 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BeBro
Pre WWI Germany wasn't a democracy. Bismarck introduced certain social security measures, but that didn't turn a monarchy into a democracy. And the hint to constitution of the 20ies (Weimar Republic) is ok, but then it wasn't the Weimar Republic that started the war, it was Hitler's idea after he abolished everything democratic..... |
it wasnt the social security measures that make some call Wilhelmine Germany a democracy, but the fact that a reichstag based on wide suffrage was the lawmaking body, and that govts usually had a majority in that body to govern. On the other hand there was the undemocratic Prussian state franchise, which impacted reich politics through Prussias role in the Landstag. And the considerable institutional independence of the Army, backed up by the demonstrated (pre-1871) ability of the Prussian army to function without voted funding from the reichstag.
This is NOT merely German historical arcana - this question is fundamental to the whole notion of "democratic peace" Opponents of that theory have noted that Woodrow Wilson called Germany a constitutional regime BEFORE WW1, and then called it undemocratic later - the implication being that democratic peace theorists adjust definitions to fit their theory. And its not a question of which side was the aggressor - democratic peace theory does NOT claim that democracies dont start wars, only that they dont start wars against other democracies (ergo the Pelopanisian War really isnt a counter example, in fact the ideological overtones of that war SUPPORT the theory). If Germany was not a democracy in 1914, than democratic peace theory holds - if it was, democratic peace theory has major problems, given the size and destructiveness of that war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
it wasnt the social security measures that make some call Wilhelmine Germany a democracy, but the fact that a reichstag based on wide suffrage was the lawmaking body, and that govts usually had a majority in that body to govern. On the other hand there was the undemocratic Prussian state franchise, which impacted reich politics through Prussias role in the Landstag. And the considerable institutional independence of the Army, backed up by the demonstrated (pre-1871) ability of the Prussian army to function without voted funding from the reichstag.
This is NOT merely German historical arcana - this question is fundamental to the whole notion of "democratic peace" Opponents of that theory have noted that Woodrow Wilson called Germany a constitutional regime BEFORE WW1, and then called it undemocratic later - the implication being that democratic peace theorists adjust definitions to fit their theory. And its not a question of which side was the aggressor - democratic peace theory does NOT claim that democracies dont start wars, only that they dont start wars against other democracies (ergo the Pelopanisian War really isnt a counter example, in fact the ideological overtones of that war SUPPORT the theory). If Germany was not a democracy in 1914, than democratic peace theory holds - if it was, democratic peace theory has major problems, given the size and destructiveness of that war. |
Well, the Reichstag (parliament) was de facto the weakest element, the Bundesrat (federal parliament) and the emperor himself had much more influence - the emperor esp. in foreign policy and questions of war (most relevant for this topic), the Bundesrat in domestic policy. The Bundesrat however was dominated per constitution by Prussia, and much more important than the Reichstag esp. when it came to lawmaking. The chancelor - appointed by the emperor - was not only head of the government, he was also also leading automatically the Bundesrat. The reichstag could also be simply dissolved
It should also be noted that the elections to the Reichstag were done in a very modern way (as Andy-Man said), but those to the (much more important) Bundesrat took place in a kind of census system. This ensured that the old aristocratic elite kept its power, and strenghtened the monarchic elements. In my eyes, the Reich from 1871 was far away from being a modern democracy.
The Andy-Man:
As I wrote in response to LOTM, it is not only a question of the pure existance of a constitution or of modern elections when the elected body (Reichstag) doesn't have much power compared to those which are not elected at all, or not elected in the same modern way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
7 Years war/War of 1812.
England vs. U.S.
Major war will come about when enough people in a generation forget what it's like to have death on such a large scale. It's also likely that war will come about as the price of technology decreases to the point where the have nots in the 3rd world have weapons of a quality that may not be as good as the powerful countries but determination, disregard for human life, and a desire for a piece of the pie will take you a long way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Joseph
|
 |
Ca. USA
Feb 2000
time: 21:36
|
|
To answer your question, no wars between Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Austria. Former Eastern Block Nations, Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria not in the near future.
Turkey, Greece a trouble spot on any given day. Former Yugoslavia, pick an hour for war to start.
Russia (Former Soviet Union), it will depend on who the leader is at the moment.
The rest of Europe who knows.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Viceroy
I may be wrong, but I believe no 2 democratic nations have ever gone to war (and I can't think of any at the moment), so as long as Europe remains a Europe of Democracies, I don't believe war will occur.
|
India and Pakistan in 1965?
Although Ayub Khan had moved from a purely military role to become first leader of Pakistan with a military background (during the period of martial law), he then held elections in 1962, so he had been democratically elected to the presidency by the time war was declared.
Great Britain and Iceland had the 'Cod Wars' in the 1970s.
Israel and Egypt have both been democracies during wars- however much one might criticize the exact nature of Egyptian 'democracy'.
The Football War:
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/sierra/soccer1969.htm
In 1954 the United States 'sponsored' an invasion of Guatemala, which was enjoying the benefits of the democractically elected liberal Arbenz regime (land reform, proper wages, better education, etc.) with the usual result- installation of a dictatorship, pogroms, fall in living standards for all but a minority...
It is entirely possible that with environmental degradation, countries or regions might go to war over water, or land use- in the Middle or Near East, in South East Asia, or Central Asia.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-06-2004 23:25
|