Is it true there has never been a war between two democracies?

[bldysabba]

Link. Why does Cecil miss out the wars between India and Pakistan in 1965 and 1971? I think Pakistan was a democracy when those happened. Were they not on a large enough scale?

[etv78]

Sorry not to directly address the OP but IMO, you need to add word "rich" to "democracy" to get an accurate statement.

[bldysabba]

Originally Posted by etv78

Sorry not to directly address the OP but IMO, you need to add word "rich" to "democracy" to get an accurate statement.

Cecil also mentions the war between U.S and Britain in 1812. Both rich I think.

[Kenm]

Greece and Turkey have been at each other's throats since 1821, whether one or the other was or was not, or each at the same time, a democracy.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Originally Posted by bldysabba

Link. Why does Cecil miss out the wars between India and Pakistan in 1965 and 1971? I think Pakistan was a democracy when those happened. Were they not on a large enough scale?

Cecil DOES mention India vs Pakistan in the last paragraph...

[AK84]

And 1999. The answer is, there has never been a war between two democracies where proponents of the democratic peace theory have been willing to accept that both sides were truly democratic.

[gnoitall]

Originally Posted by AK84

And 1999. The answer is, there has never been a war between two democracies where proponents of the democratic peace theory have been willing to accept that both sides were truly democratic.

Ah, the "no true Democracy" fallacy:

"No two Democracies will ever go to war with each other."

"Oh my God, New Delhi and Islamabad just nuked each other!"

"(Harrumph) No two TRUE democracies will ever go to war with each other."

(Interestingly enough, the Wikipedia page I cited above uses the "no Democracy goes to war" argument as an example of a potential "no true Democracy" fallacy. I hadn't read that before I used my example. I wonder if I should be disturbed that I think like a Wikipedia contributor.)

[bldysabba]

Originally Posted by C K Dexter Haven

Cecil DOES mention India vs Pakistan in the last paragraph...

As possiblities for future democratic wars, not strikes against past ones.

[gnoitall]

Originally Posted by bldysabba

As possiblities for future democratic wars, not strikes against past ones.

So the crux of your question is why Cecil didn't mention Pak v. India in the 2nd paragraph?

According to my reading of Wikipedia, Pakistan wasn't any kind of democracy at the time of the 1947, 1966, and 1971 wars. That seems to have been part of an extended period of military rule interspersed with brief intervals of timid, military-dominated, and ineffective civilian democracy.

[Powers]

Originally Posted by gnoitall

(Interestingly enough, the Wikipedia page I cited above uses the "no Democracy goes to war" argument as an example of a potential "no true Democracy" fallacy. I hadn't read that before I used my example. I wonder if I should be disturbed that I think like a Wikipedia contributor.)

Just about everyone here does; I see no reason you ought to be concerned.


Powers &8^]

[bldysabba]

Originally Posted by gnoitall

So the crux of your question is why Cecil didn't mention Pak v. India in the 2nd paragraph?

According to my reading of Wikipedia, Pakistan wasn't any kind of democracy at the time of the 1947, 1966, and 1971 wars. That seems to have been part of an extended period of military rule interspersed with brief intervals of timid, military-dominated, and ineffective civilian democracy.

Huh. I knew that elections in Pakistan were what precipitated the 1971 war. I assumed elections meant they were democratic at the time. Clearly a mistake. I withdraw my question/comment.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

This 'there's never been a war between two democracies' line is a myth oft-trotted-out by Bibi Netanyahu, and ignores many of the 'proxy wars' fought during so that the Cold War didn't go hot.

[Mr. Excellent]

Originally Posted by AK84

And 1999. The answer is, there has never been a war between two democracies where proponents of the democratic peace theory have been willing to accept that both sides were truly democratic.

Or truly populated by scotsmen.

[John W. Kennedy]

Originally Posted by Full Tilt Boogie

This 'there's never been a war between two democracies' line is a myth oft-trotted-out by Bibi Netanyahu, and ignores many of the 'proxy wars' fought during so that the Cold War didn't go hot.

Please tell me that you’re not assuming that the USSR or Mao’s China were democracies.

[eburacum45]

Here's a page with a list of 'wars' between 'democracies', complete with a rebuttal for each one showing why it wasn't a war between two 'true democracies', and often a counter rebuttal to show that it was.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm

I note that Jeremy Clarkson's example of Finland and the UK is in there, which was wrong on two counts; first the UK was not the only democracy to declare war on Finland, as a number of other allies also declared war on that country at that time; however the UK actually did bomb Finland and sink their ships. But Finland didn't really want to fight the UK or the US; they only wanted to fight the Soviets, who were their undemocratic neighbours; it was just unfortunate that they allied themselves with Nazi Germany in order to do this.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by John W. Kennedy

Please tell me that you’re not assuming that the USSR or Mao’s China were democracies.

It's a little ambiguous, but I assume he's referring to the US sponsored coups in Chile, Greece, Argentina and so on.

[street-pirate]

Call me a cynic, but I think that the democratic peace theory proves that rich countries know how to pick their fights, not that democracies are always peaceful.

[Bradvsfw]

Originally Posted by bldysabba

Cecil also mentions the war between U.S and Britain in 1812. Both rich I think.

Britain was still under governance of their monarchy at that time.

[qazwart]

Originally Posted by Bradvsfw

Britain was still under governance of their monarchy at that time.

Britain is still officially under the governance of their monarchy. The government is always referred to as Her Majesty's Government.

However, by 1812, the British Parlement was supreme and actually ran things. Yes, it wasn't a very democratic parlement. The Lords had (in theory) equal power to the Commons, there was the problem with voter representation (rotton boroughs), and the suffrage was pretty limited. But, compared to most countries, Britain was the paramount of liberal democracy.

The big problem with the "Never been a ware between two Democracies" business is that until recently there just hadn't been too many places which could come close to be considered democratic.

By the way, would the U.S. civil war count? Both sides had active national legislatures, and both side had elected executives. There was a lot of contention between the various branches of government all throughout the war.

[Wizard One]

To ask that question is akin to asking if two communist nations warred against each other, two socialist nations, ad absurdium.
The question is a mental trap, as the cause of war isn't some simple issue, nor is it so complex as to be unknowable.
Wars are fought, at least today (as opposed to ancient times, when mentally ill leaders or selfish leaders would declare war at a whim), on a cost/benefit analysis to accomplish a solid goal. Wars are typically fought to enforce the wish of the aggressor government over the wishes of the defending government. When the cost to EITHER party is sufficiently high as to cause sufficient impact to the nation and society as to negate any gains, the war ends, IF it ever really starts.

Meanwhile, I ponder the nascent US, invading Canada during the revolutionary war. I also consider the repeated invasions of Mexico by the US...
When the benefit is considered (whether that is a valid consideration or not) significantly higher than the cost of war, war will typically occur.

[John W. Kennedy]

Well, it’s no good talking about Canada during the American Revolution; Canada had no separate national identity at the time. Indeed, to the American’s way of thinking, the French who then constituted most of Canada would happily join in against the hated British, who had only conquered them 13 years earlier. They did not allow for how the British had carefully wooed the French (in 1776, a Canadian Roman Catholic had full civil rights, which English Catholics didn’t get until 1829), or for how the Canadians did not trust the more radically Protestant Americans.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Wizard One

To ask that question is akin to asking if two communist nations warred against each other, two socialist nations, ad absurdium.

Vietnam (backed by the Soviet Union) battled Cambodia (backed by China) during the 1970s.

Not sure about your main point though. Economists tend to be pretty skeptical about cost/benefit analysis as applied to war given the devastation they cause. Admittedly, your argument wasn't strictly pecuniary.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Originally Posted by John W. Kennedy

Please tell me that you’re not assuming that the USSR or Mao’s China were democracies.

Am I to take from that you don't know what or where the proxy wars were?

[China Guy]

But I think Friedman's corollary that no two countries with a McDonalds have gone to war.

[John W. Kennedy]

Originally Posted by Full Tilt Boogie

Am I to take from that you don't know what or where the proxy wars were?

Let’s say I don’t see how any of them could be plausibly conceived of as counting as “wars between democracies”. An example naming all the countries involved in a particular case and which of those countries are the two “democracies” the war in question is to be taken as being “between” might make it clearer.

[coccinella rossa]

There are at least 2 examples of democracies engaging in war: the first is better known - Finland and the United Kingdom during WWII, the second is a little more obscure - the Cod Wars between the UK and Iceland (no really - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars).