Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Democracies versus Dictatorships

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Democracies versus Dictatorships

    Which is more effective in war?

    It seems to me dictatorships (including more or less absolute monarchies) have an advantage in the short run, but when democracies (including constitutional monarchies) get going, they tend to prevail - unless they fragment.

    Examples include:

    Persian Wars
    American Revolution (sort of)
    US-Mexican War (sort of)
    20th Century Wars (including Korea, sort of)

    Any thoughts??
    "There are only two professions in the world in which the amateur excels the professional. One, military strategy, and, two, prostitution."
    -- Maj. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

    (Avatar: Commodore Edwin Ward Moore, Republic of Texas Navy)

  • #2
    A war is easier to run as a Dictatorship but a Democracy allows for better production and research.
    If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

    Comment


    • #3
      The main problem is your caveat -- we (the democracies) are too prone to allow dissent to go to disunion or fragmentation. Common sense by those who have a different opinion used to keep things functional, but that broke down years ago and no longer works as a governor.
      Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
      Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


      "Never pet a burning dog."

      RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
      http://www.mormon.org
      http://www.sca.org
      http://www.scv.org/
      http://www.scouting.org/

      Comment


      • #4
        yup aint it the truth. And i concur with that 11th ACR man as well.

        ecee lobo

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Janos View Post
          The main problem is your caveat -- we (the democracies) are too prone to allow dissent to go to disunion or fragmentation. Common sense by those who have a different opinion used to keep things functional, but that broke down years ago and no longer works as a governor.
          Too true. And not just recently. The Greeks were notorious for democratic disunion -- although when things screeched to a halt, they had the pressure-release of banishment by referendum to break the deadlock. Closer to home (yours and mine), the Confederate government could not take measures such as the marshalling of rail resources or the emancipation of slaves in return for military service, both of which would have aided the war effort.

          Maybe the answer lies with the form of democracy - the Whiskey Rebellion finally got the states to junk the Articles of Confederation and replace it with a stronger government. Perhaps the purer the democracy, the harder it is to fight; the more representative the democracy, the easier to get moving in a single direction.

          Bringing it into the 20th Century, was there any serious dissent or war-weariness in England or America in late 1944 or mid-1945?
          "There are only two professions in the world in which the amateur excels the professional. One, military strategy, and, two, prostitution."
          -- Maj. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

          (Avatar: Commodore Edwin Ward Moore, Republic of Texas Navy)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by freightshaker View Post
            A war is easier to run as a Dictatorship but a Democracy allows for better production and research.
            I think thats a myth. A dictatorship doesn't necessarily need to be a communist/socialist one which ruins the economy. The chinese seem to have understood the economy lesson but they're still living in a dictatorship. And Chavez would be the other example who manages to ruin his country as a democratically elected idiot .

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jon Jordan View Post
              Bringing it into the 20th Century, was there any serious dissent or war-weariness in England or America in late 1944 or mid-1945?
              I think there were some murmurings as early as 1943, when Roosevelt announced the policy of pursuing unconditional surrender. People groaned when they realized that this meant war to the bitter end. I don't think it was strong enough to seriously question the war; Thomas Dewey didn't mention an intention to end the war with a negotiated peace in his GOP platform in '44, so it can probably be assumed that the general consensus was to stay the course.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Drake View Post
                I think thats a myth. A dictatorship doesn't necessarily need to be a communist/socialist one which ruins the economy.
                That's true. Francisco Franco, the fascist "dictator" of Spain, was definitely not a socialist or a communist, but an enemy of both, and to my knowledge he didn't ruin Spain's economy, but rebuilt it after the Spanish Civil War. Not to say that he was totally good--while I don't believe everything that "Franco-bashers" say, I also don't subscribe to the belief among others on the opposite end of the spectrum who say that he was a saint.

                Still, I think that this book might be worth looking into: http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Stopped.../dp/0971039208

                Comment


                • #9
                  Democracies vs Dictatorships

                  Each side in History has been successful
                  Look at Alexander, Genghis Khan, and other famous conquerers who were successful in warfare but more or less held absolute power. I don't want to talk about the ins and outs of each but one can draw numerous examples of both Democracies (representative and pure) and Dictatorships (all forms) being successful in waging wars.
                  When talking about dissenters keeping dissent in a Dictatorship is as simple as jailing or executing dissenters where in a Democracy the people have more"rights" as such.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    [QUOTE=Drake;813893]I think thats a myth.



                    *I'd have to disagree from the perspective of the historic record certainly insofar as the command and control aspect is concerned..innumerable cases support that. And he didnt address it specificaly to communism and or fascism albeit they are the most recent examples...any oligarchy and even some monarchies can be dictatorial. Not only in nature but in planning and support of their ideaology and position.

                    best
                    CV

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Drake View Post
                      I think thats a myth. A dictatorship doesn't necessarily need to be a communist/socialist one which ruins the economy. The chinese seem to have understood the economy lesson but they're still living in a dictatorship. And Chavez would be the other example who manages to ruin his country as a democratically elected idiot .
                      Democracy and Dictatorship are not economic systems. China has a nice combination of Socialism with private ownership. It seems to work well for them.
                      If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by jelay14 View Post
                        I think there were some murmurings as early as 1943, when Roosevelt announced the policy of pursuing unconditional surrender. People groaned when they realized that this meant war to the bitter end. I don't think it was strong enough to seriously question the war; Thomas Dewey didn't mention an intention to end the war with a negotiated peace in his GOP platform in '44, so it can probably be assumed that the general consensus was to stay the course.
                        FDR already knew that Stalin intended to capitalize on the split of Europe when they did the deal at Yalta, but apparantly also knew that the allies would not go for another war right after defeating the Axis. The willingness to stay the course was despite war weariness, IMO.

                        One biographer surmised that perhaps if he had survived the war Roosevelt could have pushed Stalin to back off, having the stature to keep the UN united against the USSR, but we will never know.
                        "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
                        George Mason
                        Co-author of the Second Amendment
                        during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by freightshaker View Post
                          Democracy and Dictatorship are not economic systems. China has a nice combination of Socialism with private ownership. It seems to work well for them.
                          They aren't, but production and research depend on the economic system and that was the point of my submission.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Drake View Post
                            They aren't, but production and research depend on the economic system and that was the point of my submission.
                            My reference was that better and easier ways of doing things usually come from a Democracy. Dictatorships tend to be more bureaucratic and sometimes having a great idea can be used against you. While not a Dictatorship, consider Tukhachevsky and Deep Battle.
                            If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Jup, I'd agree that dictatorships tend to be not only bureaucratic but highly corrupt. But it doesn't necessarily need to be different (better) in a democracy, that's wishful thinking. The FRG in 1980 had a worse bureaucracy than Nazi Germany in 1939 (they had more time to refine it even further), though much less corruption (and thank god they eased up a lot in the past decades on the bureaucracy part, though still much to do imho).
                              The incentive to do things better and easier is an economical one. And when it comes to completely new ideas, well, there is no reason for a dictatorship to persecute it unless it threatens the powerbase and technical novelties usually don't fall into that category, only ideologies/philosophies.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X