Has a Democratic nation ever started a war and formally declared war first upon another nation as the aggressor in human history and is it plausible/feasible past the Early Modern Era?
>>339464
Plenty of dictators were democratically elected.
Does that count?
Ok. You want to know if the rules PDS made for HOI4 is true to history or not?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
Yeah, the second Iraq war
>>339507
I want to say yes but many dictators also curbed democratic institutions to have less pecking order, many nations at that point simply call them "dictatorships."
>>339520
>>339527
To play devil's advocate this was simply something the U.N. pushed for and the U.S. (not Congress until they ratified) supported. I've heard many people call this an "operation" to topple a regime and not a war to topple a peoples.
>>339584
Everything can be seen as a threat.
>>339541
>an "operation" to topple a regime and not a war to topple a peoples
Completely irrelevant to the Iraqi civilians and soldiers who died on both sides
>>339464
who even is anyone other than Rommel in this picture
I know this is a wikipedia page and some of these are wrong, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_between_democracies#18th_century
>>339601
You don't know who the guy with the aviators and corn cob pipe is? Seriously?
>>339601
mongomery left, zhukov right, macarthur second right
>>339464
Yes, the Franco-Prussian war.
>>339464
Lots of times
democracies dont declare war. they "encounter a situation".
>>339695
Napoleon III was democratically elected but essentially it was no longer a democracy at the time of war
>>339725
>Emperor Napoleon III was """"""democratically"""""" elected
>The II French Empire was a """""democracy"""""""""
True, however, is among the closest things to "democracy" you could find in Europe at the time.
>>339758
2bf, the second empire was the exact opposite of democratic. Especially compared to the relatively liberal North German Federation.
>>339527
>ignoring sarin gas canisters
>>339464
Yes. Many. But mostly Murica.
In 90% of the wars Murica has been involved since 1812.
Well, actually since 1777.
>>339768
>North German federation, a varied collection of independent, mostly aristocratic principalities, under the cukold of Prussia
>""""""""""""""""""""liberal""""""""""""""""""
>>339790
but is it really a democracy with two fucking parties
>>339758
He was democratically elected, then got full power through a coup
Yes the voting system was a bit rigged, but he was better than any leader France has had since then
>>339822
As an american I'd argue no since both parties always tried to appeal to the lowest common denominator, but it's still viewed by the national community as a legitimate democratic-republic.
>>339854
There is a dichotomy between ideal democracy and real democratic governments, OP was asking about peer-approved democratic nations not what professors in political science departments think
>>339854
the argument is that these democracies are notoriously flawed in comparison to other ones
>>339879
>second empire
>flawed
>>339464
'Democratic Peacy Theory' is probably where you should look for an answer.
I think I remember something like this:
Statistically, democracies don't ge involved in war as often as dictatorships (autocracies etc.).
Also statistics are showing that democracies have nearly no war among themselves.
Could be wrong here though, don't really remember that class
>>339924
Democratic peace is bunk as a theory because of the incredibly small sample size for democracies and the fact that most of those democracies have arisen with the emergence of nuclear deterrence in the modern era which virtually eliminated war between nuclear powers.
>>339983
This to be honest family
Democracies are also generally less efficient at following objectives because muh cycles
>>339892
He really fucked up with Prussia though. It cost him and France nearly everything.
>>340002
That was a mistake yes, but other than that he was a great leader
More powerful centralized state, immense industrial and economic growth, revolutionized cities and notably Paris, turning it into what its known for today (minus the tower)
Honestly I'd vote for him if he came back
>>339983
as I said, it was a long time ago I read about it ... isn't there any newer empirical research about that?
>>340022
About what?
>>339464
>MacArthur as representative of America
Batshit fucking pissed/10
>>339822
In any system, there are only two de facto parties.
Do you think that SNP would ever form a government with the Tories or would they be a more natural fit with Labour?
>>339601
>doesn't know who Georgy "Kraut Kontrol" Zhukov is
>>340080
MacArthur was a mixed bag desu. He wanted to nuke China, and told feds to eat shit sometimes, so he's alright with me.
>>339601
>He doesn't know who Douggy "Nuke the Nips" Mac is
>>340111
All of the WWII vets I've spoken to have said that they and everyone else they knew hated MacArthur because he was an arrogant asshole. Hard to be a great general when you don't really have the full respect of your troops.
Yes, the united states.
Not even edge, i think its justified often too.
>>339601
Well one is macarthur, from the pacific theatre and the korean war.
>>340111
>Botching the defense of the phillipines, Resulting in the Bataan Death march.
>Bugging the fuck out from his own disastrous operation and then delegating the surrender to his own subordinates.
>Trying to get Eisenhower fired half way across the world because reasons.
>Putting himself in for a Medal of Honor.
>Korea happens.
>Pushes close to mainland China, again in violation of orders.
>Provokes China into a counter-invasion.
>Disregards all intel leading up to this invasion.
>Wants to start hurling nukes, possibly provoking a nuclear conflict with the USSR.
>Gets called to account by Truman and told to meet him at Midway.
>MacArthur makes Truman wait on him to arrive.
He broke every unwritten rule and flagrantly violated orders. You are the faggiest faggot on this board for defending him.
>>340167
>we live in a world where it's considered edgy to say that the US invades countries without any good moral reasons
It's about as edgy as saying the sky is blue, honestly
>>340236
But he was a bad ass anon.
And stuck it up Truman's ass, like he should have.
>>340291
He was the furthest thing from a bad-ass. He was incompetent and proud of it.
>>340291
>he was a bad ass
memetic
>>340236
This.
MacArthur is responsible for North Korea's existence.
And also post-war Japanese warcrime denial in the government.
>>339464
What about coup d'etats?
>>340568
>see why your wrong and then return to your echochamber
what if noone went back to /pol/?
>MacArthur
>Same level as Rommel and Zhukov
Why are Swedes so dumb?
>>341013
Rommel was a hack.
>>339464
>Has a Democratic nation ever started a war and formally declared war first upon another nation as the aggressor in human history
r u srs?
>>339464
The United States was the aggressor in the Mexican, Spanish, and 2nd Iraq wars.
>>340518
North and south korea have better economies than if they weren't invaded. MacArthur being fucking insane improved both of their futures.
Also, if the soviets didn't use human wave tactics against German mg42 the allies would've lost, and if the United States weren't so corrupted by its corporations the allies would have lost.
>>339854
Moving the goalposts. If nothing but direct democracy is democracy, no democracy has ever existed.
>>341013
>Rommel
>Zhukov
>Montgomery
>MacArthur
Waaaaaaait a minute.
Everyone in this image is an overrated hack.
>>341045
There was literally nothing Rommel could do after kessarine.
>Has a Democratic nation ever started a war and formally declared war first
Yes.
But they weren't mature democracies.
>>340518
>MacArthur is responsible for North Korea's existence.
That would be America at large. Without them it would just be Korea. A communist Korea with little doubt, but a self-determined one at least.
>>341048
>After Kessarine
You act like that's where his fuckups began.
>>341057
>have half as many soldiers as Allies
>rape them
Can't ask for much more than that.
Pakistan declared war on India in 1965 although I guess they're more of an army ruled country
Also India declared war on Pakistan in 1971 and if the Indians are to be believed divided Pakistan politically into two countries
>>340236
What did he botch.
Not so sure about that second point is true.
Did he really try and get Eisenhower fired and why
All that stuff about China and Korea matches up. How the fuck did this guy end up in charge of the pacific theater
what made him think keeping the president waiting was a good idea
>>341056
so kim jong un running even more of korea into the ground
>>341139
Yeah, pretty much. But it would have been "self-determined", (riiiiiiiiiight), so Marxist revisionists and the anti-America crowd would have you believe that America is ebul for getting involved.
>>341157
>self determined
>not kissing the soviet's ass then china's for handouts
>>340021
>great leader
Sure m8 and the whole thing with Mexico went smoothly
>>339711
This, and they must defend their way of life thousands of kilometers abroad
>>339464
The Anglo Iraq war and Anglo-Iranian wars (subsets of WW2) spring to mind.
>>341125
>What made him think keeping the president waiting was a good idea.
Because he was the mother fucker who became Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, the man who brought the Japanese Empire that conquered Asia to its knees, a 5-Star Army General of the United States, and he thought he was better than pic.
Nah in truth it was because of his pride and not respecting the office of the President (His Superior/Commander-in-Chief).
>>341245
probably had something to do with leading the charge against an empire and bringing it down going to his head
>>339464
>Has a Democratic nation ever started a war and formally declared war first upon another nation as the aggressor in human history
yea
Rome
Athens
USA
>>341033
This, also American involvement in World War I would count, Germany didn't commit any outright acts of aggression against the United States prior to the declaration of war, it sank American vessels that were carrying war materials in British and French waters which can not really be considered an act of aggression, and the Zimmermann telegram was a proposal for a defensive alliance in the event America declared war on Germany first and it was only sent after America broke off diplomatic relations with Germany and started arming its merchants ships and ordering the navy to fire on German subs.
>>341045
If near everybody says that Monty is overrated, does that not make him just rated? Or indeed, underrated?
OP here, completely forgot about the Spanish War and the Philippino War as well. Paradox now does not have an excuse because this was LITERALLY a few years before the world wars
>>339601
Montgomery, Rommel, MacArthur, Zhukov
Come on. Zhukov on the right there is responsible for more Axis casualties than the other two combined.
>>341044
>direct democracy
Athens. Declared war a bunch of times on other poleis so that doesn't even stand up to OP's claim.
>>339769
The reason our government didn't publicize the chemical weapons found in Iraq and use them as the "smoking gun" to show the invasion was justified is because those were old chemical weapons that had been provided to Iraq by the US and West Germany.
>>341698
meh, it was an oligarhical democracy
Athens
>>339601
The guy who handed his ass to him is standing right next to him.
American Civil War.
>>341033
Mexico fired first.
Spanish was an accident
Iraq had it coming
Can we all agree that true democracies are less likely to start wars without a good "ethical" reason?
>>344095
a true democracies would probably not have a war unless its a defensive one
unfortunately there are no true democracies around
>>344095
The rise of democracies came at the same time as mutually assured destruction, so not really.
>>344115
It's a spectrum, and so is the level of justification for war. I'm proposing they are roughly directly correlated.
>>344139
There were plenty of democracies around well before the 1950's.
>>344154
>plenty
>many
>a lot of
I love hearing this when reading about history, because it means I can instantly throw the claims into the garbage.
>b-but my x nations
Not even 10% of the world.
>>344095
I agree. Switzerland is the sole democracy in the world and hasn't started a single war since... Has Switzerland ever declared war on anyone?
>>339601
Rommel is literally the most overrated general ever.
Name one battle which he won while he was in charge.
>>344115
>a true democracies would probably not have a war unless its a defensive one
You really think people never want war?
>>344518
most people don't want to go throw their lives away for some stupid shit that doesn't threaten them
>>344531
Most people aren't in the military.
Also people can be convinced that things threaten them. Everyone and their mother said they were acting defensively in WW1.
>>344531
>what is revanchism
>what are nationalism and national pride
>the population of the USA was obviously against every war their government started
>peace-loving hippies voted the NSDAP in charge
>>344565
I agree with you, but the nazis were actually appointed into power by Hindenburg on the advice of Papen, they were not directly elected into power.
>>344182
>Not even 10% of the world.
The fuck does that matter? Reread my post(s). Just because there were fewer democracies doesn't mean the actions of the few democracies that did exist shouldn't be considered.
>>344655
Fair point. I thought to leave out the NSDAP for that exact reason, but left it there because it still had a significant amount of support among the populace. That's why it was strong enough for Hindenburg to appoint it.
>a true democratic nation will never declare war on the other
yes but will a true scotsman put sugar on his pourge?
>>340583
>North Korea
>Better than South Korea
b8b8b8b8b8b8b8
