Western Democracies at War: With each other

[Divinus Arma]

Under what conidtions do you think something like this would happen?

I see alot of anti-Americanism on these boards, so I wondered at what point would the peoples of your nations desire an armed conflict.

I think it would be impossible under the current governments. One of our governments would have to turn towards facist socialism, such as Germany had in the 30s and 40s. Aside from that, I cannot imagine at what point European Democracies would attempt to engage in conflict with one another or with America.

[Silver Rusher]

Not gonna happen for a long time, and if it does there would have to be huge events leading up to it. In the western world, if a country declares war on another all the other western countries will simply pile onto the attacking nation. Unless of course that nation gains a lot of support from other powerful nations OR becomes very powerful itself, which would have to be one of the causes if it were to happen. If America attacked Europe, for example, the Europeans would probably all be against the Americans.

[DukeofSerbia]

If America attacked Europe, for example, the Europeans would probably all be against the Americans.

Why should be all Europeans (I don't like that perception of so called "Europeans") united against USA? We saw in war in Iraq that many European countries were on US side ("the New Europe" as Ramsfeld said).

[Silver Rusher]

Why should be all Europeans (I don't like that term) united against USA. We saw in war in Iraq that many European countries were on US side ("the New Europe" as Ramsfeld said).
What I meant was that all, or most European powers would be against it, not united against them. And this is Europe we are talking about, not Iraq. And while I am at it, weren't quite a few European nations, France included, against the invasion of Iraq IIRC?

[DukeofSerbia]

Silver Rusher,

My point was that many European countries will be sided with USA from the past expirience. Poland is the best candidate from Eastern Europe. UK is my favourite, too.

[Silver Rusher]

Yes but only if the US has a good reason to attack said country. And that wasn't really the example I was giving, sorry if I phrased it wrong.

[drone]

I believe a conflict would stem from a trade/corporate/resources dispute more than anything else. Some convenient border or moral rights issue would be brought up as an excuse, but the real root would be money. If the oil runs out, desperate times will call for desperate measures...

[Ice]

Considering most western democracies are in the military alliance, NATO, I doubt this would happen. Maybe a far cry in the future, but no time recent.

[DukeofSerbia]

It is obvios that western governments have more and more power and this is not good.
Islamic terrorist need them and they (western governments) use that as exuce to have more and more power. http://smiles.zy.cz/254.gif

[AggonyDuck]

Also the thing is that it would actually require the people to support a war and in our current society it needs to be a bloody great reason if you expect people to support it.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@topic: The only way war between western democracies could happen within the coming 100 years would be if many of the western democracies would get into more severe constitutional crises, two party lock systems, and gradually transform into what is in practise dictatorship regimes that would only nominally be democracies ... in which case we aren't talking about western democracies at war with each others.

@Div: what is the anti-Americanism you see in these boards? I've not seen any anti-Americanism except a few jokes such as the "Typical Americans" thread, which, admittedly, might be offensive to some American patrons, just like Muhammed caricatures are offensive to Muslims. The only thing people in Europe "have against" America is the current regime, the constitutional crisis (which is dangerous to both the American people and others), the Guantanamo camp, and some of the wars American leaders have engaged in, but the American people have just as high a percentage of people who dislike these same things. So if Europe is anti-American, then America would be anti-American as well.

[Vladimir]

Either anti-Americanism on this board has dropped off or I've just become desensitized to it; it's not that bad here. The anti-anti's have become a little reactionary but that's all I see. Most of the America-bashers can be disregarded because they're just looking for an excuse: An “all powerful”, foreign, faceless entity to blame their problems on and make themselves feel better.

War between democracies isn’t likely to happen *because* those individuals are easily disregarded. The out of touch elites or a disaffected minority are the ones most likely to harbor such resentment. Most citizens in truly democratic countries tend to be prosperous and have a much more moderate view of foreign politics. That and most democracies lack the heart for a long, bloody war, especially against those with a similar ideology.

Chances are that if Europe or a European nation were to fight against US it would have become a democracy in name only. Much along the same lines as Germany when the Weimer Republic died and Hitler took over.

~:grouphug: :unitedstates:

[doc_bean]

Now Div, I know you are supposed to be a trained killing machine and all that, but seriously, you communicated with many Europeans on this board, shared ideas, made jokes, allied against evil liberal Americans and their socialist agenda, etc. Would you honestly see yourself coming to Europe and killing a bunch of us, knowing how much we are alike, just to protect the interests of some rich government clown ?

You might, besides DevDave you're probably the biggest supporter of nationalism on this board. But what about the average American, who's also come into contact with us charming Europeans ? The Arabs are an 'easy' target. they worship a different God, live under a different kind of regime, have a different view of law, dress funny and look slightly different. It's easy to vilify them. It won't be as easy when it comes to Europeans imho. Sure it worked in WWII, but those were different times, nationalism everywhere has declined, the media has globalised, the internet is here, etc.
Something VERY serious has to happen for Joe Schmoo to want to fight, and if you want to wage a serious war here, you're gonna need to draft.

Of course, that's just the emotional argument, practically speaking, France's got nukes, I don't see you attacking them or anyone near them (not sure about the nuclear capabilities of other countries, the UK has some, but attacking them would be very, very, very odd, considering the current situation).

Financially our economies are so tied up that it would probably be an economic disaster. Even if you just attack one country and Europe is divided, the results for the economy would probably be devastating, the 'common market' was formed so everyone is Europe would have to get along, we're moving more and more to a transatlantic common market, so whoever you hurt, you'll end up hurting yourself.


But really, who are we kidding, traditional war is passé. We've all witnessed how effective the middle eastern way of fighting is. Armies just make big targets, individual agents are the future. Weapons have evolved to the point where it is often as dangerous to face one man as a whole army. A country like the US can't even occupy a country like Iraq. maybe it was easier for the Nazis because they did have a lot in common with the people they conquered, but I can't see a true occupation like it happened in the world wars happen again. People have seen what resistance fighters can do.

[Mithras]

It's fairly unlikely, despite the epic hissy fit thrown over the Iraq war on both sides the Western powers are on fairly good terms. A conflict might occur if America was to descend into an imperialist theocracy or Europian nation became Communist. In the long run relations may degenerate through economic rivalry. Although the invention of nukes means that any warfare will be limited in scope. I certainly wouldnt anticipate a mass invasion of Europe any time soon.

[Al Khalifah]

The only two Western democracies to ever go to war were England and Finland during the Second World War and this was little more than a declaration.

Democracy is a very unstable political system for prolonged periods of total war. Most western democracies have powers to suspend the main workings of people power if it appears that a war which threatens their homeland is likely to be continuous. Even satelitte warfare is difficult to sustain, as it is expensive and a fickle populous will soon turn hostile to any government action which brings no percieved benefits to themselves. For two democracies to both attempt to wage warfare on one-another while maintaining any frontage of morality would be extremely difficult.

The mutually assured destruction aspect also comes into things. The Western powers have become used to warfare against vastly inferior opponents, both in terms of training and technology. There is a great public outcry when mere single digit casualties are sustained in any operation. A war between two similarly equipped Western powers would result in massive casualties on both sides - without the use of NBC weapons. Such a war could never effectively be brought to much of a decisive conclusion either, since if one side appeared to be on the brink of total defeat, it would simply unleash its non-conventional arsenal.

[Don Corleone]

I think Ecletic's point was "You all talk a good game, but when are you going to put up or shut up"?

His post was asking how long you think it would take for Europe as a whole or some select European countries to actually go to war with the US. I think implicit in that is the understanding that the European country in this scenario would be the agressor.

Eclectic, I don't think any European countries would actually attack the US, and I don't think Canada or Mexico would either. I could see Venezuela, but their limited (I believe it's exclusively coastal) Navy etc would limit their ability to prosecute the war, but let's widen the definition of war to 'attacking American interests abroad'. Again, I don't see any South American countries doing it.

The only way I could really see something like this happening would be a real long shot... before I say, I want to stress, I don't think this is probable or even remotely plausible, I just think it's the only possible way for this sort of thing to happen....

I could see Turkey breaking ties and possibly attacking American interests in one of two scenarios. 1) It's a Western democracy now, yes, but the religious parties pick up more seats in every election. They could have a takeover by conservative religious parties which as far as I know, are pretty anti-US. 2) They're not all that happy about the way the US has allowed the Kurds of Iraq to be semi-autonomous. If we didn't support them on keeping the Kurds in Turkey under Turkish rule, things could get ugly.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think you're all forgetting that less than a hundred years ago Canada was poised to invade the US and Britain was ready to back them up. In a War of Europe vs. USA scenario it would require a breakdown of communication as well as one or both parties becoming more insular. Then it would require a conflict over resources. An escalation could conceivably be rapid and once it has happened it likely to be bloody and short or very bloody and dig-your-heels-in long.

I see it maybe happening in 50 years, but we'll have to beat the radical Muslims and the Chinese first.

[Al Khalifah]

If Turkey wants to join the EU it won't be doing that any time soon. Why it wants to join the EU is beyond me, but still they do.

His post was asking how long you think it would take for Europe as a whole
The idea of Europe doing anything as a whole is a joke. We can't even agree on a standard plug, let alone agree on foreign policy. If Europe did decide to attack, it'd probably be better off if Britain or France (but not both) just went alone. Otherwise the other nations would screw everything up and just generally get in the way, since all the other nations could really contribute is manpower and numbers alone don't really count for much. Maybe they could be used as provincial guards or something. Trying to do something like wage a modern war would be hell, Britain would reject anything proposed by anyone else; France would surrender instantly; Germany would shout at everyone for not getting along but then become all meek and repeatedly apologise for the war; the Spanish would waste all the money on lazy farmers; Benelux would demand control of the army and then send a token gunboat; Poland would get invaded for no apparent reason; the Slovakian army would disappear once it got to England; and the Italians would switch sides half-way through the conflict.

Stereotype over: The idea of anyone attacking America is just crazy for the time being. If anyone is going to attack it's China with a massive air offensive, electronic warfare, technological blackout and tactical nuking. Some time in the next century there will probably be an impasse between the conflicting interests of the two countries which is not resolved easily by democracy, although I doubt there would be an actual war, just a satelitte war in some crappy third world nation.

[Hepcat]

:no:
That is some pretty shocking stereotyping :shame:. That is just asking for a debate on something completely unrelated, so I won't start.

If China does go all "Iron Curtain" on America then we will probably just end up with another cold war which won't really get anywhere because everyone is too afraid to provoke the other side. Maybe a few skirmishes but nothing really, not that it would stop the media inventing new horror scenarios of Communist occupation like they did in the 1950s.

Another World War is a looooooong way off. The power balance is just far too one sided. No decent opposition can form. I don't think we will see another world war in our time, though maybe in future generations.

[Fragony]

I think it's possible that USA and a european country get into a military conflict, but not on our mainlands. USA doesn't have the military power to take europe and vica versa, but a combined UN mission could go wrong if both sides truely can't live with a certain situation.

[Husar]

Silver Rusher,

My point was that many European countries will be sided with USA from the past expirience. Poland is the best candidate from Eastern Europe. UK is my favourite, too.
Poland has two flanks with the Schröder-Putin connection and besides, we have overrun them before.~;)
That's like Alabama deciding to support Europe in such a fictional war, how long do you think they would survive?

The biggest problem in this thread is Americans playing the "everybody hates us" - game.

I still think Europe and the U should stick together, a war between both could even be used by third countries to destroy either or both of us once we are weakened and busy with each other.:oops:

[Keba]

The simplest reason for not going to war is that waging a war across an ocean is a major problem, especially when you don't have an outpost where to land.

While modern armies and navies do have very good transport capacities, and the US especially has ships designed for amphibious assault, the major problem is getting any equipment across.

Essentially, if it does get to war of Europe (as a whole, as weird as that idea might be) against the US, it would amount to nothing more than air battles, and the occasional naval skirmish. Even if one side were to disembark in the other's territory, their supplies would be cut before they manage to do anything really.

Even so, it would take some really momentous actions for anyone to get into war in the West, things like a coup, or maybe outright belligerence and annexations. Even then, it would take just about forever for anyone to actually declare war.

The more likely scenario is Western Democracies declaring war on China, but even that's unlikely for now.

[doc_bean]

His post was asking how long you think it would take for Europe as a whole or some select European countries to actually go to war with the US. I think implicit in that is the understanding that the European country in this scenario would be the agressor.


~:confused: What could we possibly hope to gain ?

We lack the will and the capabilities to do something like that for the next few decades. The UK is pretty much the only country with a decent army that could go up against the US forces afaik. I'm not sure about the numbers but I'd assume they'd be heavily outnumbered. The Benelux and Scandinavian countries are notoriously neutral, or try to be (and so is Switzerland of course). France just uses its nukes to assure it's safety. (I believe they do have a decent ground force, but that's used almost exclusively in Africa, not sure how it would fair against a more advanced enemy).

We would never form a coalition and agree on a single plan if we were to be the aggressors. Even as defenders it probably wouldn't work out.

[R'as al Ghul]

I see alot of anti-Americanism on these boards, so I wondered at what point would the peoples of your nations desire an armed conflict.

At no point would be want an armed conflict.
The Europeans have different viewpoints and critisize your current government. Please get it out of your mind that we're somehow anti-american. It's all about politics, nothing personal. As Chancellor Schröder once said: "In a good friendship it has to be possible to tell your friend when you think he's wrong". ~:grouphug:
We've had our share of armed conflict and don't desire more.

[DukeofSerbia]

The only two Western democracies to ever go to war were England and Finland during the Second World War and this was little more than a declaration.



In Finland were militarist (fascist) on head when it was occured.

[Vladimir]

I think you're all forgetting that less than a hundred years ago Canada was poised to invade the US and Britain was ready to back them up.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Thank you, I needed that. A good way to start off a Friday.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well its true.

Times have changed, and they'll change again.

[KafirChobee]

I think you're all forgetting that less than a hundred years ago Canada was poised to invade the US and Britain was ready to back them up.
Er, I think you are a bit confused. The newly formed USA offered state-hood to Canada, which they rejected. It was then offered again, only with the hint that the US might invade them if they rejected it again. The Brits got involved - it was called the War of 1812. Which ended in something of a draw, we promised not to invade Canada and the Brits promised to stop ceasing our ships and sailors.

As for "a hundred years ago"? First I ever heard such BS. Plz, give a date for this phenom.
___________
As for a scenario that may provoke WD's into going at one another? Well, Putnim's consolidation of power in Russia is certainly decreasing their level of democracy. Especially since it seems within his means to jail his opponents and confiscate their wealth at a whim. So, assuming the Russian people go along with the present escallation of centralizing power (as the present Bush administration is doing as well); it is a distinct possability that Russia will regress to its former stage. Only under the auspices of being a democracy.

Then, consider the the closing economic ties between Russia and China. China, as many are presently predicting, will become a Super-Power within the next decade (or two). The US and China (at present) have a number of unresolved issues - Taiwan leads the list; but economic, human rights violations (though America is among the top 5 violators today - and this is usually used as a political-moral values football, more than a true concern of any nation), and other regions of concern. Because, both China and Russia are becoming economically dependent on one another it is fore seeable that they may form a tentative alliance above and beyond the economic ones being formed.

Therefore, when China finally feels the US is in a vulnerable position (say its armed forces are taxed to their limit) they will invade Taiwan. It is a matter of "face" for them to regain it. When it goes down, I suspect (depending on who is President), the US will either capitulate to the Chinese' demands or face its obligations to Taiwan and go to war with China. Russia may simply continue supplying China with oil, etc - rather than a real military force (god knows the Chinese' don't have a manpower problem), but it might drag Euro-nations into the fray. Which were things to go badly, would mean the invasion of Russia by on or more powers.

WWI was not an inevitability - it was built inch by inch, brick by brick over 30-40 years - and no one really saw or believed it was possible. Until it happened.

WWII was inevitable, with economic retaliations by the victors against the defeated.

The next one will be like WWI, no one will notice the small seemingly insignificant steps toward brinkmanship until it is upon us. Then it will be left to people like Bush (god forbid) to sort it out or beat on their chests and send others kids to die. But, war with China is pretty much set in cement.

[Kralizec]

Therefore, when China finally feels the US is in a vulnerable position (say its armed forces are taxed to their limit) they will invade Taiwan..

China's whole navy is still, not by a long shot, a match for the part of the US navy they have in the Pacific Ocean. And even then, I don't think it will ever happen unless we get a total war scenario. To much to lose, and what's to gain? I think the Chinese leadership is more content with just spouting their "one China" rethoric in front of their own people.

As for western democracies, I think it's pretty feasonable that Turkey and Greece will cross swords somewhere in the future. They get reasonably well along today but they've had a pretty tense relationship the last century, so it's not unthinkable especially if Turkey decides to push the Cyprus issue again.