UKC

Anyone know what the difference is?

In reply to moonboy: revolution doesn't need to be a war - witness the Velvet Revolution (Czechoslovakia).

In reply to moonboy:

One of them specialises in vodka... The other one isn't remotely civil.

In reply to Bob Hughes: and i suppose a civil war doesn't have to result in a revolution

In reply to moonboy:

Civil wars are weasily recognised whereas revolutions are stoatally different.. oh no that's the answer to a different question isn't it

In reply to moonboy:
i'll take it that none of you know then.

In reply to moonboy:

One assumes that a revolution involves a mass uprising of the people (not necessarily armed or violent) whereas a civil war is any war (ie armed conflict) between the state and a dissatisfied armed group of citizens of that state.

In reply to moonboy: they're related and somtimes overlap

a civil war is a war between two or more groups in the same nation

a revolution is the overthrow and replacement of an existing government

which means that the english 'civil war' was probably both? not sure

maybe:

civil war = war between two groups from all 'levels' of society

revoultion = 'war' between the rulers and the governed

or something . . .

In reply to moonboy:
how about this.............



Here is a simple explanation of the difference
between war and revolution:

If a country is suffering a civil war, and the
existing government wins,
it is a war. If the existing government is
defeated, and a new government
takes over, it was a revolution.

In reply to moonboy:

No. That's wrong.

James

In reply to Rothermere:

rubbish you ejit

In reply to Rothermere: away you go then . . .

In reply to moonboy:

A revolution is simply a quite sudden major change or innovation in history, usually irreversible. eg. the Industrial Revolution, French Revolution etc

In reply to Gordon Stainforth: i'm prepared to say this because of the way you big yourself up so much on here but a good chunk of what i read that you post comes across as rhetorical and content free - like that

In reply to rich:

Oh sorry, Rich, I thought I was making a valid point (perhaps very badly) that a revolution is nothing to do with a 'war' per se.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth: damn you and your reasonable answer :¬)

fair enough but i'm not sure that helps for the trickier cases (english civil war maybe? american revolution?)

In reply to moonboy: yes one's a nasty turn and the other's a polite conflict.

In reply to rich:

Oh, well, since you're being polite, maybe I should try a bit harder - what I failed to say of course is that a revolution puts a completely different system in place, rendering the previous one obsolete. (Metaphor: a jet engine did not evolve from an internal combustion engine)

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

... and a civil war is just one kind of revolution, assuming it is conclusive. (Not that I can think of any that aren't.)

In reply to moonboy:
so if i got rid of my missus and swapped her for a bloke i'd be having my own personal revolution???

In reply to moonboy:

Ha ha. yes. whereas if you swapped her for another woman it'd be civil war!

In reply to moonboy:
from the dictionary -

Civil war: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country

Revolution: a fundamental change in political organization; especially: the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed

In reply to rich:

Gordon is technically correct about revolution.

However the word is often appropriated to describe coup d'etat with ostensibly broader support than commanded by the administration of the day.

Civil war is technically a war between sub-state actors. But in practice it tends to be a war waged by one group who does not control the machinery of the state against those who do, in order to seize control of the machinery of the state.

james

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Algeria, DRC, Sudan, Colombia, Afghanistan...

james

In reply to tb:

>if i got rid of my missus and swapped her for a bloke i'd be having my own personal revolution. whereas if you swapped her for another woman it'd be civil war!

That's the neatest definition so far!

In reply to moonboy:

Revolution indicates a complete change of affairs – in the most common sense, the change is that a government is toppled (revolved, or rolled over) and a new system installed. Civil war involves a clash of opposing groups of fellow citizens, for whatever reason. Two brothers could each claim to be king, and each raise a mighty army, and support through the country might be divided – but even if power changes hands, the end social system might be more or less the same, in which case the country would hardly have experienced a revolution.