WWI - probably; WWII - maybe.
I think it all depends on what 'democratically elected' means to whoever is doing the speaking or the listening.
Saddam was 'democratically elected,' for example. Allied forces declared war on him and ousted him from office.
It's just a catchphrase.
Well . . .
We declared war on Great Britain in 1812.
For that matter, the Indian Nations (Creek, Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminole and Chickasaw) declared war on the United States in 1861 -- and at the time all had democratically elected governments. In at least two of those cases (Choctaw and Cherokee) the declaration followed a plebicite on the issue which was wone by the hawks.
Of 116 major wars of 438 countries between 1789 and 1941 not one involved democracies on both sides, although the studies author did get a bit twisty in their reasoning for the War of 1812 and the Civil War IMO.
I suggest reading "Power Kills" by R. J. Rummel.
It doesn't answer your question, but I know that the New York Times and the Democratic Party have decared war on the USA.
Interesting question. I think that the idea is that true democracies where the people have some say in things political and are at the same time free to pursue their own lives and visions without government interference mostly don't seek to go to war with similar societies. But there are few such countries.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DP.CLOCK.HTM
What is the democratic peace?
It is the web of factual propositions that:
Democracies do not make war on each other.
The more two nations are democratic, the less their mutual violence.
Democracies have the least foreign violence.
Democracies have, by far, the least internal violence.
Modern democracies have virtually no democide (genocide and mass murder)
Putting all this together, democracy is a method of nonviolence. And therefore, the democratic peace.
That's more believable, somehow.
Depends on how you define it.
I'm a grad student, and I have a professor who argues that, in his words 'Stable liberal democracies haven't ever fought each other', but it basically comes down to how you define stable liberal democracies. (and that's old school liberal, not Chuck Schumer liberal, for those who aren't well read.)
Not sure what Argentina's political condition was during the Falklands War, but that one comes to mind.
(It will also probably go down as one of the most eclectic and unusual wars in modern history.)
Duh! Germany declared war on the US in 1941.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PK.APPEN1.1.HTM
Appendix 1.1
Q And A On The Fact
That Democracies Do Not
Make War On Each Other*
By R.J. Rummel
After the WWII Western Europe was uniting under Soviet threat. Swiss were quite warlike, and very likely in their long history they did not hesitate to fight a democratic country if there was some quarrel.
Italian and Greek city states fought wars even when both sides were democratic.
WWII
And there were none in WWI. France was the only 'democracy'. Great Britain shouldn't count IMO as they are a Constitutional Monarchy to this date.
How about America's "Quasi-War" with France in the 1790s? Or the Mexican War, at least at its start before Santa Anna couped the government? And the "War of the Pacific" 1879-81 between Chile and Peru (with Bolivia thrown in for a while)?
I think the basic point--that Democracies are less likely to engage in war--is sound.
Is Serbia a democracy? If so then Monica's war is an example.
Care to make a call?
What he didn't mention was the boycott of the elections, Chavez's version of the SA and the fact his minions in their version of the House are on their way to install him as fearless leader till 2030. The guy's a fascist thorough and through.
We declared war on Mexico.