14-05-2002 10:17									#211
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

che,

And you think any of those nations you mentioned were actually democratic?

I suppose by a loose stretch of the term - but in reality Britain was not a democracy, nor was imperial Germany or Russia, or Puerto Rico or Nicaragua.

Not that we should have fought any of them, I grant you, but I disagree that those nations were really democratic.

	14-05-2002 11:16									#212
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: War of 1812? Revolutionary War? US invasion of Puerto Rico? WWI (Germany, like England, was a constitutional monarchy, much power resided in the Parliament)? The Contra War against Nicaragua? Democracies fight each other also. The US Civil War?

In the War of 1812, the British government wasn't a democracy since the King held so much power, neither was it in the Revolutionary War. US invaded Puerto Rico when it was a colony of Spain, hardly a democracy. In WW1, Germany was not a democracy, since the Kaiser was powerful as he was. The Contras weren't democratic. In the US Civil War, the Confederacy wasn't a democracy (too young to be a Democracy, and after a few years abandoned much democratic ideals).

quote: Greece and Turkey are always almost getting into a fight, and only their NATO allies keep them from fighting. Turkey invaded Cyprus.

Do you think Turkey is actually a democracy? It's a military democratic republic if anything.

quote: The whole democracies never fight is a crock of sh*t.

I still haven't seen any proof that discredits the indepth research done in establishing the Democratic Peace theory, which is the closest thing to a law in International Relations.

quote: And just to tie it back into the thread, the US, Britain, and France all attacked the nacent Soviet state, back when it was still democratic.

Yes... real democracy. Firstly, it violates the time agreement (a state can't be a democracy if it hasn't existed for 3 years), and even during war communist, calling the USSR a democracy is too much... it was almost as authoritarian as Stalin's experiment. The NEP didn't exist until the mid 1920s .

	14-05-2002 11:48									#213
	Put an end to popups!

--"And just to tie it back into the thread, the US, Britain, and France all attacked the nacent Soviet state, back when it was still democratic"

SU never ever was democratic. Please stop lying.

	14-05-2002 12:08									#214
	Lithunia was free until German agression began Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I do remember that the SU did give(with some patriotic action by the baltic states) the baltic states their independance after the 1917 SU revolution. It wasn't until germany with England/Frances hope that Hitler would attack the SU first that you lost it when hostilities began.

Blame Germany not the SU for their necessiteries, remember the baltic states lost a far less % of their population than the SU, Germany, poland etc in the war.

The SU has honoured more agreements than most nations and had been betrayed more than most.

I do agree that the first casulety of war is the inoccent and less millitaristic at the end of the day.

Think of it this way if England/France and Russia smited Hilter before he began the 2nd world war might not have happened but each was hoping a nieghbour would take out the compitition.

PS My wife is Latvian and I am sorry that the baltic states were involved in uneccesary grief b/c of all empires.

I'm English/Russian(Far relation to Zhukov)/Greek and more Greeks were lost in the fight for democratic elections after the war than before it.

	14-05-2002 12:38									#215
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

nobody "gave" Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia their independence. We declared it, and defended it with our infant army, from bolsheviks, Poles, ragtag German army remnants etc.

Lithuania lost more AFTER the war, when the smiling, idealistic communist paradise shipped 10% of our population east, where 50% of them died;

We also lost our entire Jewish population of 200 000 during the war.

	14-05-2002 12:55									#216
	Remove this text

saras, if only you could tame your independist temper. but well, let's use your method of chopping and commenting


Originally posted by Saras
--“unfortunately, the communist experiment did not take place in a test tube, but in a hostile environment that tried to destroy the soviet state for 70 years.”

After the interventions in early 1920’s, what hostile environment are you talking about? If you look at trade figures, there were gadzilions of Western industrial equipment shipped in prewar USSR. There were Western engineers and supervisors at almost every major construction in USSR, so your argument is not 100% true.[/QUOTE]

interesting point
there was a brest litovsk peace treaty that took away a huge chunk of territory, then intervention of 18 states, then a polish invasion. it all ended ca 1922 but you do know that the civil war went on for a couple of years longer and the country was ravished.
by 'hostile' i did not mean 'non trading'. as lenin noted correctly, capitalist will sell you a rope with which you will later hang him. so they went on trading with the ussr, russian ore materials for german machines mostly. entante established a cordon sanitaire around ussr, comprising of authoritarian or semi-fascist states (poland, hungary, romania, yugoslavia, bulgaria, etc.). that was the buffer zone towards east. so the only serious trading partner of the ussr was germany, itself an outcast from the western world.

quote: --“as a consequence, it developed into a paranoid police-party structure.” Not as a consequence. It is a defining trait of the Soviet system from the outset. Your view on USSR history is a bit (huge understatement) idealistic.

i am aware that a man is onthologically determined by his place of birth, but try elevating yourself. you really sound like a broken record there. try with the word 'soviet' for starters - what was it, how it developed, how did this councils grow in importance and why?

quote: --“still, its overall impact was more postive than negative - it defeated hitler and it caused big capital worldwide to reexamine its position and treatment of the labor force.” Well, Hitler pretty much defeated himself, but of course USSR was a key factor in the Allied victory. But you should not attribute this to communism – a tsarist or even better, a democratic Russia would also have defeated Hitler.

oh yes, hitler pretty much shot his generals and prevented them from turning left when they reached kiev, etc. etc. first of all, those generals were appointed, fed and armed by hitler. he put them into position where they could have had won the war. they were hesitant to attach czechoslovakia, it was him who pushed for serious military threat. but, unlike him, they lived to write their denigrating memoirs and exculpate themselves.

as for 'democratic' russia, well it surely handled WWI well. WW2 was won because hitler met his organizational match and a system as wily and fanatical as the one he developed. that's about it.

quote: Soviet Union wasn’t completely alone in its struggle, but I don’t want to get into the traditional “Importance of lend-lease to Soviet ultimate victory” debate.

please don't. i'd rather watch 'pearl harbor' instead

quote: Re: labor – where is this from? The international labor movement started in the 19th century…?

oh and by 1917 they succeeded in what? not being summarily shot on their may 1 parades? cmon, it was the typical appeasement situation.


P.S. why do you treat every comment on the ussr so personally? because of the baltic states? history is really not about them, nor their loss of sovereignty - your country, just like mine, gets a footnote in the history books.

	14-05-2002 13:16									#217
	10% of the population were nazi's or sympethises Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

But yes it was not very nice but such was the result for siding with the germans. I don't blame you at all as it wasn't till much 's after that people or those pro german realised what excesives the germans were about.

Even the Russians were amazed that their german comrades could attack them!!!!!

	14-05-2002 14:05									#218
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

nobody "gave" Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia their independence. We declared it, and defended it with our infant army, from bolsheviks, Poles, ragtag German army remnants etc.

It were Poles that saved You from bolshevik rule.
You were collaborating with Germans.

Lithuania lost more AFTER the war, when the smiling, idealistic communist paradise shipped 10% of our population east, where 50% of them died;

Still, Poles of Lithuania were in worse situation than Lithuanians.

We also lost our entire Jewish population of 200 000 during the war.

Heavily polonised

	14-05-2002 14:21									#219
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

--"10% of the population were nazi's or sympethises"

Huh? You mean Lithuanian population? Stop smoking that funky ****, will you?

--"It were Poles that saved You from bolshevik rule.
You were collaborating with Germans. "

You too.

	14-05-2002 15:03									#220
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Saras --"10% of the population were nazi's or sympethises" Huh? You mean Lithuanian population? Stop smoking that funky ****, will you? --"It were Poles that saved You from bolshevik rule. You were collaborating with Germans. " You too.

cmon, all eastern european nations are dodgy. we gotta admit that. mythomania, manicheism, self-pitying and terror of the small differences. stop this

	14-05-2002 16:58									#221
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

--"cmon, all eastern european nations are dodgy. we gotta admit that. mythomania, manicheism, self-pitying and terror of the small differences. stop this"

Not this nation

	14-05-2002 17:01									#222
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

oh, and by "You too" I meant that he should also stop smoking that funky stuff

	15-05-2002 00:28									#223
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui In the War of 1812, the British government wasn't a democracy since the King held so much power, neither was it in the Revolutionary War.

Despite having a King, it was still a democracy, especially for its time. The King's power was moral, not legal. Parliament held most of the power, then, as now. And the US had the same types of restrictions on participation in the government as the Brits.

quote: US invaded Puerto Rico when it was a colony of Spain, hardly a democracy.

Puertp Rico was an autonomous part of the Spanish Empire. It had beaten the Spanish in a revolt, and settled for autonomy rather than full independence. Nonetheless, they voted on their own leaders.

quote: In WW1, Germany was not a democracy, since the Kaiser was powerful as he was.

Constitutional monarchy. The people voted, and Parliament held the purse strings. If the Parliament had voted against war credits, there would have been no war.

quote: The Contras weren't democratic.

The Contras were a proxy army of the United States, which is sort of democratic.

quote: In the US Civil War, the Confederacy wasn't a democracy (too young to be a Democracy, and after a few years abandoned much democratic ideals).

You can't define democracy away by giving it a time limit.

quote: Do you think Turkey is actually a democracy? It's a military democratic republic if anything.

Yep, it may be limited, but it's still democratic. Okay, not very, but it's close enough to be considered for EU membership.

quote: and even during war communist, calling the USSR a democracy is too much...

There was a period before war communism, the Foreign Intervention began with the April 1918 rising of the Czech Guards. Even during war communism, the Mensheviks and Left SRs participated in the government.

	15-05-2002 02:45									#224
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

*pours oil into the fire*

	15-05-2002 03:33									#225
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Che, all your examples are non-democracies. Britain and Germany had way too strong monarchies to be considered a democracy, even if there was still some voting going one.

And yes, you CAN define a democracy away by giving a time limit... It is in the damned definition of democracy!

I still have yet to see proofs that the Democratic Peace Theory is incorrect.

	15-05-2002 05:14									#226
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I still have yet to see proofs that the Democratic Peace Theory is incorrect.

The applicability of the Democratic Peace Theory is limited to quite specific historical circumstances, when there are relatively few democratic countries and at the same time there exists a really strong undemocratic opponent. Otherwise, this theory doesn't work, for each country has its own interests and these interests clash, sometimes strongly, irrespective of any democracy.

	15-05-2002 06:28									#227
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I still have yet to see proofs that the Democratic Peace Theory is incorrect.

How does its evidence rise above that which can not be explained away by chance? What with the rarity of war and all.

	15-05-2002 06:49									#228
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: The applicability of the Democratic Peace Theory is limited to quite specific historical circumstances, when there are relatively few democratic countries and at the same time there exists a really strong undemocratic opponent. Otherwise, this theory doesn't work, for each country has its own interests and these interests clash, sometimes strongly, irrespective of any democracy.

quote: How does its evidence rise above that which can not be explained away by chance? What with the rarity of war and all.

Yet the Democratic Peace Theory has shown that two democratic dyads will not go to war against each other. They will more likely negotiate before going to war. The Democratic Peace Project has been analyzing every war since 1700 (democracies really didn't exist before then) using the IR definitions of war and democracy and have found no wars between democracies.

	15-05-2002 06:52									#229
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

What exactly is the definition of a "democracy" by the study's standards?

	15-05-2002 14:48									#230
	Support Apolyton

I succeeded.

	15-05-2002 15:47									#231
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Communism never had a chance to succeed in Russia. (probably not elsewhere either)

In the case of Russia:

Communism was (according to Marx's theory/analasys) to take hold/power in an industrialized society. It was no coincidence Marx did his studies in the most industrialized country of the time: Britain.

The masses of the workers, living and working on horrible conditions, and the wide gap between them and the ruling industrialist was supposed to make them so misarable to revolt.

Now, in 1917 Russia was a predominant agricultural society, and so there was not a working class to even want communism. Hence the large industrial program set up by the bolshewists: they thought they would be able to create the neccasery conditions for a comunist revolution to take place. Hence also the large collectivation programs to lure the peasants to work in the set up industries. Hence the term Leninism, which spread fast in other non-industrial countries which saw 'communists' revolts (Cuba, Angola and not the least: China)

The industrial countries west of Russia were very happy to see the threat of comminism being expelled from their own societies towards a state far away from home. The fact that the bolshewists made peace with Germany in WW I was an easy target, so the west could point out to this betrayel and start fighting the russians after the victory over Germany. Given human nature, it was a brilliant move to combine the xenofobic tendencies with the fear of communism, therefore pacifying the social unrest in their own society. Knowing they had to cede some power to the workers, in many European countries it was only around this time that genaral elections in which all people got voting rights, started taking place. Many absolute ruling monarchies were transformed to a more republican rule (f.e. Germany, Austria-Hungary, the netherlands, Turkey).
This lead to great influence for the social-democratic parties, who have been able to realize a lot of ideas also supported by Marx, without having to resort to the abject notion of dictorship (of the proletariat)

	15-05-2002 19:12									#232
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Yet the Democratic Peace Theory has shown that two democratic dyads will not go to war against each other.

1) War is a rarity in the international system.
2) As are democratic dyads during the whole of the time period studied by the theory.
3) Finland was in an alliance with Nazi Germany during WWII.

How does the theory deal with these problems?

	15-05-2002 20:08									#233
	Remove this text

Okay fine, there have been now wars between democracies because there have been no democracies.

	15-05-2002 23:24									#234
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Bump

	15-05-2002 23:29									#235
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: 1) War is a rarity in the international system. 2) As are democratic dyads during the whole of the time period studied by the theory. 3) Finland was in an alliance with Nazi Germany during WWII. How does the theory deal with these problems?

1) War is a rarity, however, Great Power wars in the 1600s, 1700s, etc. were not so much a rarity. For a while it seemed that every Great Power was involved in war. This rarity of war is a recent phenomenon, and seems to have come about because of the expansion of democracies.

2) Yes they are (if you mean Are instead of As)

3) Finland stopped elections during the war. The 'Long Parliament' as it is refered to. That kinda stops the democratic nature of the government.

	15-05-2002 23:31									#236
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: What exactly is the definition of a "democracy" by the study's standards?

****, my reply last night was eaten. And btw, it is 'democracy' under the IR definition that the study is using.

Anyway, if I can remember:

1) Free and fair multiparty elections
2) Peaceful transfer of power
3) Ablity to critique the government (some freedom of speech)
4) Exist for over 3 years (to prove the peaceful transfer and all that)

And hmm... there is one or two more that I can't quite remember.

	15-05-2002 23:32									#237
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 3) Finland was in an alliance with Nazi Germany during WWII.

*beats head against the wall*

Finland. And. Nazi. Germany. Did. Not. Have. An. Alliance. We. Were. Co-Belligerents. Any. Questions?

	15-05-2002 23:35									#238
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Democracies can fight, just like any other country, but I think it stands to reason that it's less likely than two dictatorships or a democracy vs. a dictatorship. Not all democracies are the same, and I think the theory that two democracies wouldn't fight requirse two perfect democracies... the likes of which do not, and shall not ever, exist.

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS POST, "DEMOCRACY" SHALL MEAN THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT USED BY THE UNITED STATES AND MOST OF EUROPE - "REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY" FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. YES, THIS IS A VAGUE DEFINITION.

Che,

Most of the countries you assert were democracies, che, fail my definition at the time. The USSR was never a democracy. WWI Germany was not a democracy, though it wasn't despotic either. Britain circa 1776 is debatable, but I think by 1812 it qualifies. But this is silly...

This whole thread revolves around your assertion that the poor, docile Soviet Union was doomed to failure because the EVIL IMPERIALIST CAPITALIST WEST wouldn't let them succeed, and the excesses of the Soviet Union are attributable to insidious, underhanded tactics by the EVIL IMPERIALIST CAPITALIST WEST which forced the poor, docile Soviet Union to do terrible things which it otherwise wouldn't have done. Who, besides yourself, are you kidding?

-Arrian

	15-05-2002 23:38									#239
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui This rarity of war is a recent phenomenon, and seems to have come about because of the expansion of democracies.

Democracies are just as likely to make war as often as non-democracies even according to the theory of the Democratic Peace. I think that you're going to have to come up with another factor to explain the rarity of war.