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

[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?

[Zack Nguyen]

Just kidding. I guess.

Regarding democracies you may be right - there haven't been that many for very long, so who knows. I would say though that democracies make it less likely that one will go to war against another, due to the open process of policymaking.

[festus]

Well . . . We declared war on Great Britain in 1812.

LOL.... There's history fouling up a perfectly good point of view again.

[festus]

Let's invade France.

Lets give the muslims a chance to purge it first.

[hubbubhubbub]

True. didn't pancho villa cross the border into NM and attack some border town. Then Woodrow Wilson send Blackjack down there on the hunt.

[TaxRelief]

Yes. It was called the War of Northern Agression.

[Rockingham]

Yup, the most prominent example being how the weak and feckless Weimar Republic fell to the Nazis.

[Malesherbes]

Hitler was democratically elected and in 1939 he attacked the democratically elected government of Poland.

[chudogg]

I was referring to the Mexican American War where Mexico crossed the Rio Grande and attacked Fort Brown beginning the hostilities.

I dont think Gen Pershing's hunt for Pancho Villa was any action against the Mexican Government.

[chudogg]

The American Civil War doesn't count as an exception, because the Northern states conclusively demonstrated that they were not willing to be voted out of their dominant role in the Union of states. Had they been willing to be voted out, the South would gladly have seceded and gone their merry way, as they thought was their right to do all along.

That's really odd logic. The South seceded because the people's fear of slavery spreading prompted the mass election of Republicans and Abraham Lincoln who ran on Anti-Slavery platforms, and the loss of slave states controlling the Senate. I think that was the demonstation of being voted out of a dominant role

I would agree that is doesn't count as an exception, but because the Southern States democratically agreed to secede and attack federal properties before legal agreements could be reached.

[Billthedrill]

You probably figured out that it's a bit of a definitional game when you use the phrase "democracy," but if you're really going to get picky, yes - Athens vs. Megara, 431 BC. What do I win?

OKOKOK, the point is that such conflicts, while not inconceivable, are exceedingly rare...

[ThePythonicCow]

That's really odd logic.

<grin>

Yup - likely so. My mind works in odd ways. I've ceased to worry much about it. Feel free to discard whatever doesn't make sense.

[GodBlessRonaldReagan]

no two nations with McDonalds restaurants have ever gone to war with each other

No blood for Big Macs!

[CivilWarguy]

The Confederacy in fact had regularly conducted elections throughout the Civil War. Davis was elected president in Feb. 1861 by the 1st Confederate Congress, and in Nov. 1861 he was elected by the voters, unopposed, in a Confederacy-wide election. Congressional elections were held in the various southern states in every year from 1861-65, and they were all as "democratic" as any election that had gone on before, and as "democratic" as those going on in the north at this time.

Bottom line--the Confederacy was a democracy. And the Civil War was a war between 2 democracies.

[InvisibleChurch]

I'm glad I didn't ask about Olympic game winners or we'd be arguing how fast Testicles ran the 100 yard dash being timed by a sun dial.

[Donald Meaker]

It is not debatable. The south fired on Ft. Sumpter. The south took over federal property, by force.

Just Facts.

[Donald Meaker]

That is true. The amazing thing is the kind of debates the AustrioHungarian parliment used to have. Mark Twain could do so well!

[A. Pole]

It is not debatable. The south fired on Ft. Sumpter. The south took over federal property, by force. Just Facts.

OK, so North had a justification.

You gave me the idea. Possibly the key reason between democracies/republics or monarchies/dictatorships is that in the first you need justification for the war while can start wars at his leisure.

So the democracies will either go to war after being attacked but if they lack this reason, they can still fabricate or provoke some incident. If this is true, then the every or almost every offensive war waged by the democratic state is started that way.

On the other hand the power of the leader to start war arbitrarily would be the indication that the country is evolving toward the monarchy.

[gitmo]

The US declared war on the Confederacy.

[Donald Meaker]

Hitler fabricated a polish attack on a radio station.

FDR had justification to fight the Japanese, after Pearl Harbor.

Republics have diffused power. That means, to start a war, a fairly large number of people must agree that war is the best alternative. Rather like having a jury with 200 folks in it. There will always be some people who don't want to go to war. One Senator voted against both the declaration of war for both WWI and WWII. But most people, in both cases, were convinced.

[freedumb2003]

Wow -- 7 months.

Quite a post delay. Browser problems? ;)

[GatorGirl]

Hitler was democratically elected, so the answer is "yes".

[nasor]

Oh come on, people. You don't have to resort to quibbling over the U.S. civil war to come up with examples of democracies declaring war on other democracies.

England declared war on Finland in 1939 and Syria declared war on Israel in 1973 - all of which were democracies with elected leaders at the time.

That's just two off the top of my head, there are probably others that aren't occurring to me.

[ConservativeMan55]

Pakistan and India!

Both have Mcdonalds!

[Revenge of Sith]

The Britain of 1812 had extremely limited voting rights.

"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."

I don't call Oliver Cromwell's regime a democracy.

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

I would use Argentina fighting Britain over the Falklands in the mid-80's as the ONLY two (legitimately democratic) governments going to war since the War of 1812.

And at that, I'm not altogether sure that the two actually 'declared war" .... More like, the Brit's simply "responded in kind" to the Argentines actual (undeclared) invasion, and neither actually got around to the actual paperwork of "declaring war".

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

OK, so the South fired on Sumter.

Did the South actually "declare war"?

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

I'm glad I didn't ask about Olympic game winners or we'd be arguing how fast Testicles ran the 100 yard dash being timed by a sun dial.

You didn't miss much.

The whole Testicles race was a big flop. (He came in the second position, jest behind the other guys who came behind.)

[hosepipe]

Democracy is MOB RULE... therefore the idea is pure bull squeeze... Mob Rule is mostly tribal.. or "gangal" even sophisicated western countrys have "tribes" each neighborhood have a dominate gang.. and a few others.. Nazi's were just a gang.. as is Sharia Law..

Democracy is very primitive.. far beneath the Republic America was designed as.. Canada and URP has not noticed this fact to this day.. They have no idea they are primitive society's.. tribal in essence and Mob Rule in design.. Pity....

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

Funny thing is, if Hitler did NOT declare war on th US, Churchill and FDR would have had a real hard time trying to figure out a way to actually get the US into a fighting war against Germany.

My guess?

FDR would have "aided Britain in their fight against Japan" .... by reinforcing London and Portsmouth and Gibraltar and Alexandria and Hafia and Malta and Iceland "against Japanese aggression" with American troops, ships, and arms.

[VRWCmember]

That reminds me of a scene from Cheers, when Cliffy says to the British guest (played by John Cleese): "Next time you need help against a major military power like Argentina let us know and we'll bail your butts out of the fire just like we did in the two big ones."

[Alter Kaker]

Any entity in which half the population are disenfranchised slaves cannot be a democracy. Strike the American Civil War from your list.

[Alter Kaker]

Argentina was ruled by General Galtieri's junta in 1982. It only became a democracy subsequent to the Malvinas/Falklands war.

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

Thank you!

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

"Next time you need help against a major military power like Argentina let us know and we'll bail your butts out of the fire just like we did in the two big ones."

ya know, the Brit's would have lost 1/3 their fleet to (exploding) Argentine bombs ..... if we had merely told the Argentine Air Force how to fuze the US-porvided bombs for low-level operations.

We er "forgot" to tell them how to do that, (actually, we simply "forgot" to tell the Argentines what the problem was with all their dud bombs when we found they were dropping them from only 50-100 feet altitude) and by doing that, saved the Brit fleet from annihilation.

[patton]

That was a tough spot for the US - greatest ally, UK, violates the monroe doctrine...

[Tijeras_Slim]

That is a good point, thank you.

[RightWhale]

Does your inquiry concern itself with all history?

[InvisibleChurch]

Yes.

[Castlebar]

England declared war on Finland in 1939

Uh.....no......the USSR declared war on Finland in 1939.

[nasor]

I might have gotten the year wrong - but England did declare war on Finland around the beginning of WWII.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I would question your classifying Argentina as a democracy. IIRC a junta of generals were running things at that time.

[InvisibleChurch]

hi