Jump to content

Talk:List of wars between democracies: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Yugoslav Wars have to be excluded out of this list
Line 28: Line 28:


:More specific analysis say otherwise. All major parties involved in the Balkan Wars were formal democracies per cited sources, even if flawed ones or "iliberal" democracies per some authors (Tanzi), and your claim of "autocracy" is just a passing mention, not in-depth assessments like those of Antic and Tanzi. [[User:FarSouthNavy|Darius]] ([[User talk:FarSouthNavy|talk]]) 13:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:More specific analysis say otherwise. All major parties involved in the Balkan Wars were formal democracies per cited sources, even if flawed ones or "iliberal" democracies per some authors (Tanzi), and your claim of "autocracy" is just a passing mention, not in-depth assessments like those of Antic and Tanzi. [[User:FarSouthNavy|Darius]] ([[User talk:FarSouthNavy|talk]]) 13:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::Common sense says otherwise. Saying Slobodan Milosevic and his reign in Serbia was a democracy is like saying Vladimir Putin and his reign in Russia is a democracy. Several sources contradict you. Ronald Wintrobe, p. 3: [https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1377&context=economicsresrpt "In the end, Milosevic can be viewed as a typical totalitarian dictator confronted with the collapse of the basis of his support]; Vidosav Stevanovic, "Milosevic: The People's Tyrant", p. 1: [https://books.google.com/books?id=mxGJDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1 "This is the story of Slobodan Milosevic, a lawyer by education, a politician, an anti-democrat, a semi-dictator"]; Dusko Doder, Louise Branson, "Milosevic: Portrait of a Tyrant", p. 16: [https://books.google.com/books?id=2X6-F7nyuLkC&pg=PT16&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false "By 1991, Milosevic could no longer take a walk in the streets of Belgrade: he was a hated dictator"]; Lenard J. Cohen, "Post-Milosevic Serbia" [https://www.jstor.org/stable/45318583 "In October 2000, Slobodan Milosevic's 13-year old authoritarian regime collapsed"] Kimberly L. Sullivan, "Slobodan Milosevic's Yugoslavia", p. 9: [https://books.google.com/books?id=8PVT4ApS5r4C&pg=PA9 "The international community, however, largely condemns Milosevic as a brutal dictator"] [https://www.proquest.com/openview/be72333cd03508a59d93a4c7669d2de9/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=47966]. These are six sources contradicting yours. I cannot believe that someone in 2024 in all honesty can actually push for the notion that Milosevic's Serbia was a democracy. Yugoslav Wars have to be excluded out of this list.--[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 09:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)


== Canovist Spain was not a democracy ==
== Canovist Spain was not a democracy ==

Revision as of 09:55, 6 September 2024

American Civil War

While worth mentioning, is it accurate to cite the US Civil War as a war between democracies when the subject of the war was whether the Confederate States were a legitimate government or merely states in rebellion to the democratic government? Considering that the Civil War is remembered in the US as a fight to end slavery, it isn't considered a war against a democracy, but an internal affair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.115.239.51 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

War of 1812?

Pretty sure the monarchy was no democracy.

Yugoslav Wars

Slobodan Milosevic's rule was an autocracy[1][2]. It cannot be considered a democracy. It was therefore removed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More specific analysis say otherwise. All major parties involved in the Balkan Wars were formal democracies per cited sources, even if flawed ones or "iliberal" democracies per some authors (Tanzi), and your claim of "autocracy" is just a passing mention, not in-depth assessments like those of Antic and Tanzi. Darius (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense says otherwise. Saying Slobodan Milosevic and his reign in Serbia was a democracy is like saying Vladimir Putin and his reign in Russia is a democracy. Several sources contradict you. Ronald Wintrobe, p. 3: "In the end, Milosevic can be viewed as a typical totalitarian dictator confronted with the collapse of the basis of his support; Vidosav Stevanovic, "Milosevic: The People's Tyrant", p. 1: "This is the story of Slobodan Milosevic, a lawyer by education, a politician, an anti-democrat, a semi-dictator"; Dusko Doder, Louise Branson, "Milosevic: Portrait of a Tyrant", p. 16: "By 1991, Milosevic could no longer take a walk in the streets of Belgrade: he was a hated dictator"; Lenard J. Cohen, "Post-Milosevic Serbia" "In October 2000, Slobodan Milosevic's 13-year old authoritarian regime collapsed" Kimberly L. Sullivan, "Slobodan Milosevic's Yugoslavia", p. 9: "The international community, however, largely condemns Milosevic as a brutal dictator" [3]. These are six sources contradicting yours. I cannot believe that someone in 2024 in all honesty can actually push for the notion that Milosevic's Serbia was a democracy. Yugoslav Wars have to be excluded out of this list.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canovist Spain was not a democracy

Spain during the so-called Canovism or Borbonic Restauration was not a democracy and there are endless reputable sources that support this. Check, for instance, [1][2] and [3] in this article of the Spanish Wikipedia es:Resultados de las elecciones generales de España durante la Restauración. The fact that sham elections with prearranged results were regularly held does not make a regime democratic.

In the reference provided in this article, the author – who, in her own words, is used to receiving bad reviews – seems to begin her argument from the conviction that "wars between democracies were common except during the Cold War era" and proceeds to provide seemingly weak arguments by claiming that this or that government could technically be considered a democracy or technically a war between the democracies – on such claim is her claim of the co-belligerence of democratic Finland and Germany against the Soviet Union, who was allied with the democratic British and American governments. Given that democratic governments were rare until modern times, making an exception for the Cold War is making an exception for a significant part of the history of democracy.

As such, per WP:FRINGE, I have removed all references to the Spanish-American War in this article. 17:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Schweinchen (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Britain vs White Finland (1918-1920)?

I hope not to break talk pages guidelines, but an interesting case to focus on would be the campaign fought by British Forces between 1918 and 1920 on the Russian-Finnish border during the North Russia Intervention against independent Finland, a parlamentary democracy. According to the main authors dealing with the subject (White and Kingvig) of the British intervention, there were several minor battles and skirmishes involving British army soldiers and marines, who even assisted Bolshevik Russia against White Finnish. Can anybody search for sources to shed light on this issue? Darius (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]