> But, yes, depending on how you define "stable democracy" and how you define "war", you might be able up with a few examples.
The American Revolutionary War. But wait! Britain wasn't a stable democracy during that period.
The American Civil War. But wait! America wasn't a stable democracy during that period.
Notice how it's always the loser that's not a "real" democracy?
Maybe it's easier for people to say that the loser wasn't a "real" democracy than to accept that democracies can and do go to war with each other.
> The social scientists who came up with democracy peace theory, and those who study and publish papers on it today, aren't doing "propaganda", nor are professional historians and political scientists the type to be swayed by it.
http://www.amazon.ca/In-Denial-Historians-Communism-Espionage/dp/159403088X
I have a really mad recent example:
​
​
When historians wrote about any even slightly socialist countries and people, they often lied a lot. Imagine, that even in the time of Pol Pot a lot of important people in the field relevant to the region wrote that Pol Pot was actually great. Review of literature about Khmer Rouge from academics of the period
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/deniers/cambodia/canon.pdf "Kindom of Justice".
​
Also, very weird example: think about Maccarthy. Why do you think he's bad? He was just an incompetent and loud politician, but the fact that there was a lot of communist spies and sympathizers in a huge number of important positions is not debatable at this point after the release of Vernona papers and related stuff and "communists under the bed" was far more real than people assume. But people who wrote about communism were often very sympathetic to it and continue to be. https://www.amazon.com/Denial-Historians-Communism-Espionage/dp/159403088X
But then, what history is that? The one by the historians?
https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250055811
https://www.amazon.com/Denial-Historians-Communism-Espionage/dp/159403088X