Question for history buffs.

[Irving]

I just heard someone remark that never in history, have two leaders of democracies gone to war against each other. Can anyone think of a war started between two democracies in the history of the world? If this is true, it is an interesting observation.

[ldmaster]

In order for a war to occur, there must be SOME form of "us vs them"

Two communist countries dont go to war, they just get "assimilated"

Two socialist countries just form a "popular front"

Democracies are not much different from soc/com - in that there is a group of elites who KNOW what is best for the majority, thus they lead them by force, by "education" or by deception to do things "for their own good".

by FAR the greatest forces that create the conditions for war are economic...

Japan and Germany were getting strangled economically, Germany from war reparations and the global depression, japan from a HUGE overpopulation problem and shortage of nearly all critical natural resources needed to keep them fed/housed and happy.

Being a democrat or republican or communist or whateverist only means you think you have the answer to someone else's problem - and the method you use to impose your answer on someone only varies in the degree of oppression necessary to enforce your will.

It should be noted that Hitler came to power "democratically".

[KevDen2005]

America is a Federal Constitutional Republic....

But, with Democratic tendencies. I could not see how a true democracy would survive

[colocowboy01]

I can not think of any wars that have been fought between two democracies. There tends to be a monarchy, oligarchy, or dictatorship involved in the starting of most wars.

[colocowboy01]

America is NOT a democracy. America is a Federal Constitutional Republic...or at least that's what we are supposed to be. Liberals may say something else...like that brilliant CIC.

I agree that America is not a democracy in the Constitution and in the hearts and minds of us that hold to the fact that we were promised a republic form of government by the Constitution. But, the trouble is that the American people are bombarded continually with the notion that America is a democracy by the mainstream major media, most education sources, and the government itself. All of our presidents over the last thirty years from Ronald Reagan to B. Hussein Obama have referred to and have called America a democracy. If the presidents can't get our system of government right the people will not either.[Bang]

[gcrookston]

In just the 20th century....

USA vs Mexico 1914 -- both democratic republics
USA vs Haiti 1915-1934 -- both democratic republics
USA vs Dominican Republic 1916-1924 ...
Democratic Republic of Georgia vs Democratic Republic of Armenia 1918
Armenian Democratic Republic vs Azerbaijani Democratic Republic 1918-1920
Ecuador vs Peru 1941 - Present (most recent big flair up 1995)
India vs Pakistan 1947 - 1948, 1965, 1984-87, 1999
El Salvador vs Honduras 1969
Rwanda vs France 1990-93

[Irving]

Thank you sir.

[gcrookston]

Thank you sir.

You're welcome.


Of course, you can argue USA VS CSA 1861-85 should be a headliner for modern conflicts in this category.

It takes some analysis of the 19th century conflicts to determine what was a rebellion, a revolution, an insurrection; were the participants monarchies, empires or oligarchies?

Some American Indian tribes ruled by consensus, or followed a leader or group of leaders by popular (and sometimes regular), vote. So were the Seminole wars of the first half of the 19th century an insurrection or a war? How about the Creek, Sioux, Arapahoe, Apache, Cayuse and a number of other Indian campaigns (there were over a dozen in California 1850-65 alone, wiping out entire distinct cultures and tribes)? Or the Republic of Texas vs the Commanche? Then you have the Utah war 1857-58 with the US vs a Theocracy.

Fortunately the large recognized western cultures were ruled by monarchies and emperors, so you can rule them out. But what about Britain? Since the reform of 1832, its been run by elected officials holding great power through the house of commons... Should all the wars they dinked in with other elected governments be included? One could make an argument either way....

[Great-Kazoo]

i don't know history has always been written by the winner. Unless you count left leaning revisionist history. In that case we have always been the aggressor. :(

[KevDen2005]

In just the 20th century....

USA vs Mexico 1914 -- both democratic republics
USA vs Haiti 1915-1934 -- both democratic republics
USA vs Dominican Republic 1916-1924 ...
Democratic Republic of Georgia vs Democratic Republic of Armenia 1918
Armenian Democratic Republic vs Azerbaijani Democratic Republic 1918-1920
Ecuador vs Peru 1941 - Present (most recent big flair up 1995)
India vs Pakistan 1947 - 1948, 1965, 1984-87, 1999
El Salvador vs Honduras 1969
Rwanda vs France 1990-93


Awesome, thanks for the post, very interesting

[Pancho Villa]

I think in the early years of the Roman Republic, when it was dominating Italy, at least some of Rome's conquests must have been either democracies or republics of some kind.

I know Athens attempted to invade a democratic state during the Pelopennesian War (it was their downfall.)

Also Germany was a representative republic that simply voted all the power of the legislature to the office of Leader, pre-WWII.

Its less common than either democracy/republic vs statism of some kind, but thats because historically democracies and republics have been by far the exception, not the norm.

Free countries have never waged war on each other. Capitalism (in the form of the industrial revolution) ushered in an era of peace pretty much unrivaled on the world stage for its duration and prosperity. When people are making money and their interests are in trade and production, war sounds like a pretty stupid idea. You have both moral opposition to it (we don't want to die for our country's prestiege or collective gain; we want to stay home, be productive and make personal gain,) and practical opposition (wars are risky to you personally, if you fight in it, and costly unless you are in a minority of businesses that deal with war goods; however, those businesses will always be vastly outnumbered by the businesses who will suffer net losses in paying for a war.)

With the rise of statist ideals, though, you get the rise of war. When things like national prestiege and conquest become cultural values, and when statist intervention in the economy make it harder and harder to make a living, you have both the moral argument for war (sacrifice for the glory of the motherland/fatherland/emperor/etc) and the practical hope of loot offering a rise in your standard of living, which is the only hope of such that you have in a statist economy.

Statist countries tend towards not being a Republic or Democracy, but either is possible and we've seen it before.

Democracy isn't what guarantees peace - freedom is what guarantees peace. That mistake is 1/3 of the reason we're doing so poorly in the mideast.