<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Oct 27 2003, 07:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 27 2003, 07:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Menix, you sort of just said a whole lot of nothing that I could understand. Can you explain further? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Post Title: Are There Any Wars Not Caused By Economics?
Economics is a concept.
People acting for reasons of economic benefit to themselves may cause wars.
This is not the same as Economics causing wars because it is a concept.
Economics is a concept yes. It is also a reality, the same way thermodynamics is both a theory and a physical manifestaion. Are you saying wars cannot be caused by concepts or by physical manifestations? Why the riddles, oh sphinx?
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Oct 28 2003, 08:38 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 28 2003, 08:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Oct 28 2003, 04:28 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Oct 28 2003, 04:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm looking a little biased here because I'm focusing on the Serbs but it is basically the same for every side. They fought because of the connections their minds made between ethnicity, <b>land</b>, and pride; not necessarily money. I'm not sure how you're going to try to connect money to it. But the in reality the Bosnian civil war was so messed up that creating any kind of theory on the cause of it would be a great feat within itself. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Land = economics. The oldest kind of economics, in fact. Fighting over territory is fighting over economics. The 20 (recent) years of southeastern european conflict boil down to fights over land control; the rest of it is inflamatory issues designed to unite your people behind you in your fight. And if you go back in time over a period of say, 2000 years in that region, it happens again and again. I must explain: people that create and run wars <i>do not usually truly care about their people's issues, they care about their own money and power</i>. I'm not sure how else I can say this to get it through.
As to Dread, and other people's points: I am not saying wars are caused purely by economics, and that there is no other cause. I am saying that economics is the root and is present in every conflict, and other issues may or may not contribute to a war (usually only for propaganda purposes, but whatever).
Ryo and I have agreed again. Let this day be known forever more as 'Ryo hearts MonsE and vis versa' day. Sound the trumpets! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Let me quote myself: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They fought because of the connections their minds made between ethnicity, land, and pride; not necessarily money.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To the people who fought the civil war in Bosnia, land did not equal money. Land equaled their ethnic history, which they were almost stupidly proud of. Land might have a connection to money but they are not synonymous.
People like Hitler want money to achieve great power to feed their pride. Basic emotions have longer roots in wars than money. The Spartans were the most warlike of ancient Greek history, and they had no form of currency.
The causes of war throughout history can be easily compared to fights at your local bar.
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Oct 28 2003, 07:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Oct 28 2003, 07:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To the people who fought the civil war in Bosnia, land did not equal money. Land equaled their ethnic history, which they were almost stupidly proud of. Land might have a connection to money but they are not synonymous.
People like Hitler want money to achieve great power to feed their pride. Basic emotions have longer roots in war than money, and a much longer history. The Spartans were the most warlike of ancient Greek history, and they had no form of currency.
The causes of war throughout history can be easily compared to fights at your local bar. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, I am not saying that economics is the only reason. AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN, I AM NOT SAYING THIS. Sheesh, I feel better now. However, in those areas of the world, the warfare is most certainly about land occupation - we want the land occupied by some other group that we also happen to dislike (because we we were told told for centuries by our leaders, who want that land). Still economics - brainwashing your people into thinking it's about moslems versus orthodox christians is just duping the masses; the people that run and fund those conflicts want the goods; the people don't enter into it for them except as a means to an end.
Go read Mein Kampf and find out if hitler did not constantly and explicitly use economics as a fundamental reason to hate Jews, hate communism, desire Lebensraum, and all the other stuff I won't bother repeating again. Still economics. Hell, hitler rose to power based on a platform of pulling the Jews down from their economic positions of powers, ending the depression, and restoring Deutchland to its rightful greatness in the world. Again economics.
And don't get confused and think that currency equals economics, because it does not. It is just a portion of it - the Spartans still engaged in bartering, trade, and the oldest economics of all - plunder.
Weird enough , no one thought about Vietnam... sure the french troops were sent in because it was our colony back then , the economic losses were significant , but it was the vietnamese people who started the war for their independance. Then , they had to fight the US army for a good while , and it's not like the insane numbers of GIs were sent to take over rice fields. This war was definitely caused by the conflicting ideologies.
Same goes for the first Afghanistan war (I hope so)
All I'm saying is that emotions like pride take precedent over economics as the cause of war. I might take someone's wallet after I kill them, but that doesn't mean I killed them because of the wallet.
And ethnic rivalry in Bosnia wasn't cause by brainwashing. If you were in Yugoslavia a few years before the war then you wouldn't have even noticed that there were different ethnic sides. There was an argument about the independence of Bosnia and it escalated into a war. No brainwashing, they just didn't want to live with each other in the same country and they couldn't get themselves to agree on which country the land they were living on would belong to. The hate one side felt was basically caused by what the other side did.
If a group of white people slaughtered a bunch of black people here in America, lets say 12,000. Then there would be a very angry reaction from the black population here in America, no matter how the blacks felt about whites before that. I'm not saying that one side in Bosnia slaughtered 12,000 to start the civil war, but it eventually came to that. What started the war was all sides deciding to disagree with the other sides and to make sure that their individual goals would be achieved. Why did they disagree? Because they were too proud to agree.
What about Scotland's War of Independence? Economics played a part of the war, but the actual war had nothing to do with money, simply because all the Scots were dirt poor.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Weird enough , no one thought about Vietnam... sure the french troops were sent in because it was our colony back then , the economic losses were significant , but it was the vietnamese people who started the war for their independance. Then , they had to fight the US army for a good while , and it's not like the insane numbers of GIs were sent to take over rice fields. This war was definitely caused by the conflicting ideologies. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, interesting. One could argue that the Vietnamese desire for independance was fueled by a desire to remove the controls of colonialism and as such gain access to greater economic freedom and (potential) prosperity.
The conflict between the US and Vietnam does have economic factors however. For the US, ostensably the war was fought to stop the spread of Communism, which is considered the rival and opposite of capitalism. Both Communism and Capitalism are ways of organising and regulating economies. Hence, the war can be said to be two groups of people fighting for the supremecy of their particular economic theory.
Also, there is the fact that quite a few US armaments companies made a considerable profit off of the Vietnam war, and that these men certainly would have been able to send a few words the way of the administration [no this isn't some conspiracy theory it's merely saying that a) Some people did benefit from the war and b) Given the relationship between big business and the US government, these people would have been able to at the very least talk to the administration]. Hence, economic considerations may have played a larger role in the US continueing to fight that we would imagine.
Still, it would seem that this example of the Vietnam war is the closest we have yet to a non-economic war. Any more thoughts on this one people?
<!--QuoteBegin--kida+Oct 28 2003, 08:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kida @ Oct 28 2003, 08:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And what about William Wallace and his war? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Already pending: Scotland's war of independence.
<!--QuoteBegin--uranium - 235+Oct 28 2003, 08:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (uranium - 235 @ Oct 28 2003, 08:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What about Scotland's War of Independence? Economics played a part of the war, but the actual war had nothing to do with money, simply because all the Scots were dirt poor. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly they are dirt poor, NO CRAP THEY WOULD REVOLT.
Next...
As someone else had said, the Vietnam War. To be specific, it wasn't a war. The American Government calls it a conflict.
It was a part of the Cold War, which was highly economically based. Communism couldn't exist with Captialism in any shape or form.
Monse, I'll beat you at this game, I just need to do a lil reasearch here and there.
I'm going to pull some obscure tribal war out of Africa with Ethic cleasenings.
But I do agree; of course Economics is a big role in wars, why wouldn't they be? People care about their stuff.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited October 2003
I think it would be difficult to find anything, <i>anything</i>, in human affairs that isnt influenced heavily by economics. Yes folks, that's a challenge. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Oct 28 2003, 10:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Oct 28 2003, 10:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--uranium - 235+Oct 28 2003, 08:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (uranium - 235 @ Oct 28 2003, 08:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What about Scotland's War of Independence? Economics played a part of the war, but the actual war had nothing to do with money, simply because all the Scots were dirt poor. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly they are dirt poor, NO CRAP THEY WOULD REVOLT. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Learn about class distinction k thx bai. They didnt' revolt because they were poor. What were they going to do? Steal money from the nobles? If you were born poor, you REMAINED poor. It was completely unheard of that you could rise from a peasant to anything more then a peasant. That's how it was back then, you boon.
<!--QuoteBegin--reasa+Oct 27 2003, 06:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 27 2003, 06:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 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.... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> i know i'm bringing up a war already discussed, but i believe this is important the american civil war was not fought to end slavery in the south...in the beginning.
the american civil war was about 2 governmental systems, 1. confederation, or power in the states, and a weak central government -or- 2. federalism, or a powerful(ish) central government, with weaker state governments.
basically the civil war was a result of the debates from when the original constitution(not the articles) was written. the south wanted to secede and create a confederacy, and the north wanted to keep the states together under the federal government that was already established. this is one of the decisions i hate most that our(the US) government has made.
only later, when Lincoln was losing support, did he write the emancipation proclomation, and free all slaves, north and south, giving the north support in the south.
Didn't Lincoln run under the platform of abolishing slavery? That's what I heard way back when. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
nope. the civil war was not about slavery until it was already started. watch gods and generals, that movie portrays the beginning very well...brother against brother, the federal government calls up a general, who defers to his state. it is these disagreements that sparked off the civil war. slavery was a non-issue at the beginning
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Oct 29 2003, 12:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 29 2003, 12:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You lazy kids these days - always sleeping. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
What I am saying is, you are not describing a civil war. No armed conflict, no meeting of combatants. It's not a war, it sounds like civil unrest. We have to have a clear definition of what a war is - it is not riots, or unrest, or hating your leader. If so, every country, throughout all of history, has been at war every single moment, of every single day. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Dokey. My thinking pattern: MonsE wants an example of a war caused by something else than economics -> MonsE must think wars can not be caused by anything else alone but economics -> If I can't come up with a recent non-economical war I could convince MonsE by debating and discussing.
If you accept the fact that wars can be caused by other things than economics, fine. Then we don't have much else to discuss except has it happened clearly enough in our history <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Edit: I'll keep thinking of an example so <i>I'll be back!</i> (after some sleep that is <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As someone else had said, the Vietnam War. To be specific, it wasn't a war. The American Government calls it a conflict. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know, it doesn't matter what the US government wants to call it. When the armed forces of two nations are fighting one another, that is a war.
Lots of good examples brought up. I'll take teeny pokes at a few of them:
Scottish War(s) of Independence (by the way, there were plenty of documented and not so documented revolts) - when you are trying to control your country and remove the land/finance/tax/etc. controls of an English king and his Dukes, that's a war over economics. <b>FREEEEEEDDDDOOOOOMMMMMMMM</b> <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>(from people taxing the crap out of my cows)</span>!!!!!
Trojan War - in myths it was caused by Helen running off for Troy with her boyfriend Paris. In reality (if the war ever took place), it probably had to do with the same reasons the greeks ever went to war - conquest, looting, trade lanes, etc. But no one really knows if the war even really happened, any more than wars with Atlantis.
Vietnam - Ryo nailed this down pretty well. The entire cold war andf all its conflicts were about the clash of economic establishments, and which one would dominate the world. Arguably the largest war over rival economic systems in history.
Civil War - it was caused by a lot of things, and yes, slavery (the right to run your state as a slave state) was one of them. So was the so-called Tarrif of Abominations, a comepletely economic issue mentioned often in the articles of secession. The economic list goes on and on for the CW.
Watching braveheart, the Scots war was caued by the murder of his wife <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Well, it would be absurd to give any war a monocausal explanation. Sure, the Crusades (or some of them) were partly organized by Venetian or Genoan merchant organisations, but the economic gains were unequally distributed among the participants. There must have been a reason for other nations to join in the wars: hoping to go to heaven ( bishops promised the absolution of all sins if people joined in) was one. The starter of the crusades (if you dont wish to include the Reconquista) was the pope, who had not economic advantage whatsoever. Young noblemen hoped to gain a piece of land ( as all land would go to the oldest son).
Let's take another war: the Second World War. If Hitler would want to gain economic aladvantages only, he would have attacked Switzerland or Denmark first, in stead of Poland (the incorporation of Czechia made perfect sense, as it was by that time the fourth economy of Europe). In stead, he aimed for the so-called Lebensraum, "Room to live" for his fellow aryans. The inner war against the jews had terrible disadvantages for the german economy.
Third example: The Dutch struggle for independance (80 year war). Not only caused by new taxations, but also by the inquisition (Holland was becoming protestant, Spain was still catholic.
So, yes, most wars are PARTIALLY caused by economy. But other causes,suchas religion, should not be forgotten
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let's take another war: the Second World War. If Hitler would want to gain economic aladvantages only, he would have attacked Switzerland or Denmark first, in stead of Poland (the incorporation of Czechia made perfect sense, as it was by that time the fourth economy of Europe). In stead, he aimed for the so-called Lebensraum, "Room to live" for his fellow aryans. The inner war against the jews had terrible disadvantages for the german economy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Denmark or Switzerland? Why attack them?
Denmark was actually taken over by the Nazis, and Switzerland was left alone because they're a total female dog to attack. Plus they controlled so much of Europe's banking that if the Nazis had attacked them, they would have been cutting their own throats with regards to loans ect.
Poland had vast, fertile croplands ideal for farms, which is exactly what Hitler wanted for his people. Hitler was very keen on the idea of the "german farmer", a hardy, strong person with a large family. Across Europe and Russia, this was the kind of person he wanted to place in many occupied areas. Invading France brought rich coal reserves such as the Saar Basin, plus more farmland and cash crops such as wine. Of course, there was a historical basis as well for the invasion, which was getting back at France for the Versailles treaty of WWI.
Russia had mineral resources out the wazzo plus endless acres of excellent cropland. Hitler had other reasons as well for invading Russia, his hatred for Bolshevism and socialism not least among them, but the economic rewards of a conquored Russia would have been immense. Virtually every mineral and stratigic resource a nation could ever need was inside Russia, from iron to oil to uranium. If Russia had been a desolate wasteland Hitler would certainly have paid it much less attention than he did.
Denmark was actually taken over by the Nazis, and Switzerland was left alone because they're a total female dog to attack. Plus they controlled so much of Europe's banking that if the Nazis had attacked them, they would have been cutting their own throats with regards to loans ect. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--></b>
Na, ok
<b><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Poland had vast, fertile croplands ideal for farms, which is exactly what Hitler wanted for his people. Hitler was very keen on the idea of the "german farmer", a hardy, strong person with a large family. Across Europe and Russia, this was the kind of person he wanted to place in many occupied areas. Invading France brought rich coal reserves such as the Saar Basin, plus more farmland and cash crops such as wine. Of course, there was a historical basis as well for the invasion, which was getting back at France for the Versailles treaty of WWI.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup. So thinking of the Aryan ideal of farmers and getting back for Versailles were both non-economical reasons to wage war.
[b]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Russia had mineral resources out the wazzo plus endless acres of excellent cropland. Hitler had other reasons as well for invading Russia, his hatred for Bolshevism and socialism not least among them, but the economic rewards of a conquored Russia would have been immense. Virtually every mineral and stratigic resource a nation could ever need was inside Russia, from iron to oil to uranium. If Russia had been a desolate wasteland Hitler would certainly have paid it much less attention than he did.[/b ]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, but my point as well. it's not just the economy, stupid
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->True, but my point as well. it's not just the economy, stupid <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well let's take a look at some of my other posts in this wonderful topic:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Monse is pretty much dead on. War, even from it's very earliest days, has been about economics, be they plunder, booty, lands, slaves or resources. I can think of no conflict in history that has not had economic causes, obviously many wars have other causes as well, but money always comes into the equation somehow. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By calling for the Crusade, the Church was able to unite much of Europe behind a common cause. Economic concerns fueled the actual fighting, but without the unifying influence of the Church that conflict never could have occured. So religion did play a pivotal role in causing the war and making sure it could come about. But every war has a myriad of factors behind it's beginning; it is simply that economics is generally the largest and most powerful of these reasons. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So as you can plainly see, my point from the very beginning has been that economics is a major contributing factor, not the sole one, but certainly a very important one that is often of the most importance. Kindly do not include personal attacks such as "stupid", especially when you have blatently not read the whole topic nor have any understanding of my arguement.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yup. So thinking of the Aryan ideal of farmers and getting back for Versailles were both non-economical reasons to wage war.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, the Versaillies revenge was non-economic, and I never said otherwise. Please refer to the above section. Secondly, whilst the Aryan farmer ideal has roots in racial supremecy ideas and Hitler's own warped philosophy, it is still fundamentally economic in it's nature: the aquisition and distribution of rich, fertile farmland to German colonists.
Comments
Post Title: Are There Any Wars Not Caused By Economics?
Economics is a concept.
People acting for reasons of economic benefit to themselves may cause wars.
This is not the same as Economics causing wars because it is a concept.
Land = economics. The oldest kind of economics, in fact. Fighting over territory is fighting over economics. The 20 (recent) years of southeastern european conflict boil down to fights over land control; the rest of it is inflamatory issues designed to unite your people behind you in your fight. And if you go back in time over a period of say, 2000 years in that region, it happens again and again. I must explain: people that create and run wars <i>do not usually truly care about their people's issues, they care about their own money and power</i>. I'm not sure how else I can say this to get it through.
As to Dread, and other people's points: I am not saying wars are caused purely by economics, and that there is no other cause. I am saying that economics is the root and is present in every conflict, and other issues may or may not contribute to a war (usually only for propaganda purposes, but whatever).
Ryo and I have agreed again. Let this day be known forever more as 'Ryo hearts MonsE and vis versa' day. Sound the trumpets! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me quote myself:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They fought because of the connections their minds made between ethnicity, land, and pride; not necessarily money.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To the people who fought the civil war in Bosnia, land did not equal money. Land equaled their ethnic history, which they were almost stupidly proud of. Land might have a connection to money but they are not synonymous.
People like Hitler want money to achieve great power to feed their pride. Basic emotions have longer roots in wars than money. The Spartans were the most warlike of ancient Greek history, and they had no form of currency.
The causes of war throughout history can be easily compared to fights at your local bar.
People like Hitler want money to achieve great power to feed their pride. Basic emotions have longer roots in war than money, and a much longer history. The Spartans were the most warlike of ancient Greek history, and they had no form of currency.
The causes of war throughout history can be easily compared to fights at your local bar. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, I am not saying that economics is the only reason. AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN, I AM NOT SAYING THIS. Sheesh, I feel better now. However, in those areas of the world, the warfare is most certainly about land occupation - we want the land occupied by some other group that we also happen to dislike (because we we were told told for centuries by our leaders, who want that land). Still economics - brainwashing your people into thinking it's about moslems versus orthodox christians is just duping the masses; the people that run and fund those conflicts want the goods; the people don't enter into it for them except as a means to an end.
Go read Mein Kampf and find out if hitler did not constantly and explicitly use economics as a fundamental reason to hate Jews, hate communism, desire Lebensraum, and all the other stuff I won't bother repeating again. Still economics. Hell, hitler rose to power based on a platform of pulling the Jews down from their economic positions of powers, ending the depression, and restoring Deutchland to its rightful greatness in the world. Again economics.
And don't get confused and think that currency equals economics, because it does not. It is just a portion of it - the Spartans still engaged in bartering, trade, and the oldest economics of all - plunder.
Same goes for the first Afghanistan war (I hope so)
And ethnic rivalry in Bosnia wasn't cause by brainwashing. If you were in Yugoslavia a few years before the war then you wouldn't have even noticed that there were different ethnic sides. There was an argument about the independence of Bosnia and it escalated into a war. No brainwashing, they just didn't want to live with each other in the same country and they couldn't get themselves to agree on which country the land they were living on would belong to. The hate one side felt was basically caused by what the other side did.
If a group of white people slaughtered a bunch of black people here in America, lets say 12,000. Then there would be a very angry reaction from the black population here in America, no matter how the blacks felt about whites before that. I'm not saying that one side in Bosnia slaughtered 12,000 to start the civil war, but it eventually came to that. What started the war was all sides deciding to disagree with the other sides and to make sure that their individual goals would be achieved. Why did they disagree? Because they were too proud to agree.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, interesting. One could argue that the Vietnamese desire for independance was fueled by a desire to remove the controls of colonialism and as such gain access to greater economic freedom and (potential) prosperity.
The conflict between the US and Vietnam does have economic factors however. For the US, ostensably the war was fought to stop the spread of Communism, which is considered the rival and opposite of capitalism. Both Communism and Capitalism are ways of organising and regulating economies. Hence, the war can be said to be two groups of people fighting for the supremecy of their particular economic theory.
Also, there is the fact that quite a few US armaments companies made a considerable profit off of the Vietnam war, and that these men certainly would have been able to send a few words the way of the administration [no this isn't some conspiracy theory it's merely saying that a) Some people did benefit from the war and b) Given the relationship between big business and the US government, these people would have been able to at the very least talk to the administration]. Hence, economic considerations may have played a larger role in the US continueing to fight that we would imagine.
Still, it would seem that this example of the Vietnam war is the closest we have yet to a non-economic war. Any more thoughts on this one people?
And what about William Wallace and his war?
1984 anyone?
I agree with Menix in this topic.
Already pending: Scotland's war of independence.
The supposed trojan war was started by because of the beauty of Helen.
Exactly they are dirt poor, NO CRAP THEY WOULD REVOLT.
Next...
As someone else had said, the Vietnam War. To be specific, it wasn't a war. The American Government calls it a conflict.
It was a part of the Cold War, which was highly economically based. Communism couldn't exist with Captialism in any shape or form.
Monse, I'll beat you at this game, I just need to do a lil reasearch here and there.
I'm going to pull some obscure tribal war out of Africa with Ethic cleasenings.
But I do agree; of course Economics is a big role in wars, why wouldn't they be? People care about their stuff.
Exactly they are dirt poor, NO CRAP THEY WOULD REVOLT. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Learn about class distinction k thx bai. They didnt' revolt because they were poor. What were they going to do? Steal money from the nobles? If you were born poor, you REMAINED poor. It was completely unheard of that you could rise from a peasant to anything more then a peasant. That's how it was back then, you boon.
(edit) American Civil war, christ I'm a moron.... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
i know i'm bringing up a war already discussed, but i believe this is important
the american civil war was not fought to end slavery in the south...in the beginning.
the american civil war was about 2 governmental systems,
1. confederation, or power in the states, and a weak central government
-or-
2. federalism, or a powerful(ish) central government, with weaker state governments.
basically the civil war was a result of the debates from when the original constitution(not the articles) was written. the south wanted to secede and create a confederacy, and the north wanted to keep the states together under the federal government that was already established. this is one of the decisions i hate most that our(the US) government has made.
only later, when Lincoln was losing support, did he write the emancipation proclomation, and free all slaves, north and south, giving the north support in the south.
What I am saying is, you are not describing a civil war. No armed conflict, no meeting of combatants. It's not a war, it sounds like civil unrest. We have to have a clear definition of what a war is - it is not riots, or unrest, or hating your leader. If so, every country, throughout all of history, has been at war every single moment, of every single day. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dokey. My thinking pattern: MonsE wants an example of a war caused by something else than economics -> MonsE must think wars can not be caused by anything else alone but economics -> If I can't come up with a recent non-economical war I could convince MonsE by debating and discussing.
If you accept the fact that wars can be caused by other things than economics, fine. Then we don't have much else to discuss except has it happened clearly enough in our history <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Edit: I'll keep thinking of an example so <i>I'll be back!</i> (after some sleep that is <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know, it doesn't matter what the US government wants to call it. When the armed forces of two nations are fighting one another, that is a war.
Scottish War(s) of Independence (by the way, there were plenty of documented and not so documented revolts) - when you are trying to control your country and remove the land/finance/tax/etc. controls of an English king and his Dukes, that's a war over economics. <b>FREEEEEEDDDDOOOOOMMMMMMMM</b> <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>(from people taxing the crap out of my cows)</span>!!!!!
Trojan War - in myths it was caused by Helen running off for Troy with her boyfriend Paris. In reality (if the war ever took place), it probably had to do with the same reasons the greeks ever went to war - conquest, looting, trade lanes, etc. But no one really knows if the war even really happened, any more than wars with Atlantis.
Vietnam - Ryo nailed this down pretty well. The entire cold war andf all its conflicts were about the clash of economic establishments, and which one would dominate the world. Arguably the largest war over rival economic systems in history.
Civil War - it was caused by a lot of things, and yes, slavery (the right to run your state as a slave state) was one of them. So was the so-called Tarrif of Abominations, a comepletely economic issue mentioned often in the articles of secession. The economic list goes on and on for the CW.
j/p
Here's a nice long list, take a gander
<a href='http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/' target='_blank'>http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/</a>
Let's take another war: the Second World War. If Hitler would want to gain economic aladvantages only, he would have attacked Switzerland or Denmark first, in stead of Poland (the incorporation of Czechia made perfect sense, as it was by that time the fourth economy of Europe). In stead, he aimed for the so-called Lebensraum, "Room to live" for his fellow aryans. The inner war against the jews had terrible disadvantages for the german economy.
Third example: The Dutch struggle for independance (80 year war). Not only caused by new taxations, but also by the inquisition (Holland was becoming protestant, Spain was still catholic.
So, yes, most wars are PARTIALLY caused by economy. But other causes,suchas religion, should not be forgotten
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Denmark or Switzerland? Why attack them?
Denmark was actually taken over by the Nazis, and Switzerland was left alone because they're a total female dog to attack. Plus they controlled so much of Europe's banking that if the Nazis had attacked them, they would have been cutting their own throats with regards to loans ect.
Poland had vast, fertile croplands ideal for farms, which is exactly what Hitler wanted for his people. Hitler was very keen on the idea of the "german farmer", a hardy, strong person with a large family. Across Europe and Russia, this was the kind of person he wanted to place in many occupied areas. Invading France brought rich coal reserves such as the Saar Basin, plus more farmland and cash crops such as wine. Of course, there was a historical basis as well for the invasion, which was getting back at France for the Versailles treaty of WWI.
Russia had mineral resources out the wazzo plus endless acres of excellent cropland. Hitler had other reasons as well for invading Russia, his hatred for Bolshevism and socialism not least among them, but the economic rewards of a conquored Russia would have been immense. Virtually every mineral and stratigic resource a nation could ever need was inside Russia, from iron to oil to uranium. If Russia had been a desolate wasteland Hitler would certainly have paid it much less attention than he did.
Denmark was actually taken over by the Nazis, and Switzerland was left alone because they're a total female dog to attack. Plus they controlled so much of Europe's banking that if the Nazis had attacked them, they would have been cutting their own throats with regards to loans ect. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--></b>
Na, ok
<b><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Poland had vast, fertile croplands ideal for farms, which is exactly what Hitler wanted for his people. Hitler was very keen on the idea of the "german farmer", a hardy, strong person with a large family. Across Europe and Russia, this was the kind of person he wanted to place in many occupied areas. Invading France brought rich coal reserves such as the Saar Basin, plus more farmland and cash crops such as wine. Of course, there was a historical basis as well for the invasion, which was getting back at France for the Versailles treaty of WWI.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup. So thinking of the Aryan ideal of farmers and getting back for Versailles were both non-economical reasons to wage war.
[b]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Russia had mineral resources out the wazzo plus endless acres of excellent cropland. Hitler had other reasons as well for invading Russia, his hatred for Bolshevism and socialism not least among them, but the economic rewards of a conquored Russia would have been immense. Virtually every mineral and stratigic resource a nation could ever need was inside Russia, from iron to oil to uranium. If Russia had been a desolate wasteland Hitler would certainly have paid it much less attention than he did.[/b ]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, but my point as well. it's not just the economy, stupid
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->True, but my point as well. it's not just the economy, stupid <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well let's take a look at some of my other posts in this wonderful topic:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Monse is pretty much dead on. War, even from it's very earliest days, has been about economics, be they plunder, booty, lands, slaves or resources. I can think of no conflict in history that has not had economic causes, obviously many wars have other causes as well, but money always comes into the equation somehow.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By calling for the Crusade, the Church was able to unite much of Europe behind a common cause. Economic concerns fueled the actual fighting, but without the unifying influence of the Church that conflict never could have occured. So religion did play a pivotal role in causing the war and making sure it could come about. But every war has a myriad of factors behind it's beginning; it is simply that economics is generally the largest and most powerful of these reasons.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So as you can plainly see, my point from the very beginning has been that economics is a major contributing factor, not the sole one, but certainly a very important one that is often of the most importance. Kindly do not include personal attacks such as "stupid", especially when you have blatently not read the whole topic nor have any understanding of my arguement.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Yup. So thinking of the Aryan ideal of farmers and getting back for Versailles were both non-economical reasons to wage war.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, the Versaillies revenge was non-economic, and I never said otherwise. Please refer to the above section. Secondly, whilst the Aryan farmer ideal has roots in racial supremecy ideas and Hitler's own warped philosophy, it is still fundamentally economic in it's nature: the aquisition and distribution of rich, fertile farmland to German colonists.