True up to a point, but read Iron Tears by Stanley Weintraub. King George III’s fingerprints were all over British military and diplomatic policy during the American Revolution; Lord North saw his role as doing little more than carry out the king’s wishes. The king also bankrolled the campaigns of MPs he liked so that he’d have a friendlier Parliament. After Yorktown, he even considered abdicating, so closely was he associated with the loss of the colonies.
Yeah, but good luck putting that on a bumper sticker.
Well, Peru and Ecuador fought (short) wars in 41 and 81 while they were democracies. Ditto Peru and Chile in 1879
Keep in mind that the Soviets were an ally of Germany during the Winter War. Not that that makes the whole “no war between democracies” thing more or less valid.
Wasn’t the Falklands War between the UK and Argentina a war or are we only counting official declarations?
I’m no expert in Argentine government, but the words “During the period 1976-1983, Argentina was under the control of a military dictatorship” tend to mean the issue of declared war is moot.
Yes, but were they a democratically elected military dictatorship? :smack:
I’d forgotten all about Galtieri.
The universal struggle for human rights and equality has progressed at least this far: pretty much everyone pretends to be a democracy.
Just to pick nits, mainly because I have a migraine starting and reading the board helps me forget pain.
did I not just read this correctly? Hitler and Mussolini WERE elected in a proper democratic election?
The cute bit that they changed the government after that is moot, they were properly elected by a democracy. Therefore technically they were elected to a democratic government. In the theoretic sense, any one of our politicals could try to change the government to some form of dictatorship, not that I think the sluggish nonresponsive government we have could be changed in any significant way.
Say what - Hitler was “elected”?
He took office, he was promoted, he was appointed, but ‘elected’? Nah, not to my knowledge.
Hitler was appointed Chancellor after his party won the largest number of seats in the Reichstag in a reasonably democratic election. He secured dictatorial powers only after another election marred by extreme violence and intimidation, the illegal suppression of the Communists, and the assumption of emergency powers by the Reich President.
Mussolini was appointed premier after a fairly dismal electoral showing, partly by threatening an undemocratic “march on Rome”, but partly because he was less objectionable to the other parties in Parliament. Opposition parties continued to function for about two years thereafter, after which Mussolini assumed dictatorial power.
So what? The claim was that the United States had never fought a war against a democracy, meaning against a nation that was a democracy at the time of the war. The fact that a dictator once won an election, many years previous, doesn’t make his country a democracy for the duration of his dictatorship.
I think most people think of a democracy as a government which is subject to being being replaced by democratic election, not necessarily merely as one that was brought in by democratic election.
I don’t think that Hitler could have been said to have been fairly elected to lead Germany in any meaningful sense of the word.
While it’s true that the Nazis had the largest vote in the 1932 reichstag elections, they barely had a third of the total votes and had to form a coalition government. So it’s hardly true that the majority of the country supported Hitler. After they got in power they systematically eliminated all other parties but themselves: it does not matter if that was legal or not: the post-election consolidation is fundamentally anti democratic.
People in a parliamentry style democracy have become PM or whatever the equivivalent position is, despite having made a poorer showing than hitler did in 1932. The Israeli Kenesset elections for instance.
And in many countries it is the largest party in parliament which is invited to attempt to form a government. Hitler was many things, improperly elected was not one of them.
And by that rationale, I hear that the Hundred Years War was in fact a very long series of coincidental, individual stabbings.
ETA : but surgical ones. Or at least, no less so than the average medieval barber/surgeon ;).
I stand by my words. It’s like the modern day US presidents that win with 50% (or less!) of the vote and claim they have a “mandate”. The Nazis were not elected to rule Germany, they achieved the consolidation of power through undemocratic means (ignoring of course the terrorism and violence they showed pre-election.) In a coalition government, being the largest party in a coalition which can be thrown out via political dealings on almost a whim does not represent true power.
That’s not just my analysis, that was also the feelings of those who brokered the coalition deal.
What about the Indian nations, (Native American), IIRC we did declare war on some of them, and (again IIRC) some did have a democratic structure.
The Democratic Peace Theory is a rule of thumb, not some kind of law of physics or something. A world with only democracies would have very few wars, but sometimes there are vital national interests at stake in which both sides are right. The War of 1812 was a good example. Plus there is the standard miscommunication and blundering, of which the War of 1812 is also a good example.
Civil Wars are an exception to the Democratic Peace Theory. Again, if you have a point that neither side can compromise on, sometimes war is the only way to definitively settle the issue.
Dictators, on the other hand, decide all on their own to just go to war for their personal aggrandizement, or for some twisted kind of national pride. Democracies often start wars with dictators, often through misunderstandings or because they don’t trust the dictator. Dictatorial regimes aren’t exactly known for their transparency, diplomatic skill, or trustworthiness, and they often make extremely stupid decisions that lead to war. Some of them have even been dumb enough to declare war on a stronger country, thinking that somehow a declaration of war won’t bring war(think Qaddafi and Noriega declaring war on the United States).
And although Hitler may have been elected, by the time he committed his first act of aggression he had long since lost democratic legitimacy. Being elected doesn’t make you a democrat. You are only a democrat if once elected, you can be unelected in a free and fair subsequent election. “One man, one vote, one time” is not democracy.
The United States did not recognize the CSA as a nation- and in fact almost no other nation did ether. It was a civil war, not a war between two nations.