Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Question: Has a democratic nation ever declared war on another democratic nation?

Posted on 01/01/2006 10:15:01 AM PST by InvisibleChurch

I'd heard somewhere that a country that has a democratically elected govt has never attacked another country with a democratically elected govt. Is this so? Or does this all depend on what the meaning of "democratically elected" is?


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-143 next last
Thanks. Just trying to figure things out.
1 posted on 01/01/2006 10:15:02 AM PST by InvisibleChurch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

WWI - probably; WWII - maybe.


2 posted on 01/01/2006 10:16:22 AM PST by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

I think it all depends on what 'democratically elected' means to whoever is doing the speaking or the listening.

Saddam was 'democratically elected,' for example. Allied forces declared war on him and ousted him from office.

It's just a catchphrase.


3 posted on 01/01/2006 10:16:52 AM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

Well . . .

We declared war on Great Britain in 1812.

For that matter, the Indian Nations (Creek, Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminole and Chickasaw) declared war on the United States in 1861 -- and at the time all had democratically elected governments. In at least two of those cases (Choctaw and Cherokee) the declaration followed a plebicite on the issue which was wone by the hawks.


4 posted on 01/01/2006 10:17:48 AM PST by No Truce With Kings (The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY

Maybe "western nation" might be a better term. What do you think?


5 posted on 01/01/2006 10:17:57 AM PST by InvisibleChurch (The search for someone to blame is always successful. - Robert Half)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: No Truce With Kings

GB was a monarchy


6 posted on 01/01/2006 10:18:39 AM PST by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY

Depends on what the meaning of "is" is, dontcha know.


7 posted on 01/01/2006 10:19:17 AM PST by Salvey (ancest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

Just off the top of my head, I think Canada was a colony but with some democratically elected local leaders I think back in 1812, and we attacked them.

I think it's just a slogan.


8 posted on 01/01/2006 10:19:19 AM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

Of 116 major wars of 438 countries between 1789 and 1941 not one involved democracies on both sides, although the studies author did get a bit twisty in their reasoning for the War of 1812 and the Civil War IMO.

I suggest reading "Power Kills" by R. J. Rummel.


9 posted on 01/01/2006 10:19:22 AM PST by Tijeras_Slim ("We're a meat-based society.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

It doesn't answer your question, but I know that the New York Times and the Democratic Party have decared war on the USA.


10 posted on 01/01/2006 10:19:45 AM PST by freedumb2003 (American troops cannot be defeated. American Politicians can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No Truce With Kings

Yea, I raised our attacking Canada in the war of 1812, too.


11 posted on 01/01/2006 10:19:52 AM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: No Truce With Kings
We declared war on Great Britain in 1812.

But Great Britain was a Monarchy at that point

12 posted on 01/01/2006 10:20:00 AM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Your shovel use permit has been revoked, please turn in all digging tools by noon tomorrow. -OP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

Interesting question. I think that the idea is that true democracies where the people have some say in things political and are at the same time free to pursue their own lives and visions without government interference mostly don't seek to go to war with similar societies. But there are few such countries.


13 posted on 01/01/2006 10:20:06 AM PST by Bahbah (A known Snow Flake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DP.CLOCK.HTM

What is the democratic peace?

It is the web of factual propositions that:

Democracies do not make war on each other.
The more two nations are democratic, the less their mutual violence.
Democracies have the least foreign violence.
Democracies have, by far, the least internal violence.
Modern democracies have virtually no democide (genocide and mass murder)
Putting all this together, democracy is a method of nonviolence. And therefore, the democratic peace.


14 posted on 01/01/2006 10:20:16 AM PST by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvey

Sometimes it does. :-)


15 posted on 01/01/2006 10:20:16 AM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim

How about the American Civil War? Were those not two democracies?


16 posted on 01/01/2006 10:20:18 AM PST by floridaobserver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

By 1812 Britain was a Constitutional monarchy, in which the power to declare war was vested in the Parliment. For that matter it still is. It WAS a democratic nation in 1812 in the sense that it was a democratic nation in 1914 and in 2005

The last king that believed Britain was a monarchy had the government disagree with him to the point where he lost his head over the issue.


17 posted on 01/01/2006 10:21:32 AM PST by No Truce With Kings (The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch
A trite variation is that "no two nations with McDonalds restaurants have ever gone to war with each other".

That's more believable, somehow.

18 posted on 01/01/2006 10:22:33 AM PST by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: floridaobserver

IMO, yes. The studies author argued that the Confederacy had not actually achieved independence with succession, hence was excluded. I do not agree with that reasoning.


19 posted on 01/01/2006 10:22:34 AM PST by Tijeras_Slim ("We're a meat-based society.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

Depends on how you define it.

I'm a grad student, and I have a professor who argues that, in his words 'Stable liberal democracies haven't ever fought each other', but it basically comes down to how you define stable liberal democracies. (and that's old school liberal, not Chuck Schumer liberal, for those who aren't well read.)


20 posted on 01/01/2006 10:23:13 AM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: floridaobserver

Country vs. country not country vs self.


21 posted on 01/01/2006 10:23:26 AM PST by calljack (Sometimes your worst nightmare is just a start.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: No Truce With Kings; AppyPappy

"The last king that believed Britain was a monarchy had the government disagree with him to the point where he lost his head over the issue."

And that was in the 1600s. Since the revolution of 1688 Britian has been run by Parliment.


22 posted on 01/01/2006 10:23:28 AM PST by No Truce With Kings (The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Well, naturally, no one ever votes for a NYT's editor and certainly democrats only get "elected" through the courts.


23 posted on 01/01/2006 10:24:18 AM PST by InvisibleChurch (The search for someone to blame is always successful. - Robert Half)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim

And...

Supposedly, all but 2 or 3 of the current world conflicts (some 100 of them) have muslims/Islamics on one side of the conflict.


24 posted on 01/01/2006 10:24:19 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: No Truce With Kings

No doubt at all that Great Britain was a democratic nation in 1812. Anyone who argues otherwise needs to hit the books.


25 posted on 01/01/2006 10:24:34 AM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

Don't doubt that.


26 posted on 01/01/2006 10:25:15 AM PST by Tijeras_Slim ("We're a meat-based society.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

Not sure what Argentina's political condition was during the Falklands War, but that one comes to mind.

(It will also probably go down as one of the most eclectic and unusual wars in modern history.)


27 posted on 01/01/2006 10:27:16 AM PST by ElkGroveDan (California bashers will be called out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

Duh! Germany declared war on the US in 1941.


28 posted on 01/01/2006 10:27:41 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PK.APPEN1.1.HTM

Appendix 1.1
Q And A On The Fact
That Democracies Do Not
Make War On Each Other*
By R.J. Rummel


29 posted on 01/01/2006 10:28:39 AM PST by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

"Supposedly, all but 2 or 3 of the current world conflicts (some 100 of them) have muslims/Islamics on one side of the conflict."

Well, duh. We are talking around 20% of the world's population spread over the threecontinents where most of the worlds conflicts are being fought.

And I'll make another blindingly obivious statement: All but 2 or 3 of the world's conflicts have Christians on one side of the conflict or the other -- because Christians are another big time religion spread over those same three continents. And yes, there are Christians in places like India and China -- and at least one insurgency involves Chinese Christians resisting the People's Republic's attempts to make them give up their religion.


30 posted on 01/01/2006 10:30:25 AM PST by No Truce With Kings (The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

"Not sure what Argentina's political condition was during the Falklands War"

It was a military dictatorship. The Galtieri Government as I recall.


31 posted on 01/01/2006 10:31:48 AM PST by No Truce With Kings (The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY
No doubt at all that Great Britain was a democratic nation in 1812. Anyone who argues otherwise needs to hit the books.

To learn about the Reform Act 1832 and the Reform Act 1867, yes.

32 posted on 01/01/2006 10:33:01 AM PST by SedVictaCatoni (<><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

"Supposedly, all but 2 or 3 of the current world conflicts (some 100 of them) have muslims/Islamics on one side of the conflict."

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=WARS.HTM


WARS UPDATE: Number of Wars Declining


Quick & Dirty Guide to Wars In The World


"The number of wars has been declining sharply since the end of the Cold War.
There were about fifty wars going on in 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed.
Ten years later, there were half as many. Even after the 911 attacks, and the
invasion of Iraq, the number of wars continued to decline. Today, it is about
twenty. We track sixteen as active (Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Sudan,
Colombia, Kashmir, Pakistan, Ivory Coast, Congo, Somalia, Nepal, Sri Lanka,
Philippines, Chechnya, Burundi and Thailand.), plus about a dozen that are
really low level, just ended (and still liable to restart) or just dormant for
the moment.


There's been a lot less fighting, and people killed, every decade since the
1940s. A lot of this has to do with nuclear weapons. The major nations, those
that can afford nuclear weapons, and a lot of non-nuclear ones, are more
reluctant to get into a fight with each other. It's still likely that, some
day, one of the growing number of nations with nukes, will use one against a
neighbor. That will reinforce, for everyone, the need to be careful with
nuclear weapons, and wars in general.


Many of today's war are taking place in areas where no one is in charge, and
no one wants to be in charge. Africa is a favorite spot for these kind of
wars, but even here, the peacekeeping troops eventually show up."


"The War on Terror has become the War Against Islamic Radicalism. This
movement has been building for over half a century, and has been around since
the early days of Islam. Historically, it has flared up periodically in
response to corrupt governments, as a vain attempt to impose a religious
solution. The current flare up is international because of the availability of
planet wide mass media. Only two countries, Sudan and Iran have established
Islamic governments, and both are failures. Islamic radicalism itself is
incapable of mustering much military power, and the movement largely relies on
terrorism to strike a blow for the cause. Most of the victims are fellow
Moslems, which is why the radicals eventually become so unpopular with their
own people that they run out of new recruits and fade away."


33 posted on 01/01/2006 10:35:52 AM PST by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch
There was two little chance to test this claim. For example in pre-WWII Europe, the non-monarchical democracies (UK, Sweden, Norway etc are monarchies) were very few and id not share their borders. Poland was democratic until 1926 and so was Czechoslovakia. They had little war in 1919 for Zaolzie. The main democratic republic in Europe was France and her only border with another democracy was with Switzerland.

After the WWII Western Europe was uniting under Soviet threat. Swiss were quite warlike, and very likely in their long history they did not hesitate to fight a democratic country if there was some quarrel.

Italian and Greek city states fought wars even when both sides were democratic.

34 posted on 01/01/2006 10:36:29 AM PST by A. Pole (If the lettuce cutters were paid $10 more per hour, the lettuce head would cost FIVE CENTS more!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: floridaobserver
How about the American Civil War? Were those not two democracies?

It was a rebellion, not a war between countries. Besides, when Davis and his government initiated hostilities they had been appointed not elected.

35 posted on 01/01/2006 10:39:17 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden

Belgrade had McDonalds and that didn't stop Clinton (who probably knew the location of every McDonalds in the world) from launching war.


36 posted on 01/01/2006 10:41:16 AM PST by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch
Sure, but not often considering that modern day 'democracy' was a US invention and Europe and much of the World were still monarchies-empires up to WWII. Or outright dictatorships like the USSR.

WWII

And there were none in WWI. France was the only 'democracy'. Great Britain shouldn't count IMO as they are a Constitutional Monarchy to this date.

37 posted on 01/01/2006 10:43:29 AM PST by Condor51 (Leftists are moral and intellectual parasites - Standing Wolf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear

GB was a limited monarchy, or if you prefer, a parlimentary democracy.

The US will never be a true democracy until we get a valid vote count from Cook County Illinois. Thank goodness the founders had the sense to make the US a republic of limited governmental powers, and widely diffused authorities.

Perhaps some day we will have enough sense to elect politicans who will limit the government to its authorized powers. I don't have much hope left.


38 posted on 01/01/2006 10:46:56 AM PST by Donald Meaker (You don't drive a car looking through the rear view mirror, but you do practice politics that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

How about America's "Quasi-War" with France in the 1790s? Or the Mexican War, at least at its start before Santa Anna couped the government? And the "War of the Pacific" 1879-81 between Chile and Peru (with Bolivia thrown in for a while)?

I think the basic point--that Democracies are less likely to engage in war--is sound.


39 posted on 01/01/2006 10:48:56 AM PST by CivilWarguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

Is Serbia a democracy? If so then Monica's war is an example.


40 posted on 01/01/2006 10:49:24 AM PST by Nateman (Clinton happens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calljack

If the South had won the Civil war, I'd consider that somewhat analagous to the Revolutionary war.


41 posted on 01/01/2006 10:49:59 AM PST by C210N (Bush SPYED, Terrorists DIED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
When Hitler was appointed in January 1933, Germany was a democracy. Germany had fair elections; nobody had their right to vote abused; there were numerous political parties you could vote for etc. To pass a law, the Reichstag had to agree to it after a bill went through the normal processes of discussion, arguments etc. Within the Reichstag of January 1933, over 50% of those who held seats were against the Nazi Party. Therefore it would have been very unlikely for Hitler to have got passed into law what he wanted. Many saw Hitler as a fall-guy politician who would have to shoulder to blame if things got worse under his leadership. Hitler had promised a general election for March 1933. This would have been, in his mind, the perfect opportunity for him to show all politicians who opposed him where the true loyalties lay in the German people. In fact, 1932 had shown Hitler that there was a possibility that support for the Nazis had peaked as their showing in the November 1932 election had shown. Anything other than a huge endorsement of Hitler and the Nazi Party would have been a disaster and a gamble which it is possible that Hitler did not want to take. One week before the election was due to take place, the Reichstag building burned down. Hitler immediately declared that it was the signal for a communist takeover of the nation. Hitler knew that if he was to convince President Hindenburg to give him emergency powers - as stated in the Weimar Constitution - he had to play on the old president's fear of communism. What better than to convince him that the communists were about to take over the nation by force?
42 posted on 01/01/2006 10:50:13 AM PST by Vaquero ("An armed society is a polite society" Robert Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

Hitler's party, the National Socialist German Worker's Party was elected with 33 percent of the vote, but then ended elections, and banned other parties. He was never elected President after Hindenberg died, but rather illegally assumed both the Chancellor and President roles.

Is is necessary to point out that Germany was no longer a democracy after elections were abolished and competing parties were banned?


43 posted on 01/01/2006 10:50:25 AM PST by Donald Meaker (You don't drive a car looking through the rear view mirror, but you do practice politics that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Nope WWI occurred with treaty entanglements that had Democratic Governments,Parlamentary Monarchies, and Monarchies, declaring war on Monarchies.

No on WWII also. That had Dictatorships attacking Democratic Governments,and Parlamentary Monarchies and one Dictatorship claiming to be a democracy (CCCP).

44 posted on 01/01/2006 10:55:07 AM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: C210N

The South did not appeal to legality because they would have lost. They appealed to the sword, and lost.

The US existed before the current constitution according to the Articles of Confederation, in a perpetual union. Robert E. Lee admitted as much. Pity he didnt act on those convictions, rather than on his misplaced loyalty to his State.


45 posted on 01/01/2006 10:57:17 AM PST by Donald Meaker (You don't drive a car looking through the rear view mirror, but you do practice politics that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch; LS

Care to make a call?


46 posted on 01/01/2006 11:02:45 AM PST by investigateworld (Abortion stops a beating heart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY
Saddam was 'democratically elected,' for example.

Good grief!
To use that oxymoron is simply comical.

Nazi Germany is a bit more controversial as to whether is was "democratically" established or not. In this latter case, it is by no means clear.

I remember a multi-hundred post thread last year arguing the point.

In Saddam's case the claim is simply a sick joke.

47 posted on 01/01/2006 11:03:59 AM PST by Publius6961 (The IQ of California voters is about 420........... .............cumulatively)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Duh! Germany declared war on the US in 1941.

"Double DUH!"
You seem to be unaware of the status of Germany at the time, as the result of Hitler's "election", the many mysterious deaths that followed, enabling him to become the unchallenged Nazi leader. That sequence of events will be debated forever.

48 posted on 01/01/2006 11:10:05 AM PST by Publius6961 (The IQ of California voters is about 420........... .............cumulatively)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
It was a constitutional monarchy even then. Parliament existed and its members were elected even though the franchise was severely limited. Remember the revolutionary grievances were primarily directed at Parliament, e.g Lord North etc. (Burke and others who were out of Parliamentary power were sympathetic to the colonial cause!)

All in all I think the odds of democracies going to war against each other are much smaller then that of authoritarian regimes (Monarchies, dictatorships etc.) BUT not zero. !
49 posted on 01/01/2006 11:11:07 AM PST by Reily (Reilly (Dr Doom))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

No argument from me, but technically he was an elected leader, even though the election was a charade and everybody knows it.


50 posted on 01/01/2006 11:12:39 AM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-143 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson