Are There Any Wars Not Caused By Economics?

MonsieurEvil · October 2003

<div class="IPBDescription">Dread's idea, and it's a good one</div> Stemming from an offshoot of the US entering WW2 topic, I'd like to see if anyone can come up with a war or conflict that was <i>not</i> caused at its root by economics. People often think that other issues are the main cause of a war (such as religion, civil liberties, etc.), but I submit to you that this is baseless; those issues may have an impact (or more likely, are drummed up for propoganda purposes by both sides to inflame the people), but I believe that if you dig deep enough the reasons always come down to the benjamins.

So far people have attempted a few examples, such as the french revolution (class warfare, brought on by the loss of civil liberties due to differences in economics between the wealthy and poor), bolshevik revolution (almost not worth a reply <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> ), and the Russo-Finnish war in 1939 (Russia trying to create a safety zone around one of their most economically important manufacturing/rail centers, Leningrad, which sat on the Finnish border). Anyone else want to try their hand at finding a non-economically rooted confict? I promise you you'll learn something no matter what! <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

Windelkron · October 2003

What about the Crusades?
It had economic EFFECTS, but not causes, right?

And how about the Iraq war? That was fought to save the ... stammer ... Iraqi ... stammer ... people, right?

edit: Okay, if you dig DEEP enough you'll find economic causes for conflicts, but you can also dig even deeper and say that every war was an offshoot of the universe existing.

Trevelyan · October 2003

WWII was the product of Hitler tripping on a rock, which gave him inspiration to... <incert world history here>

MonsieurEvil · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Windelkron @ Oct 27 2003, 07:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> What about the Crusades?
It had economic EFFECTS, but not causes, right?
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
The classic... <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>

Fighting against the infidel was a sweet cover story for controlling far-eastern trade routes that just happened to go through the mideast. More taxes, tarrifs, spice-running, etc. The fact that these highly lucrative logistical routes were owned by heathen moslem anti-christs was a great way to stir up the Euro-peasants that couldn't care less about their rich lords getting richer...

MonsieurEvil · October 2003

Which Iraq war? There have been 3 in the past 25 years...

Marine0I · October 2003

Here's one for yah, its not a war that I know much about, but heck its possible that economics didnt have a hand in it.

The Israeli war for independance, 1948.

Sirus · October 2003

I have a question, could you include Jihad ?

Can we include any idealistic terrorism acts as a "war" ?

MonsieurEvil · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Here's one for yah, its not a war that I know much about, but heck its possible that economics didnt have a hand in it.

The Israeli war for independance, 1948. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Well, the whole reason for Palestine being converted into the state of Israel could be considered economic. A land created for people to live, own property, create farms, convert the desert and marshes into a place that would sustain life (can you tell I read Exodus <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> ?) - all economic in nature. The fact that it took all this land away from arabs, who then fought to get it back (and of course riled up their peoples with calls for an end to the cursed Jewish infidels), puts it directly in an economic camp. Owning a big piece of the mediterranean shoreline (and the ports, rail hubs, etc. that this entails) right dead center in the middle east - it's a tasty bit of property. Hence why the British were not keen to give it up despite endless Israeli terrorist attacks on them after WW2...

Menix · October 2003

A concept can not cause war. There are economic and moral reasons for war, but the concepts themselves are not the cause of it.

reasa · October 2003

The war of 1812, served no purpose, and the root cause of it was America and Britian were still **** at each other. Now I'm sure if you dig for it you can say "The British wanted America for its resources", but come on you know it was just unsettled anger.

Marine0I · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 27 2003, 06:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Here's one for yah, its not a war that I know much about, but heck its possible that economics didnt have a hand in it.

The Israeli war for independance, 1948. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Well, the whole reason for Palestine being converted into the state of Israel could be considered economic. A land created for people to live, own property, create farms, convert the desert and marshes into a place that would sustain life (can you tell I read Exodus <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> ?) - all economic in nature. The fact that it took all this land away from arabs, who then fought to get it back (and of course riled up their peoples with calls for an end to the cursed Jewish infidels), puts it directly in an economic camp. Owning a big piece of the mediterranean shoreline (and the ports, rail hubs, etc. that this entails) right dead center in the middle east - it's a tasty bit of property. Hence why the British were not keen to give it up despite endless Israeli terrorist attacks on them after WW2... </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
lol I coulda sworn I had a post in between Sirius and monse .... these forums are getting stranger by the day....

If my memory serves me correctly, it was the Israeli's that started the war, and while it may have had some serious economic repercussionf for many nations, I cant say I'm convinced that it was a economic war, or even a primarily econimic war. Sure it was for the British, but I dont know about the other particpants.

MonsieurEvil · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Oct 27 2003, 07:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I have a question, could you include Jihad ?

Can we include any idealistic terrorism acts as a "war" ?  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Hmmm... I guess we could. An example would be Al Quaeda - they wage a war of sorts on the US, because of their opposition to perceived economic infractions, such as our attempts to control middle eastern country's oil wealth, and our export of commercialist products. They were also formed as a result of defending their country against Russia's attempts to take over Afghanistan (which was certainly economic - gaining a foothold in the middle east as part of their 50-year long attempt to gain access to the oil and seaports of the gulf states, which began with Stalins occupation of portions of Iran in the 40's).

MonsieurEvil · October 2003

Marine01, you're not dreaming. I think I accidently deleted it when I was trying to fix a double-post. Super sorry, just repost it.

Menix, you sort of just said a whole lot of nothing that I could understand. Can you explain further?

Reasa, the war of 1812 had some very clear economic issues, involving sea lanes and transportation of goods to our allies the French, impressed sailors, supposed British attempts to cause the Indians to attack American farmlands and other interests, and other issues. It was also sort of 'Revolutionary War 2: this time, it's personal'. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>

Marine01, the 1948 Israeli war for Independence started the day after Israel was created by the UN. It was started by israels neighbors in Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, and was underwritten by the British in one of their slimiest moments.

reasa · October 2003

How about the Civil war, this had negative economic effects for both sides, and was caused mainly by slavery, and southerners dissagrement with the way the government worked. Once the war started the North was fighting mainly to keep the country in one peice, the South was fighting for independence.

(edit) American Civil war, christ I'm a moron.... <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

MonsieurEvil · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 27 2003, 07:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> How about the Civil war, this had negative economic effects for both sides, and was caused mainly by slavery, and southerners dissagrement with the way the government worked. Once the war started the North was fighting mainly to keep the country in one peice, the South was fighting for independence. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
It was fought over their rights to own other people, and have those slaves be used for farming. Quite certainly economics, yes? And fighting to keep your country intact and prevent half of it leaving your economic sphere is a pretty big business too, from the Northern side...

reasa · October 2003

Yes, but economics did not cause the civil war, Slavey was more of a human rights issue then an economic one. Political neglect, slavery(human rights) were the main causes of the civil war. No?

MonsieurEvil · October 2003

If you asked most people in the 1860's if black slaves were even human at all, you'd mostly hear a resounding no. And that includes asking northerners that fought to have them freed. The issue was 'these africans are my property, and you are saying I cannot have them' - that's pure unadulterated economics. Civil liberties would not become a wide-scale issue for black americans for another hundred years...

Sirus · October 2003

Actually, let's not get too idealistic about the causes of the Civil War, there are many many economic situations that came into play. Why do you think slavery was an issue in the first place ? It was a cheap workforce that allowed plantation owners to gain tons of profits.

reasa · October 2003

Well fine, I still don't agree that economics is the main cause of the civil war but you make a good point.

Why not take a stab at the War on Terror, now as far as I know this is a war to take the fighting to the terrorists. To defend our country from their threat, now were not gaining anything economicaly by doing this, and I doubt the terrorists goal is to take down our economy by haveing us produce to many jets. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

CrystalSnake · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 28 2003, 12:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Stemming from an offshoot of the US entering WW2 topic, I'd like to see if anyone can come up with a war or conflict that was <i>not</i> caused at its root by economics. People often think that other issues are the main cause of a war (such as religion, civil liberties, etc.), but I submit to you that this is baseless; those issues may have an impact (or more likely, are drummed up for propoganda purposes by both sides to inflame the people), but I believe that if you dig deep enough the reasons always come down to the benjamins.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Someone's been reading Starship Troopers <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

Sirus · October 2003

Well, it's extremely difficult to prove that wars didn't incorporate economics some where along the lines, by there definetly, to some degree, wars not cause by economics.

Delving further into the terroristic wars I would definetly suggest that there is at least one group working purely on a idealistic level. Meaning to say, the war isn't on economics, but cultural warfare.

MonsieurEvil · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 27 2003, 08:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Why not take a stab at the War on Terror, now as far as I know this is a war to take the fighting to the terrorists. To defend our country from their threat, now were not gaining anything economicaly by doing this, and I doubt the terrorists goal is to take down our economy by haveing us produce to many jets. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Lordy, gonna see a huge number of teenangster wanna-commies jumping all over this one!!! <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

If people keep flying planes into our world <b>trade</b> centers, thats an economic attack on us. The loss of life was of miniscule impact on the country compared to the loss of money, business, economic collapse, etc. We gain much economically from protecting our country's infrastructure from terrorist attacks, from keeping our airlines in business due to passengers not being scared of terrorists, overthrowing dictators who threaten the region where all ouur energy supplies come from, working to prevent korean dictators from threatening our trading partners in Japan and South Korea, etc. You might get really crass and say that our responses to terrorism are far too economically oriented, actually.

MonsieurEvil · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CrystalSnake @ Oct 27 2003, 08:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Someone's been reading Starship Troopers <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Heinlein cannot take credit for this discussion, however. You might want to start with Karl Marx, and work your way backward... <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

MonsieurEvil · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Oct 27 2003, 08:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well, it's extremely difficult to prove that wars didn't incorporate economics some where along the lines, by there definetly, to some degree, wars not cause by economics.

Delving further into the terroristic wars I would definetly suggest that there is at least one group working purely on a idealistic level. Meaning to say, the war isn't on economics, but cultural warfare. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I'm not saying they incorporated it along the lines, I'm talking about root causes. In every war, you will find economic root causes. In <b>some</b> wars you will also find religious ones, or cultural ones, or ethnic ones, or other causes - but you will always find economics. It is a constant, and a core. The other causes are more window dressing propoganda than anything else. Money is the root of all evil, in this discussion. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>

But I welcome the challenge of hearing about other wars to see if the theory holds up. And I'd love to hear more rebuttals; mostly it's me saying something, then everyone moves on. Fight meeeehhhhhh!!!! <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

reasa · October 2003

Last years Christmas blizard snowball war, go ahead find the economic cause behind that one! <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

Really though, you are right to a point, sure the terrorists wanted to hurt our economy, but theirs a cause behind that. They have a great personal hate for us, many of them are brainwashed. We all know how powerful unreasoned hate can be(look what people do to poor Bush). I belive hatred is the reason they attacked us.

Quaunaut · October 2003

Note: I don't know much of what caused WW2 other than the assault on europe(which we then found the camps...

if you want a feeling of pure dread, watch Band of Brothers. You'll see what I mean.), but how was it economical? Hitler assaulted europe because he wanted more land for his 'chosen people', and slaves. While both can be related to economics, as of what I know, it was directly to his fascism.

MonsieurEvil · October 2003

I think I figured out the disconnect here - the 'people' do not often start wars. Their leaders do. And the reason to start a war is to gain something: perhaps you are gaining new farm territory. Perhaps you want new resources. Perhaps you want to topple a perceived threat to your country. Do you think Arrafat has run a war of terrorism for 40 years because he really gives two craps about his people, or because he gains money and power? What about Bin Laden? What about Hussein? What about Hitler? Wars get started at the top, and the only way to make a war worthwhile is to have it pay for itself in the long run. The 'people' are not a real factor in the equation.

And you got me on the snowball fight. I stand corrected and humbled... <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

MonsieurEvil · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Quaunaut @ Oct 27 2003, 08:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Hitler assaulted europe because he wanted more land for his 'chosen people', and slaves. While both can be related to economics, as of what I know, it was directly to his fascism.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Indeed. It was called Lebensraum - 'Living space'.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>[W]ithout consideration of "traditions" and prejudices, it [Germany] must find the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation.
--- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

One of the main Nazi justifications for liberating Soviet lands from their slavic 'sub-humans' was so they could expand their farming and recolonize europe. It has a verneer of ethnic 'reasoning', but in reality, it's just more economics at work.

Sirus · October 2003

If anyone is trying to refute the theory, understand, you won't be able to use any wars by countries, the only real chance is narrowing out people groups, and even that is difficult. I think the only real "war" not caused by economics would probably consist somewhere along the lines of terrorism.

Although, the fighting between the Palestines and the Israelis aren't really caused by economics, since the land is of religious consequence and not economic.

reasa · October 2003

The War of the Roses.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The single event that could be said to have started the Wars of the Roses happened in 1399. Henry Bolingbroke siezed the Throne from Edward's grandson Richard II and declared himself King Henry IV. Henry attacked Richard physically, claiming the right of trial by combat. Richard put up no resistance and disappeared. imprisoned by the new king., shortly afterwards. Though Richard was a weak King, the people opposed Henry until his death. His son, crowned Henry V proved to be a great King. He restored the countries faith in the monarchy with his victories in France. Some never forgot how their own lineage had been severed though by the rise of these usurper Kings from the house of Lancaster.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

MonsieurEvil · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 27 2003, 08:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The War of the Roses.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The single event that could be said to have started the Wars of the Roses happened in 1399. Henry Bolingbroke siezed the Throne from Edward's grandson Richard II and declared himself King Henry IV. Henry attacked Richard physically, claiming the right of trial by combat. Richard put up no resistance and disappeared. imprisoned by the new king., shortly afterwards. Though Richard was a weak King, the people opposed Henry until his death. His son, crowned Henry V proved to be a great King. He restored the countries faith in the monarchy with his victories in France. Some never forgot how their own lineage had been severed though by the rise of these usurper Kings from the house of Lancaster.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
So being king, and having you and all your duke buddies own the entire country and all its wealth, is not about economics? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>

Are There Any Wars Not Caused By Economics?

Comments