Talk:Never at War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following conversation is transplanted from Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 4, because it largely applies to this article.

Contents

[edit] Possible exceptions to no wars between liberal democracies

I have made a list of possible wars between liberal democracies and included arguments from the literature. I would like serious feedback and more referenced arguments regarding this before going further.

  • Thanks to Ultramarine for caution and courtesy. Septentrionalis 19:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This text, however, is an appeal to Rummel's narrow and idiosyncratic definitions of war abd democracy; and as such is absolutely unacceptable as it stands. Septentrionalis 19:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • A substantially identical text has been made into an article at Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples). Since that is a recreation, apparently word for word, of a deleted article, I have put it up for deletion. Septentrionalis 19:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • These texts are certainly not substantially identical. Hopefully you are acting in good faith and will continue your previous factual discussion of the text here.Ultramarine 19:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions

War and liberal democracy can be defined in different ways. Research often define war as any military action with more than 1000 killed in battle. This is the definition used in the Correlates of War Project which has also supplied the data regarding the wars for many of the studies.

Repetitious. Also ignores the obvious point that 1000 deaths was chosen, not for any inherent advantage, but because it was the limit of a pre-existing database. Septentrionalis 19:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the definition used in most conflict studies. Also the studies using MIDs use it since they exclude wars.Ultramarine 06:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The early researcher R.J. Rummel states that "By democracy is meant liberal democracy, where those who hold power are elected in competitive elections with a secret ballot and wide franchise (loosely understood as including at least 2/3rds of adult males); where there is freedom of speech, religion, and organization; and a constitutional framework of law to which the government is subordinate and that guarantees equal rights."[1] Furthermore, it should be well-established. Well established means that a regime had been democratic long enough for it to be stable and democratic practices to become established. In practice, this means that the democracy should be older than three to five years.

Rummellite POV. Septentrionalis 19:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The book Never at War by Spencer R. Weart uses somewhat similar definitions. This book also proposes a related peace between oligarchies.

The book Grasping the Democratic Peace by Bruce Russet also uses somewhat similar definitions for modern wars but has different definitions for Ancient Greece.

The researcher James Lee Ray requires that at least 50% of the adult population is allowed to vote and that there has been at least one peaceful, constitutional transfer of executive power from one independent political party to another by means of an election.

Spurrious --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 04:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please explain. Ultramarine 12:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that the following discusses specific conflicts that may be exceptions to the claim of no wars between liberal democracies. It does not discuss other claims like that there are few Militarized Interstate Disputes between liberal democracies.

Whole section unnecessary. Rummel and Ray and Weart is undue representqation of a single faction. Septentrionalis 19:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient

  • Wars involving the Athenian democracy. Most notable is the Sicilian Expedition.
    • Russet finds no wars between liberal democracies in modern times but uses different definitions for democracy and war for Ancient Greece and finds several wars between Athens and other democracies. Still, he argues that some of these may have been caused by misperception caused by the poor communications. He also finds much textual evidence that democracies and oligarchies were reluctant to attack and frequently allied with states that had the same political arrangement.
    • The city states in Ancient Greece had large numbers of non-voting slaves and Metics. At most half of the adult males in Athens could vote. Many of the government leaders in Athens were selected by allotment and thus did not have to worry about being elected or re-elected. Ray therefore argue that these states had little resemblance to modern liberal democracies and did not fulfill the criteria above.

Metic should not be capitalized; not a proper name. Any source which does so is worthless. The claim that direct democracy is not answerable to the people is novel. Applied to Athens, it also ignores the fact that foreign policy was entrusted to the ten generals, who were elected. Septentrionalis 19:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My mistake regarding metics. Athens certainly did not fulfill the criteria for liberal democracy when looking at the percentage who had the vote. Note that many sources give lower percentage for voting males, often around 30-40%.Ultramarine 05:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
In fact, Athens should probably be treated as a special case. All Athenians could vote, whatever their status or wealth, and all Athenians were free. Like some modern democracies, Athens imported large numbers of foreigners, of all social conditions. While at Athens, the sweatshops used legal slaves, rather than illegal ones, I fail to see why this should affect Athens' foreign policy. Septentrionalis 18:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Weart in his book Never at War instead argues that Athens was a borderline democracy but that the opponents were oligarchies or were young democracies less than 3 years old. [1]

Weart's superficial knowledge and conjecture-ridden accounts of ancient history are all ready more porminent than such stuff needs to be. Its value is not just my judgment, but that of his reviewers; see notes to present text.Septentrionalis 19:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if his critics are right, then this only shows more wars between oligarchies in antiquity, not between democracies in modern times. Also the critics do not know or choose to not mention that Weart regarding the Sicilian Expedition only restates the position of the prominent scholar G.E.M. de Ste. Croix. Ultramarine 05:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Ste. Croix'x position is non-consensus; also doctrinaire.Septentrionalis 06:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
In addition, they do not mention that Thucydides neutrality is very much disputed. Scholars have argued that personal distaste for democracy influenced his descriptions, including that of the Sicilian Expedition.Ultramarine 12:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thucydides thought the democrats at Athens had mismanaged the war, and he may have been right. What this has to do with his evidence on Syracuse, I fail to see. (If he were confirming his prejudices, in Weart's manner, surely he would have shown the victorious Syracusans are oligarchs?)
    • If you throw out Thucydides, you must also throw out the Timaeus tradition, which agrees with him on this. At that point, you will have no history of Greek Sicily at all, and are free to believe Weart's unevidenced conjectures, or engage in any other solipist fantasy. This is perfectly suitable for a blog, but it will not do for Wikipedia. Septentrionalis 18:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Punic Wars Both states did not fulfill the criteria for liberal democracies. Had large numbers of non-voting slaves and free non-citizens. Roman citizens were legally divided into plebs and patricians. See the discussion in Never at War regarding whether there is enough information about Carthage to determine the exact form of government there at the start of each of these wars.

Weart's dismissal of all the wars of Rome is so hasty that he did not index it. Reference please. Septentrionalis 19:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference for Weart please. Are these his claims about the plebeians or Ultramarine's original research? They are in any case vastly exaggerated; almost all of the legal distinctions between patricians and plebeians were abolished in the 4th century BC, and the only important remaining one was in favor of the plebs, who alone could stand for the tribunate. Septentrionalis 06:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Here are some references for Rome: [2][3]. Or look in Britannica at "Slavery".Ultramarine 05:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Another, voting power was based on wealth.[4] Here is another.[5] See the section INTERNAL HISTORY.--THE GRACCHI. " In practice, however, the constitution became an oligarchy." Not to mention that the large slave population, the Roman allies in Italy, foreigners, and former slaves were excluded from the franchise.Ultramarine 10:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Slavery is not incompatible with democracy. Consider 18th century New Jersey, which had female (and black) suffrage; and slavery.
  • Nevertheless, Weart is adopting a long-standing consensus in claiming Rome as an oligarchy, supporting other oligarchies.
    • Will Cuppy puts it, only slightly exaggerating his textbooks, "Carthage was ruled by its rich men, and was therefore a plutocracy; Rome was also ruled by its rich men, and was therefore a republic." ;->
  • In fact, that is the relevance of the Punic Wars to DPT: Weart is drastically wrong, and ignoring most of the ancient evidence, when he claims that the War of Chioggia was the only one fought between oligarchies. Ultramarine's paragraph is another instance of necrohippoflagellation.Septentrionalis 20:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern

  • The frequent raids on and eventual destruction of most of the Hurons by the Iroquois. Both had some democratic elements. Were not liberal democratic states but rather tribes formed by the extended kinship group. Importantly, there were no effective control of personal raids against non-kinship groups which eventually escalated by involving relatives and friends to vendettas and wars.[2]

They were not states. However, they were subject both to the cultural and institutional causes suggested for the democratic peace. They conducted their affairs by discussion, like Weart's republics. The chiefs could be deposed or deserted in case of failure. Septentrionalis 20:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Weart explicitly states that allowing personal raids againt non-kin groupts is the key difference between states and anocracies.Ultramarine
This reply has no connection to the objection above.Septentrionalis 06:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be far more useful to carve out a category for wars of secession within a liberal state, including the American Revolution, the American Civil War, the Anglo-Irish War of 1921, the present troubles in Sri-Lanka, and the next intifadeh. I have not yet seen this in the literature, but I'm sure it exists. Septentrionalis 20:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Better to follow chronological order. Uprisings without any hint of democratic procedure can be ignored even without the time limit.Ultramarine 06:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
None of the above are without any hint of democratic proceedure.````
  • Quasi-War. Far less than 1000 battle deaths. The franchise in the French Directory was restricted to a minority of wealthy Frenchmen. In 1797 there was a coup d'etat which used troops against the opposition, closed down opposing newspapers, cancelled election results, and condemned hundreds of opponents to exile or death. [4]

And yet Rummel counts late eighteenth-century France as a democracy.

In one publication he states that Republican France was a liberal demoracy at some point before 1800. Probably refers to the National Convention before the terror. Irrelevant to this conflict.Ultramarine 05:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
*Presumably using Doyle's list, as he uses Doyle's list for 1800-1850 in the same connexion. Doyle's list includes "The French Republic 1790-5", which includes the Terror. Septentrionalis 18:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • War of 1812. Only a few percent had the right to vote in the United Kingdom, many new urban areas had no representation, the ballot was not secret, many seats in Parliament were appointed or openly bought from the owners of rotten boroughs, and the House of Lords could veto all laws. The monarchy retained important powers. [5]
    • politicians entrenched by corruption, as the present text says.
    • Nevertheless, this is a jaundiced description even of the unreformed House of Commons.
    • The War of 1812 may be a marginal case for DPTs in general, but it is a decisive test of Weart's hypothesis. He might have written the plan with which the Americans decided on war.
      • The Canadian democrats are oppressed from London, and by their local oligarchs. We will rescue them.
      • We can defeat the British regulats in Canada.
      • Since the Great Lakes are landlocked, we can defeat the British there; the Royal Navy can't reinforce them.
      • The British can raid, but cannot conquer, the American coastline.
    • This in fact turned out to be largely true, although much harder than expected, and with exceptions.
      • Maine was conquered and held.
      • Isaac Brock was not driven from Niagara.
    • However, at that point, the American expectation )and Weart's theory) fail: The Canadians did not rise up to join the invading democrats; they didn;t even feed them. Without that, the logistics were impossible; Harrison's army, victorious in Canada, could not march as planned to take Niagara from the rear. Septentrionalis 21:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Trail of Tears. The Cherokees had created a republican constitution in 1827 that in theory had many democratic rights. However, the nation allowed slaveholding and become increasingly authoritarian, in the end beating, censoring and even murdering those advocating a voluntary removal. The state of Georgia decreed that the government was dissolved in 1828 which was before three years had passed since the creation of the constitution. No battle deaths. [6]

Not a "war". --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 04:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes mentioned as an exception. Thus it should be discussed.Ultramarine 05:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Mexican-American War. Mexican President Mariano Paredes was a general that took power in a coup d'etat. [7]
    • Ambitious military, I suppose, although there is no sign that Mexico wanted war.
    • My source here remains The course of Mexican history by Michael C. Meyer, and William L. Sherman. The entire course of negiotiation, including the American ultimatum, took place in the fall of 1845, under the elected president Valentin Gomez Fariás. During the actual fighting Snata Anna was (again) President, and he was appointed and deposed by the Mexican Congress. Septentrionalis 04:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sonderbund War. Far less than 1000 battle deaths. The Catholic Cantons restricted the suffrage to Catholic men and in many also to a group that descended from the original inhabitants. [8]
    • I am shocked by Weart's dishonesty here. There were no Protestants in most Catholic cantons; any more than there were Catholics in Geneva. At least Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden (all of which were in the Sonderbund) had effective universal male direct democracy. Septentrionalis 04:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The war between the French Second Republic and the Roman Republic (19th century). Both young democracies less than 3 years old. The Pope had promised to excommunicate those that took part in the elections, leaving only inexperienced radicals in the Roman government during the few months it existed. The French President and later Emperor Louis Napoleon needed support from the conservative Catholics and the military. The young French assembly was led to believe that the French expedition was a simple police action in order to restore order in a chaotic regime and to protect Rome from foreign monarchies that planned an intervention. The news that Rome had instead been attacked caused violent uprisings in France. The critics called the military repression of these the "the Roman expedition into the interior". [9]
    • Ultramarine, please read an actual history of nineteenth century Italy, or even the Wikipedia article linked to. The Roman Republic of 1849 was both better and worse than this.
    • But its inexperienced radicals don't matter. For one thing, in Italy in 1849, only a handful of (mostly incompetent) kings and ministers had any experience. Nor does the rest of this. The only points that matter are:
      • France was a new democracy in 1849, and the war was conducted to please a strong domestic constituency, which is one of the noted exceptions.
      • By battlefield casualties (and the storming of Rome was really no battle) it was not a full-scale war. Septentrionalis 04:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


**This entire line of argument is PoV insofar as it appeals to the factional two-thirds standard. Insofar as it does not, it reveals a vast ignorance of antebellum American politics: ***Abolitionists were censored and persecuted in Alton, Illinois and in Boston in (one-party) Massachusetts, just as in the Carolinas. .

      • Most state politics, North and South, consisted of quarrels between factions who might very well carry the same banner in national politics, but exercised all the forms of governmental rivalry between themselves. In 1820, everybody waved the same national banner; there was no other. In New York, there were the Hunkers and Barnburners and Locofocos; all Democrats nationally, but competing parties in NYC and Albany. So in the South; Stephens also tells how the Georgia Convention, in which he opposed secession, was chosen to include Douglas men, Bell men, and Breckenridge men - so that it would represent the State as a whole. Septentrionalis 01:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
        • A nation where more than one third of the population are slaves that can be killed on on whim is not a liberal democracy. In addition, the 3 year limit also applies.Ultramarine 14:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Where did you ger this exaggeration? Harriet Beecher Stowe? There were state decisions finding killing of slaves unlawful; whether they were enforced is debatable. Septentrionalis 17:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I see this last piece of nonsense is Ultramarine's own original research; Weart is not so foolish. I have strong views about the constitutionality, propriety, and sanity of the Montgomery Convention, but its members were appointed by elected legislatures or conventions, and were often the former state delegations to Congress. It is true that the final ballot for Davis was unanimous, 6 states to 0; but his election was not uncontested: there were strong campaigns for Robert Toombs and Howell Cobb, which were only abandoned at the final vote for the sake of the appearance of unity. A constitutional view of the late war between the states : its causes, character, conduct and results ; presented in a series of colloquies at Liberty Hall Alexander H. Stephens, (1870 ed.) II, 320-31.Septentrionalis 19:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • There are two sources in the references. Ray states this objections clearly. Davis was not elected in fair, competitive elections. He also notes that this was a temporary arrangement and in the elections in the fall of 1861 the Confederacy only provided one ticket for the presidency and in many areas also for the Congress.Ultramarine 19:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
        • OK, it's Ray that's the fool. It remains folly. (And it was wartime; has Ray considered that there were 91 uncontested House elections (and 5 to the Senate) in 1942?) Septentrionalis 01:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have a refernce for the last we could add it. Here is a new proposal.Ultramarine 17:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't see any reason for including any of this tosh. Any list of American elections should suffice Septentrionalis 17:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Your claim, your source.06:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Pick a reference; the data, which are matters of public record, will not change. When I next see the particular referecne, I will cite it. Septentrionalis 16:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • American Civil War. Weart argues that the Confederate States of America was less than 3 years old. Less than 2/3 of the adult male population could vote in the Confederacy. The state was created in order to continue the suppression of the black slave population. Wealthy planters played on racial fears in order to avoid criticism from poor whites. Abolitionists were censored and imprisoned even before Lincoln was elected and he was not on the ballot in most parts of the South. In the first elections in the confederacy, voters in many areas again had no choice of candidates.
Rummellite standards again. The argument about abolitionists would prove Illinois and Massachusetts no democracies either; and you going to exclude every country in which unsavory politics are successful from the list of democracies? If so, the democratic peace becomes a small handful of claims indeed.Septentrionalis 17:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Ray argues that there was never a competitive presidential election in the confederacy. There was only one ticket in 1861 presidential election. Only in some districts were there two candidates for the Confederate Congress. On the other hand, the Montgomery Convention there were discussions regarding other presidential candidates by . All final votes, from approving documents to electing officers, were to be unanimous in order to impress the Union and the border states. [11]
  • This is nonsense. Davis and Stephens were not a "ticket", and there were only six states at the Montgomery convention. Please read links before you make them. Septentrionalis 17:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Ray argues that there was never a competitive presidential election in the confederacy. There was no choice of candidates in the 1861 presidential election. Only in some districts were there two candidates for the Confederate Congress. On the other hand, the delegates from the six states at the Montgomery Conventiondiscussed other presidential candidates. All final votes, from approving documents to electing officers, were to be unanimous in order to impress the Union and the border states. [12] Ultramarine 18:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a dishonest representation of Ray, who begins by admitting "the primâ facie case" for the democracy of the CSA. I see no point to continuing discussion of tendentious extracts from a handful of PoV books, if it is to be conducted in this manner. Septentrionalis 21:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • First Boer War. Britain did not fulfill the criteria for liberal democracy before the Representation of the People Act 1884. The new Boer state was less than 3 years old and its democracy doubtful even for the White male population. Blacks were excluded from the franchise. Less than 1000 battle deaths. [14]

Spurrious evidence, does not qualify as a war. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 04:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, sometimes mentioned as an exception. Thus it should be discussed.Ultramarine 05:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Spanish-American War. In Spain all males could vote and the constitution in theory protected many civil liberties. However, there was the Turno system, dissidents were jailed, 1/4 of the members of the Cortes were appointed by the King or had hereditary positions, the monarchy retained important powers, and a military coup d'etat was feared if Spain would compromise in the negotiations. [15]
    • Such arrangements have occurred in other undoubted democracies: Austria in the late 1950's; Uruguay in the 1960's. Like other arrangements for oligopoly, they depend on the partners each being able to maintain its position, and collapse when this is not done. To exclude such states is more special pleading, emptying the vacuous theory further.
    • The proposed restriction that democracy only exists when the military has no power over politics would restrict the applicability of a democratic peace theory to Costa Rica and Heaven. It is true that these two powers have never gone to war.
    • The Spanish Government did in fact fall as a result of its defeat; outside of the Turno. Ray omits this from his book, the only serious dishonesty which I have seen from him. Septentrionalis 22:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Sources please for claims regarding Austria and Uruguay. Note that during the Turno corrupt officials manipulated the elections to return to office as many of their own party as they wished. Anyhow, possible problems in other nations are not relevant for this conflict. That the Spanish Government did fall due to the war is irrelevant for whether it was a democracy before. The military junta in Argentina did fall after the Falklands war but this is not evidence that this junta was democratic.Ultramarine 06:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
        • See the contemporary descriptions of Austria and Uruguay in the relevant chapters of John Gunther's Inside Europe Today(1961) , Inside South America(1967). The problem with this paragraph is precisely that it uses a "private definition" of democracy, in Orwell's sense of term, which contravenes common usage. It is the business of politicians to secure their seats. Any theory of democratic peace which applies only to utopias is claiming nothing about the real world. I also observe the convenient illogic:
          • The Spanish Government could not fall, so it was no democracy.
          • But it did fall.
          • So what? Septentrionalis 16:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
            • The Proporz system divided the power proportionally according to election results. This is not the same as determining the results of elections before they are made. Even if Austria had an exact copy of the Turno systems and all the other problems with the political system that Spain had, then this would only means that Autria was not an democracy, not that Spain was a democracy. Again, the military junta in Argentina did fall after the Falklands war but this is not evidence that this junta was democratic before the war. Spain was not a liberal democracy: corrupt officials manipulated the elections to return to office as many of their own party as they wished, dissidents were jailed, 1/4 of the members of the Cortes were appointed by the King or had hereditary positions, the monarchy retained important powers, and a military coup d'etat was feared if Spain would compromise in the negotiations.Ultramarine 17:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
                • The Proporz was a different' system; Uruguay's system was different again. However, one of its provisions was that the representatives of the Volkspartei and the SD should always, regardless of the election results, be Minister and Deputy Minister in each department, and this alternation continued down the scale, and that they would operate by agreement. This gives continual job security and policy control to everyone concerned. If it is democracy (and it has always been considered so); so was Spain. Septentrionalis 23:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Philippine-American War. No democratic elections in the Philippines. The Philippine regime was less than 3 years old. One group of Filipinos had proclaimed a constitution which explicitly gave the power to a small group of landowners and professionals. Emilio Aguinaldo was declared president without elections. He was suspected of killing two of his main political rivals and nearly all foreign observers saw no chance for genuine self-government, but only different regional groups and bandits. US president William McKinley stated that it would be immoral to withdraw and leave the Filipinos to fight one another or be occupied by an European power. [16]
  • World War I. The German Reichstag was elected by all adult males and it did vote overwhelmingly to fund the war. However, the German Kaiser had the executive power. He appointed and dismissed the Chancellor, the Imperial officials, and the officers. He could and did declare war together with the not democratically elected Bundesrat, 30% of which was appointed by the Emperor, and most of the rest by the German princes. The Reichstag had little control over the executive power and its legislative power was greatly limited by the Bundesrat. The Emperor's appointees in the Bundesrat could themselves veto amendments to the German constitution. There were often threats of a military coup d'etat if the Reichstag should ignore the Emperor on important issues. In effect, therefore, especially in foreign and military affairs, there was little democratic control. The Emperor was also the King of Prussia which had 3/5 of the German population and the Prussian constitution gave him even greater power there. The landed aristocracy of the Junkers formed the officer corps of the army, dominated Prussia, and had strong influence on national politics as well.
One argument against the above is that Germany was every bit as democratic as the United Kingdom. Only approximately 60% of British males could vote and the House of Lords was (and is) not democratically elected. However, this ignores the Parliament Act 1911 which destroyed the House of Lords' power to reject bills. The German Chancellor in 1913 ignored an overwhelming vote of no confidence and stated: "that in France and Great Britain conditions were different, but that parliamentary government did not exist in Germany; that it was the constitutional privilege of the Emperor to appoint the Chancellor without any assistance or advice from the Reichstag" Also, if the United Kingdom was not a liberal democracy at this time, then this is another reason for WWI not being a war between democracies. [18]
  • Anglo-Irish War. The Irish state was less than 3 years old. The initial violence involved rebels acting on their own outside democratic control. Later democratic control of the Irish Republican Army was doubtful and immediately after the war one part of the IRA tried to overthrow the government in the Irish Civil War. [19]

It is arguable that the Occupation of the Ruhr valley was a major catalyst for WWI. As a seperate event it doesn't qualify as a war. Why is this even mentioned? --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 04:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes mentioned by critics. Thus it should be discussed.Ultramarine 05:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)]
Ultramarine misunderstands the function of the Ruhr in the discussion of the democratic peace; see Layne's paper. Septentrionalis 19:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Continuation War. Five months after the start of the War, the United Kingdom reluctantly issued a formal declaration of war on Finland due to pressure from Soviet Union. However, the United Kingdom's only significant act of war happened prior to the declaration, a Royal Air Force raid on German-run mining operations in Petsamo. Therefore too few battle deaths for a war. Finland spent the Second World War fighting a totalitarian opponent, the Soviet Union, who had previously attacked the nation. There have been very few formal declarations of war since WWII and using this as the definition of war would mean that for example the US has fought no wars since WWII. [20]
  • Turkish Invasion of Cyprus. Initial hostilities after a coup d'etat in Cyprus. Both the later formally democratic regime in Cyprus and that in Turkey was less than 3 years old. The military retained significant influence in both. Less than 1000 battle deaths. [23]
  • Paquisha Incident. Far less than 1000 battle deaths. Both young democracies less than 3 years old. Lacking democratic control over the military on both nations. [24]
  • Kargil War. Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister of Pakistan at the time of the Kargil War, suppressed opposition-led demonstrations, arrested opposition activists, curtailed civil liberties, and persecuted independent NGOs and journalists. The judiciary at first tried to check the Sharif, but later gave up. His supporters stormed the Supreme Court of Pakistan and he forced the Chief Justice out of office. He also passed laws removing the legal possibilities to dismiss him from office and stating that party leaders could dismiss any of their legislators if they failed to vote as they were told. [25]
  • Yugoslav Wars. Yugoslavia did not fulfill the criteria for a liberal democracy. Frequent and arbitrary changes of election laws and districts, even retroactively after elections. Press freedom greatly restricted. Slobodan Milosevic's regime controlled the state television and radio broadcasts. Electoral manipulation including: massive double voting, "voting" of persons being permanently absent or deceased, the pressure on employees by the management of "socially owned companies", organised planting of already prepared voting ballots into the polling boxes, forging of electoral records and election board records, alteration of the election results made by electoral commissions, the large-scale annulment of the election results by courts rulings, and changing the number of participating voters in order to fulfil the legal requirements for the validity of the elections. [26]
In addition, the Ten-Day War and the War in Croatia would be excluded as both sides were less than 3 years old. Also, Croatia was not a liberal democracy for similar reasons as those mentioned for Yugoslavia. [27]

In summary, this is copying out Weart's doctrinaire special pleading, which amounts in fact to an admission that Rummellism excludes so many states and so many wars as to be vacuous. This is how many citations of the same book?Septentrionalis 20:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Several of these points would be valuable in refining the fallacious theories of a perfect democratic peace into a form which actually matches the world; most of the papers on the subject are real examples of the process. This, however, is doctinaire trash, drawn from Weart's book, which is, like one of DR Johnson's: "both good and original, but the good parts are not original, and the original ones not good"; proving neatly that Sturgeon's Law does apply to political science, as elsewhere. Septentrionalis 22:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another" 2

I am continuing my work on User:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another". I have included more conflicts as requested by other users. I will add more. I would like more explanations from the literature regarding which wars are claimed to be exceptions and why.Ultramarine 03:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/v/Talk%7ENever_at_War_59af.html"