Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuts.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuts!orb From: orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Democracy, Wars, Imperialism and Nationalism:I Message-ID: <424@whuts.UUCP> Date: Fri, 6-Dec-85 09:53:08 EST Article-I.D.: whuts.424 Posted: Fri Dec 6 09:53:08 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 7-Dec-85 15:25:31 EST References: <432@ssc-bee.UUCP> <841@whuxl.UUCP> <1280@jhunix.UUCP> <849@whuxl.UUCP> <1316@jhunix.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 59 Apparently Kenneth Arromdee needs to study his history more closely as he asks of my comment: > >From me >from Kenneth Arromdee > >But there is another myth which is quite popular in the US > >and other democracies, indeed it is a variant of rationalizations > >always used by nations preparing for War or actively engaged in it. > >For the US and Western democracies it is the myth that somehow > >"democracy" necessarily makes a country less likely to go to War. > > When, in the 20th century, did a democracy invade another democracy? > Kenneth Arromdee 1)If you mean when did an already independent democratic nation attack another independent democratic nation then this is going to be made more rare in the 20th century since by that time the majority of the world was under the domination of European colonialism fostered every bit as much by parliamentary democracies such as Britain and France as by autocratic regimes like Germany and Imperial Russia. (Indeed, it has been argued that one of the causes of WW I was the German desire to get its own colonies to match those Britain and France already possessed) In having such colonies to begin with it should be quite obvious that Britain and France had to engage in numerous military interventions and invasions in the colonialized world. Once these colonies were established then I would argue that their efforts to achieve independence from foreign domination and colonial status were definitely efforts to achieve local autonomy and greater democracy as opposed to British,French and other powers efforts to retain exclusive control of these countries. Therefore countless struggles for independence from Britain and France can be considered wars in the direction of greater democracy *opposed* by democracies like Britain and France. 2)In 1907 Austria passed a law providing for universal manhood suffrage and subsequently elected a Parliament composed primarily of Liberals, Christian Socialists, and Social Democrats. Need I point out that Austria-Hungary despite the movement towards democracy represented by this development was a major instigator (if anyone can be blamed, which is difficult in WW I since *all* were really at fault) of WW I by attempting to suppress Serbia's revolt and its manifestation in the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand. It was hardly the case that WW I necessarily represented a "war for Democracy", but rather it represented attempts by all nations involved, whether democratic or autocratic, to increase their own power. Thus democratic France had no qualms about forming an alliance with autocratic Csarist Russia. France and Britain, both democracies and rivals for centuries, could have easily ended up on different sides in WW I and it might have been considered likely they would. The reason they ended up on the same side had nothing to do with sympathy with each other's democracy but rather each nation's calculation of what in the complicated and shifting scheme of alliances before WW I, would be in their own best interest. This is an example of established democratic nations attacking or warring with other democratic nations. There are many examples of either invasion, occupation, or military intervention against movements towards democracy in the 20th century by democratic nations. More on these later...... tim sevener whuxn!orb