Why don't Countries Formally Declare War Anymore? (Short Animated Documentary) 

I saw that and I was like: "WAIT A MINUTE!"

Fix it then.

@@xky8124 that would involve taking down the video and re-uploading it.

China at it again.

No problem

Hahaha nice one

@@thedankone4737 You mean invading Ukraine, shooting civilians (even Russian ones) because USSR styled propaganda of "whole eastern Europe is ours" has gone to far? Because that's more accurate of what is Putin doing rn. Slava Ukrainie

Special Nazi killing operations

@@ElusiveCrustGaming which truth? That war sucks?

@@ElusiveCrustGaming I think that's you not him

I can't wait for the day in which the UN doesn't exist anymore

Sebastian from that comment alone I can tell you don’t understand the purpose of the UN

More like bigger countries just fund smaller scale proxy wars in less powerful countries.

@@karma916 I could understand Sebastian opinion though. I mean, Arab Saudi as a champion of women's right? and some shady Somalis as a head of WHO? UN is quite corrupt if we only take a look from those 2 cases, no? might as well get rid of it.

@@Sebastian-dc2qg international diplomacy and agreements would still be required, if the UN was disbanded some other international would replace it, in our internationalized world it's simply impossible (unless you're North Korea) to refuse to participate in the geo-politcs and geo-economics and for that you need to participate in the international community. The independent nation state has been dead for quite some time now and was replaced with a global web of political and (arguably more important) economic relations, wich will inevitably form some sort of international community just to manage relations between different factions (countries).

Agree!

Because people don't understand what formal declaration mean, they also probably go to video from YT recommendations, probably don't watch it and don't read the video description.

Not that that changes anything, it's a fucking war. But then again Russians aren't big on truth overall

@@Puckosar Same with Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc. But none of those were formal wars. That is the point of the video. No one formally declares war anymore. This video holds up to the Ukraine conflict as well.

Yes, it's an incursion, a conflict

But they never said that tho? And you just proved the video right, it's not "formally", but countries still know it's war and that it's not super duper cool (in general).

Yeah, same thing happened when USA started military peace operation in Afghanistan, Israel etc.

In war you capture tesources and territory. In military ops you achive goals. War in Ukraine is a war cause of ocupation

@@Sterkson92 * cause of genocide aspect of it, stealing children, shelling hospitals and schools, shelling at critical energy objects, especially in winter

To be fair: There are way less wars going on worldwide than ever before. Even including special military operations.

mucho mas util que la onu

@@Tomi_421 it's the same thing

@@duonsoul7996 some sectors from latin american are most useless than the main un headquarters

Tbf to the UN, the first objective is to prevent something on the scale of WW2. Yea, the smaller wars, it won't work 100% of the time but hey, at least nuclear bombs ain't flying over our heads

@@warren5037 pretty sure that has more to do with a lingering mad doctrine between the world's nuclear powers more then the un

Momo the EnderKitty huzzah! A man of quality

Momo the EnderKitty I see that you are a man of culture

Pffff what a bunch of noobs, why don't they just get the instant war mod ?

Momo the EnderKitty yeah we all gotta turn facist

They can get into certain conflicts if they spend some political power though.

Far too many people don't know how to read properly. Most of the time they just read what fits their agenda, and ignore key details.

@@metalswifty23 exactly

It's even more concerning than that. Because it implies that those people see Ukraine as a "real war" but not, say, Vietnam, Gulf, Afghanistan, etc.

I literally see no comments that think this video aged poorly

Not why, but wars had more rules of how they were supposed to be fought. More regimented. Less gorilla war fare. There is a story that during the American revolution, a top British general's dog was found by George Washington. He crossed enemy lines when they weren't fighting to return the dog because that's what was expected. (Washington used this opportunity to collect intel, but he returned the dog)

@@melissaharris3890 gorilla war fare.

@@melissaharris3890 At least Mel Gibson kept Cornwallis' dogs. Those were nice dogs.

Nothing has changed. If youre talking about Ukraine, Russia has not declared war

I feel like countries used to formally declare war as a way of promoting war support and Nationalism to get manpower in the war effort (I’m sure there’s plenty of other reasons too but this one stuck out to me)

@M it has power so long as the global powers say it does. If they dont it goes the way of the League of Nations

@M True.. It is only ever adhered to when suiting nations holding onto power. We live in a world where a government we do not elect will control our lives.. Thanks USA.. Thanks allot..

@nickys34 Of course you coulddo it similar with a fast mobilization to blitz an unexoected country. But back then rulers like Kings and other monarchs knew what honor is. Today there is no honor anymore. No honor in democracy.

@@KubusSc7 there is exactly as much honour as is convenient and beneficial to those in power, as has always been the case.

And yet, all these efforts to justify or condemn actions in the context of international law.

UN: We just wont tell them that our American Company Called "United Nations" is there to keep the American domination in the world. We wont stop the war. It gives plenty of money to our industry. Our Military complex is the biggest worldwide and needs to be payed by our slavestates. Due to the lack of peace treaties, World War II is still technically not over. Blitzkriege for everyone no announcement necessary if we can use something without having to pay for it. The cycle of perpetrator and victim alternating must be broken. One level for all countries. Who would be the first to cry if other countries created their own banks with their own ratings? Not the USA. The rootless scum made up of alliances and specific families.

@@datenspeicher8715 Woah...

@@datenspeicher8715 calm down with the mushrooms cowboy😂

@@tollevkvendbo I dont need mushrooms to be connected.

@@datenspeicher8715 hahahahaha. What is your thoughts on Trump/Biden, covid, vaccines, abortion and immigrants?

Copied

@@crwansaunt6441 who cares

and "denazification" (while completely forgetting the fact that the other side has a Jewish president)

The Afghanistan War from the US was also technically not a war, just a military operation.

@@foty8679 a military operation with thousands dead

I feel the same way. The number one way to win wars has been to disrupt a country's trade to bankrupt them into surrendering. Can't really attack modern logistics anymore when cargo ships has freight for multiple countries in one voyage, and the ship itself operates out of one country, is registered and crewed in a second country, owned by a company based in a third country with major investors from a fourth.

I have to question the premise. Wars are smaller when they are fought between a super power (the USA) and a weak state (The Gulf War, war in Iraq, invasion of Afghanistan etc). When the combatants are relatively evenly matched (Iran vs Iraq, Russia vs Ukraine) wars are still devastating. Also civil wars (Lebanon, Syria, Darfur) are long lasting and incredibly destructive.

The public aren't educated in Wars. The UK public would not recognise a war if it happened to them. They'd just be confused - fighting themselves. The UK was very smart in World War 2 the country mobilised itself for war, it was organised, to work together against a common enemy. The alternative would of been a defeated nation like Vichy France - the French ruled by the Nazi Germans. The French once defeated had no choice but to Collaborate with the German nation to survive. Rebellion or opposition in Vichy France equalled death, the German nation was too powerful to oppose.

@@munkeyluv2011 you really CAN attack a modern nation today. You CAN disrupt a modern nation. You can disrupt a country by Public Opinion and Information by use of the Internet. The UK public are on their smartphones 24 7 and can be manipulated into an opinion, panic or a certain point of view. The internet is A new method of warfare and crime.

Take China/Taiwan for example. One of the main reasons China can't* risk an invasion is because Taiwan has a stranglehold on the world's microchip production. Some 90% of superconductors come out of a handful of Taiwanese factories. A war would basically shut down the world's production of computers *Shouldn't...

Sounds like EA. "They're just surprise mechanics!"

this sound exactly you and sibling would say to not get in trouble.

UN: Understandable, have a great day

USA. "Im spreading democracy" Australia. "Im just tagging along"

@@DJPega6 it's is EA

Spoken like a master of Command and Conquer, lol

Attacking without declaring war will also harm the reputation of the said country.

@@Jedssski Reputation? All I see is dead bodies from my successful sneak attack!

@@alzhanvoidsansado 😈

@@johnreno4156 Kirov reporting

Cool

War is hard

LilacDoe war is stupid

Funny considering how war used to be easy and often the only solution. Now you can't go around and say "yeah, we're at war" anymore

War is futile

Which is why China has decided to be at war whilst not actually being at war. Hacking, espionage, accidentally releasing virus, building islands in the sea and claiming new land, basically changing the rules established by old-world powers.

@Danny cu You really should have more upvotes

UN barkeeper: "That's not how you settle things!" UK: "Do you need a bloody reminder about what it means to be a permanent "security council" member means mate!?" UN barkeeper: "You do what you want good Sir but please don't bang my wife, again"

@Muhammad Rizka U.K: Too late, she's expecting

I recognise the elderberries insult but I can’t remember where from, can somebody remind me please?

@@SlideIX EU4

Indead

Can the same apply with warcrimes?

@@srgforge2993 I think that's exactly what they did

- Germany, 1940-1945

srg forge2 warcrimes only matter if you lose the war

This is not war, its just an armed conflict ;)

Yea if you make things more difficult people will still do it with hurdles and dodging

Palestine and Israel are still fighting.

@@night-sky_ yep, sounds normal to me

@@night-sky_ think about it like the usa and russia relation

Not necessarily, war was a valid political instrument back then

So should we just abolish laws then?

@@upulor744 No, but what's the point of having something useless besides decoration that no one respects nor you have realistically the power to enforce? That's the UN for you guys

You do have a point.

it's more like telling the murderer that the killing has to be done at a certain time, at a certain place, and has to sign a contract. but then the murderer just kills the targeted and calling it an accident or indirect

this deserves a video on

ninjafruitchilled I would add to the debate the civilian psychological factor.

I feel like at first it was like more getlè of a nation to do so. Like starting hostile actions against another without declaring your intentions was in someway dishonorable, but that seems counter intuitive as why would you even tell your enemy that your invading.

One of those funny things Europe used to do

Because for the(most) europeans and westerners it was very dishonorable and morally wrong to not warn your enemy you were at war before so. Hence why pearl harbor was so enraging to the US in 1941..

Justinian makes Byzantium Great Again which means country can’t be persecuted for annexation of Dania

Byzantine Empire sucks.

@@kfraser3783 every great empire has its ups and downs.

@@adnanchinisi7871 Byzantine all have downs

too bad the ottomans exist

Excuse me what?

Yes, excuse him what?

Um....what?

@@hg2aa No, you are not excused, sorry

What?

Yeah the West in Iraq on Saddam we used that term and in Afghanistan post 9/11 even though Taleban never did it or finance it and I dislike Taleban.

My man!

I dont know who you are but I formally declare war on you becuase I want the likes on your comment.

And, you can't look each other in the eyes, or else it's super war.

Lol

Diwit mo pay paltak to

lol, why the fck would they use email?🤣 jist send a warship to the enemies border and make a blank shots

@@zulhazman7526 true. ,_, but they could always just launch a missile from across the world.

"k"

"nah Not in the mood for it fam"

Lol

Putin never formally declared war on Ukraine, he called the invasion a “special military operation.

@@lunino4374 you can stop copy pasting, y'know not that i haven't done this too, it's just a slight change in the wording doesn't really change it for what it actually is

Year 2146: Throughout history many declarations of apple juice have been made. Apple juice has cost millions their lives. We must avoid apple juice at all cost and call it our for how evil it is. I also prefer apple cider now.

And since then, people drink war.

Britian actually did something like this in Malaya (Britian's Vietnam). They formally called it a police operation meaning insurance companies still had to pay for any damages to plantation owners making it the only conflict to improve the economy of a country involved.

@Vequio Ourax who do you mean? The "apple juicy" thing or the person above u?

Hamburger time is a good name too

Sawdawn_ Rp Director: wot

He didn't said it? Think you need to edit pow.

Lol thats what germany did againsts russia

What about beating him to a pulp?

Kid at the exit:DONT PUT FISTS TO A GUN FIGHT!!!

I thought the US created the U.N.

@@SlavicUnionGaming They did and thats why they can safely ignore it

@@Tomi97_videos everyone ignores it... and they didn't create it, they just funded it. Everyone rags on the U.S., but conveniently ignore that without the U.S. throwing their weight around, WW3 would almost certainly have already happened.

The UN has no teeth. It relies on the US to enforce its rulings. You can see why the US does whatever it wants now?

ywn

😂😂😂😂😂 I will try to use this one day

yea we're just having fun here. Nothing happened!

We sure have lost our civilized ways, we should go back to those sign holding times

:0

This should be required for all wars.

War,yo

Lets go do some war stuff.

Lol

No

Yes

this makes far too much sense for how stupid it is

It´s probably gonna end in genocide.

They are 'defending' russia 😂

They don't let anyone have fun anymore

@King Rufus the soldiers won while the generals sat back and saw the soldiers win

Or a World War without Germany taking the MVP

Or more simple nukes should be banned and makes you realize the whole world existence is a videogame

War is only comercial to the "elite". You basicly dont realize you live in side it. All for 1 and 1 for all is not helping for these people. Info company etc. Self help is all these people offer and then there are none. Its basicly a get well scam.

How dare you forget Gustave Swan

Jol and Maggie paskowski, I guess those three are the ones that stand out the most whenever he reads them for me. Oh and spinning three plates

The amuzement parkives

Moe

little holiday

As a Russian I can understand. Shit happens

The king has invited you to Lake Laougi

The Culture Minister (United Nations)

well, this earned a like from me.

LAMO

@@rsoldat4951 that never happened

Rip to those 1 million Iraqi civilians.

To be fair, it wasn’t the fact that we entered there country that a portion of Middle East civilians dislike the US, it was the fact we overstayed our welcome. If you look at videos after Saddam was captured and killed you can see Iraqi Citizens crowding the streets with joy, hugging American and the Coalition soldiers, flags hoisted, etc. but we overstayed our welcome after the threat was defeated. I think there’s nothing wrong with staying a little bit in order to make sure no other megalomaniac tries to take power and erupt a civil war, but the fact that we waited until 2011 to get the “last” of our troops out means we overstayed our welcome.

"our feud is not with the iraqi people" ok so I guess abu ghraib was for fun then

@@hoppy5359 well some were happy about his death and others did not (including me) because they knew shit would be much worse like now

And through controlling the spread of information (and misinformation)

So true

It’s so boring

Yes and the US is the biggest bully

And culturly

@Sirius Stark Al Ghul True, why the illuminatti/jews/reptilians don't create the one world government already ? smh my head

@@caiawlodarski5339 we jews are all powerful but but fear the world's popular opinion. Seems legit

@@terner1234 It was a joke

Big brain time

@@caiawlodarski5339 I know, I was mocking the people you did

It literally did. There's been no formal declarations of war between countries since the Iran-Iraq war of 1980.

32 gigs Lmao honestly has gone out of fashion

War department makes more sense, because WHAT THE FUCK does Iraq have to do with defense? It was an illegal war of aggression.

And yet Iraq was a nation that declared two different wars of aggression for the sake of conquering territory. Iran and Kuwait.

16dublin Leif shut up commie

@@brandonlyon730 That and the fact that the supported terrorist groups throughout the Middle East.

That is an awesome detail I totally missed. You really have to watch these videos twice :D

I knew I'm not alone.

That’s actually why there was no declaration of war from the Union in 1861. From our (and the world’s; no one ever recognized them) persepctive, the Confederacy didn’t exist.

US: North Vietnam? I've never seen this country in my life

Anirban Roy If you say so.

@Anirban Roy How'd they lose?

@@zenkisaragi1551 Well it sure as hell wasn't a win. In a short phrase, Vietnam was a disaster. If you'd like some details there are quite a few podcasts on it. Some of the content can be disturbing so I'd be careful delving too deeply. The images of the effects of Agent Orange is one example. We did some fucked up shit down there, and it was not a moment for Americans to ever be proud of.

i part of me feel bad about what is happening in Syria but the other part of me feel if you deserved it. history has shown foreign intervention in a civil war has never worked well for the people in the civil war, your own people accepted the foreign intervention now you are paying that price.

@@wei270 not all Syrians accepted the foreign intervention.. but sadly i admit.. if Syrians hadn't been already divided and if there hadn't been a lot of hatred within them none of this would have happened.. and the saddest part is that after 9 years that hatred still exists, actually it's worse than before💔

yes,and that's how Soviet Union failed.

@@AAlrayes13 of course it would be foreign intervention tent to prolong civil conflict, the Syrian government was close to closing out the conflict last year, then turkey came in hard again. Syrian people need to understand foreign government don't give a shit about their lives or if Syrians can't stop fighting amount them self's the on ultimately suffer the most is them self.

Anas Alrayes bro fellow syrian here from Hasakeh .. it's going down hill with our currency collapsing .. war is one thing , but economic sanctions are something only the scum of the earth would try to defend ! They affect the average working citizen way more than they affect the government the sanctions are "supposedly" targetting

@Roughman What you said doesn't dispute what Daniel said.

@Roughman There is literally nothing preventing one nation from making a formal declaration of war on another which is significantly weaker/at some sort of disadvantage due to distraction, turmoil, or anything else. A few hours to a few day's (or even weeks) notice via formal "declaration" would almost never wipe out any advantage, or give any significant time to rectify any disadvantages, and if the nation you're going to war with can fix their weaknesses and put up a serious fight in just a matter of days... then going to war with them in the first place seems pretty foolish. So basically I don't think your point is valid at all.

ww2 most country don't want to declare war with german either... they need to be push to the point that other country will to sympathy and support supply and sell and send food...

Haha blitzkrieg goes brrrrrr

@Roughman You sound like a Yank.

No it doesn"t

Ah yes

Lmao

Oof

lol

This did not age well…

Russia has never declared war, the video has been proven true

@Emperor of Man *B r u h*

@Emperor of Man That's Senko the Fox. I already forgot the name of the anime but i remember it being the most popular thing while airing because wholesome

@@laxcatthesleepycat2688 I know I'm late and they removed their comment, but it's helpful fox senko-san

Cringe pfp

I mean declaring war is stupid, because you give enemy some time to prepare

Lord Of Vengeance *You’re not just wrong* *You’re stupid*

@@dontsearchdocumentingreali9621 Well, it mean you are not respecting the War itself. I mean, suprise attack without any warning is a coward move.

@@izzfitri6888 well, it's one of the element that can guarantee a victory, so it's a smart move, becuz u r supposed to not trust ur enemy tho

@@izzfitri6888 The precursor to Pearl Harbour was the US and the League of nations imposed an oil embargo against Japan over their invasion of Manchuria. And before that Japan despite being one of the victors on WW1 did not get a cut from German reparations nor entry into the League of nations. It's not exactly a surprise that a nation under a US imposed embargo, with a sour relationship attacked the US. Nor is it surprising that Russia, a nation that is under a US embargo over Ukraine; is accused of state sponsored cyber warfare.

It's also because for the most part, everyones technology is more or less equal to each others. No one would win a war, not with nuclear weapons dangling above our heads.

The politian are already too lazy to deal with it lol 😂😂😂

So much underrated🤣🤣🤣

underrated comment

Thanks for serving 😶

Do you mean 1:28?

I’m talking about what’s on the screen, not the speaker

USA to North korea: ima do a surprise attack. UN To USA: No, here are rules. USA to UN: **ima do whats called a pro gamer move** doesn't declare it war but a conflict. UN: surprised pikachu face

USA will never attack North Korea directly. They would most definitely use their nukes if they try

@@xsas8731 we had nukes the first time

Formally declaring war is even dumber when we're living in an internet economy!🧠

It is more fair for both sides if you declare it though.

i feel like Russia would just dominate any physical arena like sports/fighting/dancing

@@stonecoldsteveaustin9353explains why Americans want to use guns so much 🥱😂

@@stonecoldsteveaustin9353 Putin knows karate so he would throw every other world leader onto the ground easily

Seriously speaking I guess most of the world politics is kinda MMA fight done instead of war, actual war is only when you can't negotiate about rules, but both think you could just smash opponent with your wrench anyway

@@SlavicUnionGaming judo*

yup

"it's not a war if they can't fight back"

@@tommypickles218 based

Wes Gilkey what are you talking about? I just summarized what I learned from this video.

@@aoterou not really, there were way more casualties for Vietnam and for America, there was just no point in fighting and most Americans were against it so they stopped

@@aoterou More Vietnamese died than Americans so they got fucked up

more like a: United Nations: Am I a joke to you?

@@R3stor Yes

Fungamerplays Actually, there are no “UN rules” on the declarations of war. The declarations of war were frequent before the UN existed, because all wars, just or unjust, were equal. Now, that the UN is solely authorized to decide which war is “just”, there is no point in the official state of war

jurisprudens Well it’s bad because before at least the civilians could be warned that there is war. Now the civilians only see the bombs drop. The UN (and terrorists as they aren’t an organized military with uniforms) made geopolitics into a barbarian mess.

@@steelbear2063 *Sad South-Korean noises*

Technoblade liked that

The Imperium of Man approves this comment.

If you know fighting ensures in victory, then you must fight Sun Tzu said.

@@privateelder8871 With the use of brain, muscle comes at the end.

"If fighting will ensure in victory then you must fight sun tzu said that"

The lack of jurisdiction of the laws and courts of one country over foreign citizens in a foreign country stops this scenario. As for the medical research, such practices are prohibited by dozens of international treaties that also apply during peacetime, not just the Geneva convention. Furthermore, I believe the Geneva convention also applies to police actions and non-declared conflicts

Good question, Peter. Why would governments avoid war crimes if there was technically no war? Because it could go both sides. You may get your captured soldiers killed. Similarly, there's Prisoner Exchange. If you killed PoWs on sight, you now have nothing to give in return when exchanging prisoners.

maybe the fear of reciprocation, likewise soldiers don't enjoy torturing their enemy, this is reserved to an extremely small subset of the military, when the normal infantry is asked to commit large scale war crimes their morale tends to tank

You can be arrested for human rights abuses even if they happen outside war time.

Unless you made them first! ;) Well....tried.

Wait what happened to Japan then?

@@iHutch Atom bombs and Nuclear missiles are two very different things

*Oh Hi hitler i thought you sucideded long time ago how you still alive?*

J. Robert Oppenheimer has entered the chat.

That rather depends. Take a look at WWI. Fighting did not start until a couple of weeks AFTER the formal declarations of war. This is for a very good reason. The armies of the major powers were, with one exception, large conscript based forces. During peace many of their Divisions were at half or quarter strength, some even less. Those Divisions had to be filled with returning draftees, their heavy equipment pulled out of storage, checked and issued. Weapons, uniforms and supplies properly assigned, then those troops, their weapons, and their equipment have to be moved to their start up positions. When you are talking between 100 and 120 Divisions, each Division comprising of around 15,000 men plus artillery, supply train, etc etc, you start seeing why a Declaration of war was no big deal. There is absolutely no way you can hide the fact that you are mobilising several million troops ready to fight and even with the staggering Rail infrastructure both France and Germany had at the time it took several weeks for mobilisation to be along far enough for the Plans to be initiated. Even without a formal declaration of war, because of the scale of the mobilisation, and how long it necessarily took, and of course how blindingly obvious it would be, both sides would have been ready for each other with or without a declaration. The only exception to this was Britain, who was able to mobilise her army pretty much immediately. Problem was the BEF was *tiny*, some 4 Divisions rising to 6 by the time the fighting had actually started. This is because unlike Germany or France, Britains primary military Arm was her Navy, her Army was traditionally very small and professional. Many of the issues Britain struggled with for the first couple of years of the war can be fairly solidly linked to the fact that they had to expand their army from a small professional force of some 300 odd thousand men, to a force of 4 million in less than 2 years, and they had to do this whilst their cadre of Professionals was bleeding out at Ypres...... It led to major training issues that were not addressed until near the end of the Battle of the Somme... and was one of the reasons why the First Day of the Somme went the way it did.... Those troops were green as hell, and not fully trained..... Haig did not want to commit his army (though he was fine with maintaining a defensive posture) in an attack until 1917, however, Verdun intervened, and the British were essentially faced with the need to relieve the intense pressure the French were under at Verdun.

It's really not. Declaring a war is a powerful statement in its own right and can curtail a war before it starts. It also signifies your intentions with your allies allowing them to justify assisting you. It's a powerful diplomatic move.

@@jerm70 And we have no interest in being diplomatic anymore. We just wave our figuratively big dick around and slap smaller countries in the face with it. And any time anyone objects, we threaten to pull out of the UN... which would severely neuter it, as it has little to no power without the US. Which also means UN rules don't apply to us.... Pretty OP if you ask me.

I might be wrong but for some countries receiving a declaration of war might make them try to reach an agreement and peace deal before any violence occurs

@@senseishu937 That is certainly an option. There is no rule that says when war is declared upon someone, that they are obligated to respond in kind. But when the one whom war had been declared on asks for peace, and the other refuses and continues aggression, that risks painting them as the aggressor and pissing off allies or neighboring nations. So, while responding peacefully to a peace offer is not an obligation either,... it is a damned good idea to do so

tbh, this is a great explanation of it

Lol

Underrated.

Hi

Basically all today's relationships