This Week's Evil Islam Thread

[gaelic cowboy]

The authoritarian Stalin made a war-winning decision(moving troops from Siberia to Stalingrad) based on the intelligence(that the Japanese would attack the US, not Siberia) he recieved from his spy in the Japanese court.

There is always an exception to every rule and he ignored spies who told him Nazi Germany was about to invade.

Anyway it doesnt matter the point is if there is to be a war you chances of winning go up if your democratic which we both agree on.

[HoreTore]

There is always an exception to every rule and he ignored spies who told him Nazi Germany was about to invade.

Anyway it doesnt matter the point is if there is to be a war you chances of winning go up if your democratic which we both agree on.

Yes, but remember that it's 00:18 here and I'm dilusional from writing a paper for the last way-too-many-hours.....

[Rhyfelwyr]

IMO the main basis for the democratic success in wars idea is the fact they are meritocratic. Dictators tend to mess up their militaries either through nepotism, or by deliberately crippling them to reduce the threat of a coup by dividing them into different factions (often ethnic based, eg Syria in the 60's), or by completely confusing the chain of command so nobody knows who takes orders from who (eg Argentinian junta). Better just to have a democratic system where the military is accountable to the people, and is given the necessary freedom to do its job properly.

Yes, but remember that it's 00:18 here and I'm dilusional from writing a paper for the last way-too-many-hours.....

Heh, I often have similar problems writing on these boards.

[rory_20_uk]

The armies of the 20th Centuary were democratic. Is this a long term trend or a blip?

New Model Army: run by a dictator, but efficient
Napoleon: An autocratic Emperor, but won battles
Roman Empire: worked under both a republic and an Emperor; Byzantine empire was there for hundreds more years
Japanese armies: under a Monarchy. Yes, they lost WW2, but they won most things before that and I don't think being a democracy suddenly makes one beat America.
Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Peter the Great...
Vietnamese: Communist
Cambodian: Communist
Red Army (post revolution): Communist

So, loads of autocratic regimes have been whipping all foes before them for hundreds of years.

[Fragony]

Democracy is better at peace, democratic countries usually don't go to war with other democratic countries

@Hax, book is meant for the layman

[rory_20_uk]

Democracy is better at peace, democratic countries usually don't go to war with other democratic countries

Rather a broad brush. America has been in "kinetic situations" for years now, tirelesly helping other countries by "sending the Marines". Britain isn't much better on that score.

[Fragony]

Rather a broad brush. America has been in "kinetic situations" for years now, tirelesly helping other countries by "sending the Marines". Britain isn't much better on that score.

Nor any democratic country, we are no pacifists. But how likely is it that the Dutch and English go to war again, or Germany and France.

[Rhyfelwyr]

New Model Army: run by a dictator, but efficient

It was hardly run by a dictator.

Anyway, democracy is one one of many factors that determine how well a country can fight wars. Although you listed militaries there, the democratic success theories are more concerned with the war machine in general. Lake's 1992 studies on rent-seekign for example show democracies utilise their resources more effectively for war.

Rather a broad brush. America has been in "kinetic situations" for years now, tirelesly helping other countries by "sending the Marines". Britain isn't much better on that score.

If anything this supports the democratic peace idea, since the idea is not that democratic leaders are peace-loving idealists, but that public opinion constrains them, since the public tend to feel the costs of war. The fact that the US could only take covert actions in places like Nicaragua, Chile etc and not declare open war is due to the fact that it was a democracy.

[HoreTore]

The armies of the 20th Centuary were democratic. Is this a long term trend or a blip?

New Model Army: run by a dictator, but efficient
Napoleon: An autocratic Emperor, but won battles
Roman Empire: worked under both a republic and an Emperor; Byzantine empire was there for hundreds more years
Japanese armies: under a Monarchy. Yes, they lost WW2, but they won most things before that and I don't think being a democracy suddenly makes one beat America.
Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Peter the Great...
Vietnamese: Communist
Cambodian: Communist
Red Army (post revolution): Communist

So, loads of autocratic regimes have been whipping all foes before them for hundreds of years.

When a dictator fights a dictator, one of them will of course win.

I fail to see how stating the obvious is an argument though.

[Rhyfelwyr]

When a dictator fights a dictator, one of them will of course win.

I fail to see how stating the obvious is an argument though.

Don't get too carried away. Being a democracy doesn't make you invincible, you can't take the democratic success idea to be an absolute rule. The form of government is a moderately-important factor when weighed up against other things in determining how a war will come out. Most studies show democracy to be the best form in this respect, although there is also a tendency for the most authoritarian regimes to do pretty well, so the consolidation of the government in question has also got a lot to do with things.

[HoreTore]

Don't get too carried away. Being a democracy doesn't make you invincible, you can't take the democratic success idea to be an absolute rule. The form of government is a moderately-important factor when weighed up against other things in determining how a war will come out. Most studies show democracy to be the best form in this respect, although there is also a tendency for the most authoritarian regimes to do pretty well, so the consolidation of the government in question has also got a lot to do with things.

The humble points remains the same: for a democracy to survive, it needs to adhere to democratic principles.