Historical Motives For War

[underwhere]

The topic has grown far afield of the original thread, so I felt it was time to break it apart, and I think somebody had suggested as much.

Ix-ney!

Most wars were about racial/ethnc, or religious/philosophical matters.. The Imperial wars of the middle East, c1200-500 BCE were all about whose city goes were top dog.

and that would be an economic issue, and not a social issue. Who has more toys to play with in their city? Whose city is the bigger toy to play with?

<P dir=ltr>Ditto the wars of Greece in the same timeframe. Ceasar was interested in conquest.

"conquest", of land, of goods, of things to allow for (perceived) economic superiority.

<P dir=ltr>The Crusades were holy wars.

"My God says I deserve your property and posessions more than you do."

<P dir=ltr>The Humdred Years war was mostly about dynastic issues,

and what, exactly, were those dynastic issues about? It wasn't about "The Hatfields and McCoys" on a much grander scale. It was about who could rightfully control the land and economic riches that existed on it.

<P dir=ltr>The Thirty Years War was in four phases going between religious and political.

Again, either "My God says I deserve your property and posessions," or "With my political willpower, I am going to control your property and posessions, and maybe even your god while I am at it."

<P dir=ltr>The Punic Wars appear to have had their roots in economics but that was just one of several issues.

According to

a wikipedia article

, economic supremacy was a significant player, perhaps even the most improtant issue in these wars. Other issues seem to be side notes.

<P dir=ltr>WWI was over an assassination.

Actually, WWI was an effort by Britain and the USA to save their economic and political systems from collapsing. (

Labor's Untold Story

gives a fantastic accounting of how this happened, probably better than any history book I have ever read because it places these events in a context, not just telling them as historical bullet points.) Yes, there was an assassination in there too, but that was largely a side note.

In fact, if you look at the circumstances leading up to WWI and the circumstances today with the banks and Wall Street being bailed out by the world governments (except for those who happen to have been ensnared with economic blackmail loans from the World Bank and the IMF, all of which serves its own political and economic interest to the sponsors of those institutions), the circumstances are eerily similar. Government propping up the investment class, which is failing primarily because of greedy big business trying to reduce labor costs, increase production, and increase sales prices, all while expecting there will be people willing and able to afford to buy the products thus being produced for the interests of those profiteering at the top.

If that isn't voodoo economics, I am not sure what is.

Later, the USA almost didn't enter WWII because Hitler was a fascist, and the USA was fearful only of communists. The trade-off made was to let Hitler do what he was going to do until it began to threaten economic and political interests elsewhere. Only then did the USA get involved in WWII. Granted, it was a very rapid involvement, but by that point in time, thousands of political asylum seekers had already been turned away, and likely found their way into the death chambers.

<P dir=ltr>the Napoleopnic wars were for Le Gloire.

I'm not sure I understand this at all.

<P dir=ltr>WWII in Europe was about Nazi ideology and racism.

That was later. Many parts of the world were quite content to ignore Hitler and the Nazis, so long as their efforts didn't threaten their own economic supremacy. As soon as it began to do that, there was quite a rush to war against the Nazis. Let us also not forget that the Nazis were allowed to roam quite freely in Europe because of a significant collapse in political and economic relationships among other nations. If not for the skillful work of the Russian military, as well as a good helping hand of severe and regular Russian winter weather, Europe, and perhaps the rest of the world, would have been under Nazi control.

<P dir=ltr>The Japanise-US phase did have strong economic underpinnings but it too had a strong tinge of ideology, in the form of a twisted image of the Samurai code and racism.

The only ideology that really mattered here was how much money somebody was going to either make or lose, regardless of what kind of action was taken. Ask yourself this: What was the reason behind that "twisted image of the Samurai code and racism"? Somebody clearly benefited from that twisted image. False propaganda always has a reason behind it.

<P dir=ltr>The wars of the Dark Ages, from Clovis to Charlemagne were imperial-relgious as were the Muslim conquests of that same period.

"My God says I deserve your property and posessions."

<P dir=ltr>The Soviet march across Eastern Europe seems to have been a mix of ideological fervor, Stalin's madness, revanchism and some hope of economic gain; just how they hoped to benefit economically by conquering devasted lands is beyond me.

That ideological fervor was based upon the understanding that a larger geographic block would be able to wield more economic influence. I agree this may have been misguided to some degree, but Stalin did set the stage for a significant economic battle between capitalism and communism which lasted long after he passed away. (I personally believe both systems are flawed by varoious means as historically practiced.)

<P dir=ltr>War is a costly, risky business and anyone who knows economics will know that it costs more to wage war than you can hope to get back in economic gain. The whole "military-industrial complex" does not comprise more than 5% or the US economy/ Economic gain is mostly a sop thrown to the populace to give the impression that there is some practical benefits to be ganed to get them to bear the burden in lives and treasure.

and such economic gain is limited at best. Average Joe Citizen does not gain anything by waging war, except perhaps the loss of his life and/or limbs, but the people who benefit the most include those companies which manufacture war goods (armor, vehicles, missiles, bombs, etc.), and the people who invest in those companies, because as we all know, when profits go up, stock prices sore. Even here, though, the profit rarely ever goes to the people laboring to produce the goods. Wages were held forcibly stagnant throughout WWI. In some cases, there were even work furlows in many industries to help ramp up the war manufacturing. When the war was over, and the soldiers came home, economically, they found themself far WORSE off than when they had left for war.

I personally am aware of somebody who, right now, is trying to shape up to re-enlist in the army. He has suffered significant physical injuries on a prior army stint. I am unsure of his mental state only because I do not know him well, but I do know his wife. The only reason he is re-enlisting now is because there is no other economic means available to him to support his family. He went to war, came back injured, and the country which he served so valiently turns its head on him and tells him that he has to fight his own economic battles without any assistance, even as injured as war has made him. (He is, of course, fighting the same recessionary economic battles everybody else is also facing.) That is the only way that he and his wife can afford to stay together now, and they are barely even able to do that. Once a soldier is "used", there is no desire to continue to support him.

I think the idea of protesting at the funeral of a fallen soldier may be in bad taste, but I also think that any preacher worth his or her salt would also point out the wickedness of war, and the effect it has on the soldiers, those who die and those who survive, whether they survive mangled or intact. The Supreme Court made the right decision. Protesters at funerals of fallen soldiers have their heart in the right place, but perhaps they should rethink their methods to address the reason for the fallen soldiers. The soldiers, after all, were only doing what capitalism tells them to do, serve their country for the benefit of the political elite and investment class. The soldiers are blinded only by the fact that they are not a member of the class of people they are really serving.

When poor people in one part of the world are shelling poor people in another part of the world because they both lack the economic means for survival, something has gone gravely wrong in our world. Until such time as all working class people stand together, things will continue to go wrong. I do not blame the protesters for pointing this out. I blame the economic system for making the protesters look like fools when, in fact, it is the economic system of capitalism itself which is foolish by forcing poor people into the position of becoming soldiers for meager economic gain and potential death.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

You have been reading too many moedern commentators of the leftist perscuasion who follow the model of economic determinism Read Keegan's HISTORY OF WARFARE, which takes issue with Clauswitz, and Fuller's MILITARY HISTORY OR THE WEST

Though founded by Aristotle. Economics did not blossom until the Modern Age (1500 to now)

Most establishment commentators distort the ideas of previous ages to fit the modern template. This is called the Presentist Fallacy. It geves a stereoyped, monolithic view of history according to the "mode du jour". This complicates things. and runs contrary to Occam's Razor aka The Law of Parsimony, which is a codification of "Keep It Simple; Stupid". That means you take the person who did these things in the time they did them at their word. Take the Battle of Lepanto, It was instegated by, I believe, the Genovisi for economic reasons. However it would have not gotten of the ground if the Hapsburg lead Holy Alliance was not itching to square off with the Turks, who had been on a roll for 200 years. That was a religious conflict as well as an iperial one.

Thoughout history. economics has played no greater a role in war than other factors. It appears to have had some influence int the first battle of the Megiddoo plain (Armegeddon) in the second millenium BCE. Many wars were fought to take and hold militarily valuable territory

[belinda_sue_fox]

Course the Falklands war was about those damn dirty cheating argies trying to steal our reserves of penguins.

[babyvr6]

TL;DR

[underwhere]

You have been reading too many moedern commentators of the leftist perscuasion who follow the model of economic determinism Read Keegan's HISTORY OF WARFARE, which takes issue with Clauswitz, and Fuller's MILITARY HISTORY OR THE WEST

Actually, I am not interested any more in the commentary of those on the left as I am those on the right. Being a liberal with ideologies of claiming to be "looking out for the little guy" by creating government programs which will support working class people when, in fact, policies are created which ultimately reward companies for playing in the realm of international finance capital by, say, hiring people in Bangladesh for less than a dollar an hour to manufacture goods, only to ship those goods back to be sold to somebody at $10 or $20, I call that economic warfare.

Liberals and conservatives both love the idea of prison labor, for much the same reason. It reduces labor costs for the companies who hire them, and it can be used to reduce federal, state, and local municipality payrolls for things like highway cleanup projects, among many other so-called "cost reductions". More than that, it allows both political persuasions to say they are "tough on crime". But this comes with a significant economic cost that never effects the largest financial contributors to political campaigns, namely, the loss of living wage jobs, and the replacement of those jobs with people who can (and will, in many cases forcibly or out of their own economic necessity) do the work at a much lower pay rate, thereby increasing the profits at the top, all on the backs of the working poor. So-called "Welfare to Work" programs have a similar game plan. As a big multi-million or multi-billion dollar company, why hire somebody at $20 an hour (or more) when you could hire somebody at $1.00 an hour instead? You do the economic math here. Coincidentally, minimum wage laws do not apply to people serving time in prison or people who are currently involved in Welfare-to-Work programs. Coincidence? I think not.

This doesn't even account for the fact that there exists a reason why somebody might commit a crime, and that is very frequently based on economic reasons. So if you can't afford food and clothing, because there are no living wage jobs, because those jobs are being taken up by prison laborers and people elsewhere in the world who will work for less money than you will, what are your options? Perhaps you decide to steal some food, and like Jean Valjean in the story of Les Miserables, get branded a criminal for life.

At the close of WWI, Germany was left in an absolutely desperate economic state. The Treaty of Versailles crippled Germany to the point that there was little, if any, hope of economic recovery. All it took was a single charismatic leader to place the blame on a single group of people. According to Hitler, it was the fault of the Jews (and any other group of so-called "inferior" people) that Germany was in such dire economic straits. Once you declare a skapegoat, all you have to do is declare war on that skapegoat. We all know what happened as a result of that.

Though founded by Aristotle. Economics did not blossom until the Modern Age (1500 to now)

Most establishment commentators distort the ideas of previous ages to fit the modern template. This is called the Presentist Fallacy. It geves a stereoyped, monolithic view of history according to the "mode du jour". This complicates things. and runs contrary to Occam's Razor aka The Law of Parsimony, which is a codification of "Keep It Simple; Stupid". That means you take the person who did these things in the time they did them at their word. Take the Battle of Lepanto, It was instegated by, I believe, the Genovisi for economic reasons. However it would have not gotten of the ground if the Hapsburg lead Holy Alliance was not itching to square off with the Turks, who had been on a roll for 200 years. That was a religious conflict as well as an iperial one.

You've just contradicted yourself, and I am not sure why. Occam's Razor would have me discount the 200 years of Turk superiority. After all, what happens in the moment should be judged only within its own very minute set of circumstances. Yet you went on, correctly, to point out that the Holy Alliance, which had been severely economically and politically (can you even separate religion from politics and economics when "God is King"?) disadvantaged, had more than enough motive to want to start a fight.

Also, at the time of Aristotle, there was not exactly sufficient technological ability to allow one group of people to survive at the expense of another. If the whole clan didn't work together for survival of the clan, the entire clan would perish. That doesn't exist now. When you reduce the ideology to its most simplistic form, there are people who own the resources, and people who do the work. Economic power is about owning and controlling the resources and the means of production. (If it makes it any easily, call them proletariat and bourgoisie.) The 40 hour work week which we as Americans hold to (I know this is different elsewhere in the world) took well over a hundred years to ultimately succeed, and even so, there are STILL certain groupings of workers for whom minimum wage laws do not even apply. I already mentioned prison labor, but day laborers on farms are also exempt from such "protections". Protection for child laborers also took many many years.

Thoughout history. economics has played no greater a role in war than other factors. It appears to have had some influence in the first battle of the Megiddoo plain (Armegeddon) in the second millenium BCE. Many wars were fought to take and hold militarily valuable territory

Why were those territories valuable? What were those territories being held to protect? I would argue that without those territories, the economic impact of an invasion would have been enormous.

Does anybody remember the California Gold Rush? Did any member of the economic elite really care how many people were displaced in the process? What about the great dust bowl, which led to Steinbeck's telling of the story through "The Grapes of Wrath"?

People don't move or act without an economic reason to do so. Some may become stagnant because of disempowerment. Frankly, it is that disempowerment which the people in the investment class are relying on to allow them to continue to plunder and pillage unabated. "Its just going to happen. I can't do anything to stop it anyway." That is why it still goes on.

People protesting funerals of fallen soldiers are protesting the institution for which those soldiers are a part. It is a sad day in history when the only way to survive economically as a working class person is to enlist in the military to "serve your country" by killing other working class people elsewhere in the world, most of whom are just trying to survive like you are.

[bignappybo]

And the war in Iraq was only about oil, and about nothing else.

[Wetdl]

Wars in the past, as well as in the present and future are fought for money and power.

All details, such as which class does the dieing and which weapons are purchased, are just extensions of the same concept.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

Actually, I am not interested any more in the commentary of those on the left as I am those on the right. Being a liberal with ideologies of claiming to be "looking out for the little guy" by creating government programs which will support working class people when, in fact, policies are created which ultimately reward companies for playing in the realm of international finance capital by, say, hiring people in Bangladesh for less than a dollar an hour to manufacture goods, only to ship those goods back to be sold to somebody at $10 or $20, I call that economic warfare.

Liberals and conservatives both love the idea of prison labor, for much the same reason. It reduces labor costs for the companies who hire them, and it can be used to reduce federal, state, and local municipality payrolls for things like highway cleanup projects, among many other so-called "cost reductions". More than that, it allows both political persuasions to say they are "tough on crime". But this comes with a significant economic cost that never effects the largest financial contributors to political campaigns, namely, the loss of living wage jobs, and the replacement of those jobs with people who can (and will, in many cases forcibly or out of their own economic necessity) do the work at a much lower pay rate, thereby increasing the profits at the top, all on the backs of the working poor. So-called "Welfare to Work" programs have a similar game plan. As a big multi-million or multi-billion dollar company, why hire somebody at $20 an hour (or more) when you could hire somebody at $1.00 an hour instead? You do the economic math here. Coincidentally, minimum wage laws do not apply to people serving time in prison or people who are currently involved in Welfare-to-Work programs. Coincidence? I think not.

This doesn't even account for the fact that there exists a reason why somebody might commit a crime, and that is very frequently based on economic reasons. So if you can't afford food and clothing, because there are no living wage jobs, because those jobs are being taken up by prison laborers and people elsewhere in the world who will work for less money than you will, what are your options? Perhaps you decide to steal some food, and like Jean Valjean in the story of Les Miserables, get branded a criminal for life.

At the close of WWI, Germany was left in an absolutely desperate economic state. The Treaty of Versailles crippled Germany to the point that there was little, if any, hope of economic recovery. All it took was a single charismatic leader to place the blame on a single group of people. According to Hitler, it was the fault of the Jews (and any other group of so-called "inferior" people) that Germany was in such dire economic straits. Once you declare a skapegoat, all you have to do is declare war on that skapegoat. We all know what happened as a result of that.

You've just contradicted yourself, and I am not sure why. Occam's Razor would have me discount the 200 years of Turk superiority. After all, what happens in the moment should be judged only within its own very minute set of circumstances. Yet you went on, correctly, to point out that the Holy Alliance, which had been severely economically and politically (can you even separate religion from politics and economics when "God is King"?) disadvantaged, had more than enough motive to want to start a fight.

Also, at the time of Aristotle, there was not exactly sufficient technological ability to allow one group of people to survive at the expense of another. If the whole clan didn't work together for survival of the clan, the entire clan would perish. That doesn't exist now. When you reduce the ideology to its most simplistic form, there are people who own the resources, and people who do the work. Economic power is about owning and controlling the resources and the means of production. (If it makes it any easily, call them proletariat and bourgoisie.) The 40 hour work week which we as Americans hold to (I know this is different elsewhere in the world) took well over a hundred years to ultimately succeed, and even so, there are STILL certain groupings of workers for whom minimum wage laws do not even apply. I already mentioned prison labor, but day laborers on farms are also exempt from such "protections". Protection for child laborers also took many many years.

Why were those territories valuable? What were those territories being held to protect? I would argue that without those territories, the economic impact of an invasion would have been enormous.

Does anybody remember the California Gold Rush? Did any member of the economic elite really care how many people were displaced in the process? What about the great dust bowl, which led to Steinbeck's telling of the story through "The Grapes of Wrath"?

People don't move or act without an economic reason to do so. Some may become stagnant because of disempowerment. Frankly, it is that disempowerment which the people in the investment class are relying on to allow them to continue to plunder and pillage unabated. "Its just going to happen. I can't do anything to stop it anyway." That is why it still goes on.

People protesting funerals of fallen soldiers are protesting the institution for which those soldiers are a part. It is a sad day in history when the only way to survive economically as a working class person is to enlist in the military to "serve your country" by killing other working class people elsewhere in the world, most of whom are just trying to survive like you are.

I am not even going to try to cover all of this. but just a few things

When did the subject switch from war to crime? KISS

We agree on outsourcing as economic warfare but I must say that "government programs that help the little guy" is the biggest laugh since "Who's on First"

The left dominated the intellectual scene for a century and set the terms by which the discussion occurred, just as today the conservative talk show hosts use "African-American" a 7-syllable term created by Jesse Jackson in '88 to replace the 1-syllable "Black" and, with the active aid of the lamescram media, enshrine the hyphenated American into the language,. and as the same conservatives so worshipfully use the term "democracy"; se what the Founders had to say about that. Ceding the languages cedes the terms of the discussion which cedes the victory in the debate Queen Elizabeth I said "If the speech be Gaelic then the heart be Irish"

Occams Razor applies in that modern historians add things that weren't in the original texts to fit the economic deterministic model. The battle of Lepanto was instigated by the Geonovisi for economic reasons. That's what Genoa and Venice and many other Italalian city-states were up to. This was of no interest th the other nations or even the Hapsburgs' interest, they were after power, money seemed secondary. Hwever, theis could be turned into a religious issue and a chance to hit back at the Turks. They probably should have told the Genovisi to jump off a cliff, because the Genovisi were only after revenge because the Turks snubbed them or reneged on the deal

I do not know what planet you are on, Aristotle did not live in a clan-based society; his was the world of the city-state and the Macedonian Empire then the Alexandrian Empire. You do not need a technology base for one group to exploit another. Nobody every twisted your arm 'til you said "uncle"? If that is true then you did lead a sheltered life. In fact, a technological society runs counter to slavery and in an American capitalist society poverty is a drag since poor people cannot afford to participate in the economy at a good level: The more people who have more money, the greater the level of participation which is better for everyone "Big Business" is the least capitalistic part of the economy and the smaller of the two business components

Big Business could not use the government if the government was not willing and able to be used, Strip the government of economic power and watch how little money goes into politics. Do you think that money flows to where it buys nothing? It is eaiser to game a Command or Mixed economy than a Market economy. All you have to do is shmooze the regulators, who are out to be shmoozed. You can't shmooze a Market since it is millions of persons making market transactions which works on Bernoulli's Theorme. I had a brother, no dead, whose job was to shmooze tac auditors so I know what I am talking about