Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Democracy, Wars, Imperialism and Nationalism:I
Message-ID: <873@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Dec-85 21:40:45 EST
Article-I.D.: mmintl.873
Posted: Tue Dec 10 21:40:45 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 16-Dec-85 19:14:53 EST
References: <432@ssc-bee.UUCP> <841@whuxl.UUCP> <1280@jhunix.UUCP> <849@whuxl.UUCP> <1316@jhunix.UUCP> <424@whuts.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 53

In article <424@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes:
>> >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

Absolutely.  Revolts and revolutions are another matter entirely.  See
below.
 
>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.

Congratulations!  You found one example ... sort of.  Austria may have
had a democratically elected parliament, but it was hardly a democracy.
It still had an emporer, who was hardly resigned to being a figurehead.
  
>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.

These are ambiguous at best.  Historically, the success rate of nominally
democratic revolutionaries actually establishing a democracy is abysmal --
even where there was no foreign intervention.  The U.S. is the notable
exception -- and no revolution before or since has been fought by established
republican bodies as that one was.  So it is quite reasonable to regard
revolutionaries as anti-democratic, even when they proclaim otherwise.

I suppose you will bring up Chile, as well.  I think that, without U.S.
intervention, the Chilean political process would have dumped Allende at
the next election.  But his regime does not qualify as a "movement towards
democracy"; it was a movement away from democracy.  Even without our
intervention, he might have succeeded in wrecking it.  Certainly things
got worse afterwards, but they might have anyhow.  I think the intervention
was a mistake, but it is not unambiguous.

I will await your continued presentation before making further remarks.

Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108