I mean, since WWII formal declarations of war have been extremely rare, and I think Hitler had alot to do with this. In any event, I think its a natural progress.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
i find it disturbing that dubya can ask for money to fund "military operations" and that congress obliges, and doesn't consider that their (sole) right to declare war has been infringed upon...
but maybe it's just semantics...
but maybe it's just semantics...
Personally I think tht Japan had more to do with it than Hitler, since they was the first starting with the declaration after the facts (even if it may have been by misstake that the declaration came after the attack and not s few minutes before).
QUOTE]Originally posted by Burris
I mean, since WWII formal declarations of war have been extremely rare, and I think Hitler had alot to do with this. In any event, I think its a natural progress. [/QUOTE]
Hitler was prepared to use wars as an extension of politics, he was of course not alone in that, but that has not been the norm post ww2.
Post ww2 most of the worlds governments have rejected the use of armed force to solve political disputes, forming laws to prevent wars from occuring as a result. Its legally difficult to declare war as a result of that legislation, an example is the US, to fund post war rebuilding in Iraq is a huge expense, the IMF and world bank are prevented from loaning the money unless its legal to do so, therefore the US must pay for that itself, if it fails to convince them they acted in a legal manner.
Can war be legislated out from occurring?, no i dont think that is going to happen, but what we have seen is that the expected rewards from war, are not as great as the cost of doing so, economic and political cost that is, helping to make them less frequent. Also particulry in the global economys that now are in place, economic changes are at least as important as legal changes between now and the ww2 period, for seeing the decline of wars to settle disputes.
HB
I mean, since WWII formal declarations of war have been extremely rare, and I think Hitler had alot to do with this. In any event, I think its a natural progress. [/QUOTE]
Hitler was prepared to use wars as an extension of politics, he was of course not alone in that, but that has not been the norm post ww2.
Post ww2 most of the worlds governments have rejected the use of armed force to solve political disputes, forming laws to prevent wars from occuring as a result. Its legally difficult to declare war as a result of that legislation, an example is the US, to fund post war rebuilding in Iraq is a huge expense, the IMF and world bank are prevented from loaning the money unless its legal to do so, therefore the US must pay for that itself, if it fails to convince them they acted in a legal manner.
Can war be legislated out from occurring?, no i dont think that is going to happen, but what we have seen is that the expected rewards from war, are not as great as the cost of doing so, economic and political cost that is, helping to make them less frequent. Also particulry in the global economys that now are in place, economic changes are at least as important as legal changes between now and the ww2 period, for seeing the decline of wars to settle disputes.
HB
Hitler is the same as Napoleon. Their success is somewhat dependant on the fact that they are criminals who always attack with surprise. I think that they had an effect on those who want to be transnational tyrants like them. However, the democracies still function in pretty much the same way. If anything has altered DoWs, I would say that it would be the United Nations trying to adopt the 'supreme arbiter of right and wrong' role between 1991 and 2003.
huh?
[edit--removed incorrect statement about Hitler often declaring war. He generally came up with spurious explanations for attacks, but apparently usually didn't bother declaring war. He did against the US, any other countries so honored?]
In any event, tactical surprise is different than a DoW. Obviously the French had been at war for 6 months before they were attacked, and it's not like marching through Belgium was completely unpredictable. (Napoleon's surprise was even more a result of maneuver, rather than political surprise--he wasn't even always the one to start a war, as in 1809).
IMHO, the reason for fewer DoW's in democracies is primarily domestic. There are obviously foreign relations issues, but also I think an attempt to limit the scope of most conflicts to avoid total war, which is far more destructive than it once was. (I'm thinking things like the Falklands war, which IIRC was not officially declared, although the British certainly would have had indisputable cause).
[edit--removed incorrect statement about Hitler often declaring war. He generally came up with spurious explanations for attacks, but apparently usually didn't bother declaring war. He did against the US, any other countries so honored?]
In any event, tactical surprise is different than a DoW. Obviously the French had been at war for 6 months before they were attacked, and it's not like marching through Belgium was completely unpredictable. (Napoleon's surprise was even more a result of maneuver, rather than political surprise--he wasn't even always the one to start a war, as in 1809).
IMHO, the reason for fewer DoW's in democracies is primarily domestic. There are obviously foreign relations issues, but also I think an attempt to limit the scope of most conflicts to avoid total war, which is far more destructive than it once was. (I'm thinking things like the Falklands war, which IIRC was not officially declared, although the British certainly would have had indisputable cause).
Last edited:
Re: huh?
Strategic surprise, not tactical surprise. Hitler achieved it by surprise attacking everyone, Napoleon by marching at 30-40 miles a day instead of 5. Napoleon had the ability to use his troops differently than his early opponents, because of this, and win wars.
The belgians were informed in advance of the German attack, and did mobilise. But the dutch, well they were very jaded.
Of course there is this idea of a limited war as well that complicates things, as opposed to 'total' war, either in method of operation or objectives.
Like in the Falklands where I don't think war was ever formally declared by Argentina. Not to mentioned Argentina just expected to be able to take the islands with minimal response.
Much like Saddam Hussein and Kuwait in 1990.
For that matter not unlike Hitler and Poland in 1939.
Mmm, in all these cases the protagonists thought the other side didn't have the stomach for the fight. Modern democracy's loathing for war comes, I think, more from WW1 and the memories of that war. So perhaps it is WW1 that is responsible for the failure to declare war as often?
Shaky theory
Like in the Falklands where I don't think war was ever formally declared by Argentina. Not to mentioned Argentina just expected to be able to take the islands with minimal response.
Much like Saddam Hussein and Kuwait in 1990.
For that matter not unlike Hitler and Poland in 1939.
Mmm, in all these cases the protagonists thought the other side didn't have the stomach for the fight. Modern democracy's loathing for war comes, I think, more from WW1 and the memories of that war. So perhaps it is WW1 that is responsible for the failure to declare war as often?
Shaky theory
In the case of the war on Iraq, the US didn't bother because the case, as they saw it, had already been made. No need for such formalities like declaring war, because the UN resolutions, according to Bush c.s., already could be seen as DOW in advance. No compliance means war. As the Iraqi's, again according to the Bush administration, didn't comply, war was the inevitable result.
Other wars after WWII include wars like Vietnam (US), Afghanistan (USSR) and Korean War (North Korea). War wasn't declared here for different reasons. One could argue that North Korea resembles Germany: dictatorship, clearly aggressive stance. No need for a DOW, that's for sissies.
In the Vietnam, Afghanistan scenario one should remember that these weren't wars like in the past, i.e. between states. In essence, both the US and the USSR intervened in civil wars, so who do you DOW? A certain faction? That's not the way it's done. You just pledge support to the faction you endorse and, as a consequence, become an enemy of the other faction.
Another reason for the lack of DOW's, even when wars occur between states, is probably the fact that it hinders operations. Surprise counts, a few minutes can make a big difference. Get your fighters and bombers in the air without DOWing, make the enemy nervous, hectic phone calls to the center what to do and take out their airforce, radar stations while they are still unsure about what is going on. If you DOW them, they have a few more minutes to react and those few minutes might be all you need to cripple them enough to make the next phase a lot easier.
In the early days movement was limited and the element of surprise not so important as it is nowadays. In 1940 Denmark was taken out in a few hours, in 1864 the Prussians and Austrians didn't even manage to cross the border in that amount of time.
Other wars after WWII include wars like Vietnam (US), Afghanistan (USSR) and Korean War (North Korea). War wasn't declared here for different reasons. One could argue that North Korea resembles Germany: dictatorship, clearly aggressive stance. No need for a DOW, that's for sissies.
In the Vietnam, Afghanistan scenario one should remember that these weren't wars like in the past, i.e. between states. In essence, both the US and the USSR intervened in civil wars, so who do you DOW? A certain faction? That's not the way it's done. You just pledge support to the faction you endorse and, as a consequence, become an enemy of the other faction.
Another reason for the lack of DOW's, even when wars occur between states, is probably the fact that it hinders operations. Surprise counts, a few minutes can make a big difference. Get your fighters and bombers in the air without DOWing, make the enemy nervous, hectic phone calls to the center what to do and take out their airforce, radar stations while they are still unsure about what is going on. If you DOW them, they have a few more minutes to react and those few minutes might be all you need to cripple them enough to make the next phase a lot easier.
In the early days movement was limited and the element of surprise not so important as it is nowadays. In 1940 Denmark was taken out in a few hours, in 1864 the Prussians and Austrians didn't even manage to cross the border in that amount of time.
US is an exception to the general rule, it has fought in 200+military conflicts, but Declared War only 5 times in its entire history. The WPA is the prime reason why for the US war is no longer declared.
Suvorov
"Another reason for the lack of DOW's, even when wars occur between states, is probably the fact that it hinders operations. Surprise counts, a few minutes can make a big difference.":- Operational or starategic surprise is not dependant on the issueing of a DOW, Pres Bush gave 48 ultimatum to Iraq for instance.
I like your main point of current speed of operations though, with Sat and AWACS survalence, the US can fight a war in real time, a thing relativly few nations can do, comm speed coupled with intel accurate to 10cm detail of the battlefield, as the current standard, means near perfect 250klm coverage of the battlefied and instant or near instant reaction and planning, as long as that disparity exhists, wars can be fought quickly to a conclusion, which was why Shock and awe was picked for Iraq.
HB
Suvorov
"Another reason for the lack of DOW's, even when wars occur between states, is probably the fact that it hinders operations. Surprise counts, a few minutes can make a big difference.":- Operational or starategic surprise is not dependant on the issueing of a DOW, Pres Bush gave 48 ultimatum to Iraq for instance.
I like your main point of current speed of operations though, with Sat and AWACS survalence, the US can fight a war in real time, a thing relativly few nations can do, comm speed coupled with intel accurate to 10cm detail of the battlefield, as the current standard, means near perfect 250klm coverage of the battlefied and instant or near instant reaction and planning, as long as that disparity exhists, wars can be fought quickly to a conclusion, which was why Shock and awe was picked for Iraq.
HB
Last edited:
The "criminal" Napoleon declared war three times; Egypt, Russia and the coup/invasion of Spain. For the rest of his career, the British coalitions were the ones who attacked France.
Comparing Napoleon to Hitler??
Rather difficult to do I agree.
Napolean however, but his actions and manipulations, was clearly committed to dominating Europe. I think any comparisons with Hitler must end there.
Shock and awe sounds great on CNN/Fox/ABC etc., but in reality there was no shock and as a consequence no awe either. The US airforce wasn't given the authorization needed to achieve shock (for fear of "disturbing" images on Al-Jazeera of Iraqi civilian casualties).
Besides, most wars after WWII weren't fought by superpowers with superweapons. The element of surprise in conflicts between most nations still might be very important.
Simply incorrect.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1996/shock-n-awe_index.html
Shock and awe was adopted as policy, integrated with "CentCom courses for action", that replaced existing policy and methodolgy for warfighting in the ME, as the way to fight Iraq, wargamed in Germany, ended up as deployment order 117, Shock and Awe worked just as predicted.
HB
The War Powers Act does give the President some leeway around getting a Declaration out of Congress, but...
The first act of Congress, declaring war on the UK. July, 1776
DoW on UK, July, 1812
Mexican DoW on US, April, 1846
CS DoW on US, April 1861
DoW on Spain, April, 1898
DoW on Germany, Austria-Hungary, April, 1917
DoW on Germany, Italy, Japan, December, 1941
DoW on North Korea, June, 1950
Iraq wasn't subject to a declaration of war, either this time, or the first time around. This is a total of six DoWs. Not much more than your five, however.
Steele
PS: The US is still at war with the PRK. No treaty was ever signed, only an armistice.
Shock and Awe, the Fox version and the official version are two different things.
http://www.dodccrp.org/shockIndex.html
Is the actual paper all the hype is about. IMHO, that paper was not put into practice. It specifically defines the use of deceisive force and renounces it. The plan also claims that within 20 years of GW1- so by 2011 a S&A campaign could be fought and won within hours or days of war starting.
S&A focuses, IMHO on a strategic and political level victory using Hiroshima/Nagasaki as an ultimate example of the doctrine in action.
http://www.dodccrp.org/shockIndex.html
Is the actual paper all the hype is about. IMHO, that paper was not put into practice. It specifically defines the use of deceisive force and renounces it. The plan also claims that within 20 years of GW1- so by 2011 a S&A campaign could be fought and won within hours or days of war starting.
S&A focuses, IMHO on a strategic and political level victory using Hiroshima/Nagasaki as an ultimate example of the doctrine in action.
The war powers act was intended to require Congressional approval for military action, even when a DoW was not issued. It was more a response to the vanishing declarations of war than its cause. It was passed in 1972 (IIRC) and it's hard for me to imagine Congress declaring war in any US conflict since then.
BTW, do you have a link to the military conflict list? I've heard the number before but I've also heard the number includes an awful lot of "conflicts" that would not rate a DoW for any nation.
I'd be curious to see it.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/index.html
This as good as any for a current list.
Yep many of those 200+ dont include a combat casualty for instance.
HB
This as good as any for a current list.
Yep many of those 200+ dont include a combat casualty for instance.
HB