War doesn't count because it was a Civil War.

HOWEVER, a corollory to this theory is that democracies, especially new democracies, go to war against non-democracies. Look at the first hundred years of U.S. history, the first hundred years of Australia's history as a soverign nation (hint- Federation was in 1901, in the middle of the Boer War, and we've been at war every 15-20 years or so) etc.

There are problems with the theory, such as the definition of democracy etc. It should be called the "Euro-American model of democracy Democratic Peace theory" because it doesn't take into account non-Western forms of deomcracy, if any exist. If you go completely post-modern, you can relativise the theory out of existance. Yes, Post-Modernists are idiots.



In pre-1919 Germany, the Reichstag was for...?

In pre-1919 Austria-Hungary the Orzagshaz in Hungary was for...? I've forgotten what the post-1848 parliamentary equivalent in Austria was, though I believe it was a Reichstag, as well.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:47:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mmx1:

Originally Posted By USAFhack:

Have any communists states gone to war against each other? Technically, no, just as "technically" there haven't been any wars between "democracies."



Vietnam and PRC in 1979.

Was Cambodia communist at the time? The war was a move by China to keep pressure off their Cambodian allies.

Russia and China have exchanged fire over their border numerous times.



The Czechs and the Hungarians would likely take issue with the original post too.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:21:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rjroberts:

Originally Posted By Lert:
<snip>



In pre-1919 Germany, the Reichstag was for...?

In pre-1919 Austria-Hungary the Orzagshaz in Hungary was for...? I've forgotten what the post-1848 parliamentary equivalent in Austria was, though I believe it was a Reichstag, as well.



I don't know a great deal about Austria-Hungary, but in Germany prior to the abdication of the Kaiser (actually, the abdication of Prince Max of Baaden, but his only act was to pass power to the Chancellor) the Reichstag was a consultative body only. It had no real power. Germany was more of a constitutional autocracy- the people voted for representitives that didn't do much more than make polite suggestions to the Kaiser, who really ran the show. They were about 60 or so years behind Britain in constitutional devlopment, except in taxation. Parliament in Britain had the power to raise taxes and deny the monarch funds for about 800 or so years at that point. The British monarch ceased really ruling Britain directly just before Queen Victoria's reign, I think. At any rate, it was definitly on the decline by then. In Germany, the Kaiser was still the supreme autocrat.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:33:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By Lert:
the first hundred years of Australia's history as a soverign nation (hint- Federation was in 1901, in the middle of the Boer War, and we've been at war every 15-20 years or so) etc.




IIRC, Austraila has the unique record of fighting in every significant war since the Boer War!


You blokes are alway up for a bit of a ruck!


ANdy



There used to be a saying- Pay an Aussie enough and he'll fight anyone.

<hijack>
Seriously, we fight in the wars of our "Great and Powerful Friends" as a way of paying our insurance premium- we send small contingents in keeping with our size, so that if we ever face a major threat, our major allies will jump in and save us. The only time it was really tested was in WW2- Britain was a little too preoccupied at the time to pay out the insurance policy, and we had had virtually no contact with the U.S. at that point, and who were reluctant to come to our aid. They only did so in the end as Australia provided a good logistics base for the drive against Japan. The U.S. was also very reluctant to sign a mutual defence treaty after WW2 as well. We've been paying the premium for that treaty ever since.

Not that I'm saying its a bad thing, just something to think about

<end Hijack>
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:33:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:
When the Union attacked the Confederate States of America in 1861.



a) Fort Sumter

b) Confederacy was never recognized and had no legitimacy
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:33:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 12:34:02 PM EDT by rebel_rifle]

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
I don't think I would call a country that allows slavery a democracy.




FYI, slavery was legal in the US. In fact, it was legal in the US after it was banned in the CSA by Lincoln. His Emancipation Proclamation *only* freed the slaves in the states that were *in rebellion.* He did NOT free the slaves in KY, MD and several other states that were part of the US.

Go back and re-read your history books if you do not believe this.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:38:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 12:40:47 PM EDT by guardian855]

Originally Posted By rebel_rifle:

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
I don't think I would call a country that allows slavery a democracy.




FYI, slavery was legal in the US. In fact, it was legal in the US after it was banned in the CSA by Lincoln. His Emancipation Proclamation *only* freed the slaves in the states that were *in rebellion.* He did NOT free the slaves in KY, MD and several other states that were part of the US.

Go back and re-read your history books if you do not believe this.



Can we have a discussion about war between two democracies without the crazy, "the south will rise again", slavery-wasn't-the-cause, slaves liked being slaves, the North had 100 slaves so that made the 3,000,000 the South had ok, revisionist historians coming out of the woodwork?
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:40:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rebel_rifle:

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
I don't think I would call a country that allows slavery a democracy.




FYI, slavery was legal in the US. In fact, it was legal in the US after it was banned in the CSA by Lincoln. His Emancipation Proclamation *only* freed the slaves in the states that were *in rebellion.* He did NOT free the slaves in KY, MD and several other states that were part of the US.

Go back and re-read your history books if you do not believe this.



Of course you fail to mentoin that only three states not in Confederate control had slaves, and that those states would have been alienated had the EP applied to them, and in fact those states banned slavery on thier own accord before 1865.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:42:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Can we have a discussion about war between two democracies without the crazy, "the south will rise again", slavery-wasn't-the-cause, slaves liked being slaves, the North had 100 slaves so that made the 3,000,000 the South had ok, revisionist historians coming out of the woodwork.




You call simply stating *facts* as being crazy? Also, I don't remember me writing that "the south will rise again", that sir is what YOU wrote.

I also am not a "revisionist historian" as YOU wrote as well. If you do NOT believe what I wrote, then go back and re-read your history books.

Oh, and FYI, the north had far more than "100 slaves", again, go back and re-read your history.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:45:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rebel_rifle:

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Can we have a discussion about war between two democracies without the crazy, "the south will rise again", slavery-wasn't-the-cause, slaves liked being slaves, the North had 100 slaves so that made the 3,000,000 the South had ok, revisionist historians coming out of the woodwork.




You call simply stating *facts* as being crazy? Also, I don't remember me writing that "the south will rise again", that sir is what YOU wrote.

I also am not a "revisionist historian" as YOU wrote as well. If you do NOT believe what I wrote, then go back and re-read your history books.

Oh, and FYI, the north had far more than "100 slaves", again, go back and re-read your history.



How many slaves did the North have?

I know the South had 3,000,000+ slaves, and killed 800,000 americans to try to keep them, let's stack that up against how many the North had?

Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:48:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 12:50:02 PM EDT by rebel_rifle]

Originally Posted By guardian855:
Of course you fail to mentoin that only three states not in Confederate control had slaves, and that those states would have been alienated had the EP applied to them, and in fact those states banned slavery on thier own accord before 1865.




Wrong again.

The Emancipation Proclamation was January 1, 1863.

The 13th Amendment (which freed slaves in nothern states) was not until December 6, 1865, not before.

Again, check your history.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:50:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
Hitler was elected.



But German wasn't a democracy when it went to war.

Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:57:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:
England declared war on Finland during WW2.



This is yet another case were believers in the theory will simply dismiss Finland as not being a "democracy" at the time, since they were in league with the Nazis.



finland WAS a democracy at the time. the fact that they were allied to a non democracy has no bearing over whether or not finland was a democracy.



Also, the Enemy of my Enemy is my friend holds true here.. Remember the Soviets invaded Finland multiple times during WWII.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:59:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By guardian855:

How many slaves did the North have?






How many slaves did they have? In the border states *alone*, just a little over 430,000.

Don't beleive me? Check it out yourself members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 1:01:31 PM EDT
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top