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?
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.
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.
Cecil DOES mention India vs Pakistan in the last paragraph…
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.)
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.
Just about everyone here does; I see no reason you ought to be concerned.
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.
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.
Or truly populated by scotsmen.
Please tell me that you’re not assuming that the USSR or Mao’s China were democracies.
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.
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.
It’s a little ambiguous, but I assume he’s referring to the US sponsored coups in Chile, Greece, Argentina and so on.
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.
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.
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.