Why are ALL wars fought?

Great Debates
1

After watching the Patriot, I started thinking about why countries fight wars.
I have come to the conclusion that there are no wars fought for principals, or some Glorious Cause. Every war has been fought for economical gain…even our Glorious Revolution.
Here is a run down of just the major wars the US were involved in.
Revolutionary War-Let’s face it, taxes and trade. They didn’t appreciate paying high taxes, and they wanted to trade with other countries without the interference of Great Britian.
Civil War-It wasn’t over State Rights. The South didn’t wanted exclusive rights to King Cotton, and didn’t want interference from the North. The North didn’t want to lose King Cotton, or all of that land.
World War I-U.S. got involved for the money.
World War II-Pulled us out of the Depression. Started cuz Germany was in a Depression. We weren’t trying to save the Free World from Hitler’s tyranny, that was just an added bonus.
Korean and Vietnam Wars-Capitial world vs. Communism.
Desert Storm-Oil

Or maybe I’m just cynnical. But I honestly believe that history was shaped solely by the economy of the time. No outlining principals, or causes, or beliefs. Just money.

2

Hardly.

Demonstrating that most wars have an economic element is not the same as demonstrating that all wars are fought only (or even primarily) for economic reasons. For instance, you seem to totally dismiss the ideas of representation and self-determination from the American Revolution. You also seem to follow the southern revisionist stance in casting the Civil War as nothing more than a clash of economic systems.

Beyond that, I might mention the Crusades, the Taiping Rebellion, the Jacobin Revolution, the war between Shah Muhammad of Kwarizm and the Mongols, the Battle of Allia and subsequent Celtic attack on Rome, etc. Human beings use a vast array of reasons to motivate and/or justify wars. Economics is often involved, but it is by no means teh “sole cause”.

3

I still think that wars are fought for land and money. Maybe individual men/warriors have principals and justifications for wars other than money, but I think as a whole, it’s about money and land.

4

Yeah, a bit cynical. The main problem with your reasoning is your assuming that all wars were fought for ONLY one reason. While economics and gain surely play some factor in every conflict, just HOW much is the question.

Revolutionary War: Probably around 50% about economics (taxes/trade). The rest was probably something like “Hey, we can run ourselves better than those Brit bastards!” and/or “They’ve screwed with us one time too many!”

Civil War: Cotton certainly played a huge part in it, but the plight of the slaves (most prominent towards the end of the war, but slavery was part of the motivation all throughout) and the fact that, hey, our precious little union was breaking up! We have to do SOMETHING!

World War I: Uh… not as knowledgeable about this one, admittedly, and not willing to delve into my studies for a general description.

World War II: Sure, the wartime effort helped the depression a lot, but I, for one, certainly wouldn’t think that America in the 1940’s would ignore the slaughter of millions of people. And let’s not forget the bombing of that ship (forget the name… urgh!) where several Americans supposedly died.

Korea/Vietnam: These, I agree, were simply Communism vs. Capitalism puppet wars.

Desert Storm: This was more a product of politics than economics. If I recall correctly, we had a defense treaty with Saudi Arabia, and they felt very threatened by Iraq’s mobilization. Getting the oil was more an added bonus than anything else.

And, anyone, I only gave a very general gleaning-over of the facts, so if anyone wants to correct me, feel free.

Anyway, Peppy, there can be dozens of reasons a war could be fought… there’s no ONE reason.

5

SPOOFE Bo Diddly said:

Wrong war, SPOOFE. You’re thinking of the *Lusitania,*which was during World War I (before US entry). WWII was Pearl Harbor.

Robert A. Heinlein, in his novel Starship Troopers (not to be confused with the movie based on it, which was about as intellectually deep as Airplaneand not nearly as funny), made an assertion through the main character that all wars were caused in one way or another by population pressure (including the Crusades). I don’t know whether Heinlein really believed that, but I thought I’d mention it.

Economics is part of conflicts, but I’ll agree with Spiritus Mundi and SPOOFE–there are lots of different factors. Trying to ascribe wars solely to money is way-oversimplifying a complex issue.

6

I agree with the others. While someone always profits from the misery, wars are not all about economics.

The Carthaginian Oligarchy blithely assumed that the upstart Roman Republic would realize that a trade war would harm Italy more than Carthage. After all, Carthage was a Great State: it had centuries of tradition, trade had made it wealthy, its ships docked in every known port and no ship sailed the western Mediterranean without its permission. But the Romans fought for honor, not for profit.
When the Punic Wars were over, the city of Carthage no longer existed.

7

Why? Have you examined the many counterexamples offered and found a strong economic basis for each of them, or is this simply an example of being convinced and unwilling to examine evidence which might contradict a belief?

8

Well, NOW I have, before all I had was your post Spirtus.

Ok, I will recant that it’s not the ONLY one. In History class, we are taught to look at history with SPEC. Social, Political, Economic, Cultural. These are the four things that shape history. To my mind Economic is the BIGGEST factor. It’s obviously not the only one, but it’s the biggest one.
And we were practically asking the Germans to bomb the Lusitania. They TOLD America that if they caught any ships with supplies for GB or France, they would bomb it. Well, we were shipping supplies on a passenger ship. The Pres knew the risks, but he did it anyway.

9

it seems lately there’s more political intent behind the fights the US chooses to engage in, but overall, yes, there are tons of reasons (all stated above) for engaging in war. The situation in the gulf was brought on by a cry for help. The US wouldn’t have been involved unless S.A. asked us to become involved for the most part. Bosnia, Albania/Kosovo, were involved by US troops because we are part of the UN and NATO, so were obligated by agreements to help defend certain countries during need regardless of politics or economics. WWII wasn’t something that the US was able to enter easily, and there are still some theories as to whether we let what happened at Pearl Harbor happen so that we could become involved. It’s true the US intercepted messages from Germany to Mexico searching for an alliance to form against the USA, but nothing directly that would prompt the USA to become involved without looking like the bad guy. We needed a reason to get involved, and it was politics that kept us out in the beginning. Same is true for WWI. The civil war was fought because Lincoln was trying to keep a country unified, and found it hard to do so without using some sort of force, though he never expected the all out war. Slavery was actually the least of his concerns. Lincoln wasn’t for abolition of slavery for the sake of freeing slaves, but because he felt it was ruining the country, and holding the states back. He actually wanted to send them all back to Africa, even the slaves born here. That was his original plan. There are many different types of agendas that call for using force that leads to war, but simple politics and propoganda and land are not the main reasons. Humans fight when frustrated that there is no other way to communicate and come to a satisfactory conclusion to a situation. When rams but heads, they do so until one backs down or falls down. This is the way the world works.

10

Heh. I didn’t know people were so simple. We’re just walking wallets.

Actually, economics play a role in lots of wars. Heinlein did say it was all about population pressure, but he was wrong.

Crusades: no economics at all. 1) Religious. 2) (the main part) second and third sons. They provided stability in that every family would have a ‘backup’ heir, but they provided instability in that they were given military training then let loose with no responsibilities. They ran around killing and raping, or just getting drunk and gambling in the streets. The Crusades were, to a large degree, made up of those sons.

American Revolution: Yes, largely economic. America may not have been getting hammered by taxes quite as bad as the brits, but they were unhappy about it. It was an economic stimulus that motivated a more basic urge. The colonies were populated by, surprise! colonists. Those people who, for whatever reason, left the comforts of a populated land and went to carve a home out of the wilderness, people who had grown up burying almost as many children as they saw grow up. Theirs was a very individualist inclination, NOT something that tolerates any sort of government.

The post revolution trouble: after the revolution, it was quite some time before our country was stable. It faced most of the problems that see post-revolution governments. Money, and people wanting their own piece of the pie. THere were many conflicts, including washington taking the provisional government’s army out and putting down another rebellion or three. Shay’s Rebellion was economic. The farmers of the NE were upset about losing money. Others were about power “Why should THEY be the ones to run the government?” and “I should be the man on top”.

The war of 1812: Partly economic (trade matters), partly bad feelings stemming from the previous war (around 1780.

The Mexican War: Expansionism/ economic. American pride + Mexico has valuable land = America wants that land

The Civil War: A very complex milieu. If you study the history of every nation, you will see a trend towards centrilization of power. Europe went, in all nations, from an aristocratic form of governance (lords are kings in their own right), to some form of monarchy. And it’s doing it again, with all the nations struggling to come together in a unified Europe. Japan went from the Shogun Lords to the Empire. America went from more powerful states to a more powerful federal government. States rights WAS a large part of that war, the economics of it was important too, though. It was about power, it was about money. Slavery wasn’t as large a role as most would have you believe. The nation was centralizing power, and the powers of the South saw their portion getting smaller, so they made their own nation, where their power would be no lesser, even greater. Power was, I believe, more important than economics in that war. Not even so noble a calling as “states’ rights”, just people in power wanting to keep their power.

I don’t know about the war in Cuba in 1896

WWI: We were mostly isolationist in 1919. We didn’t have too large an economic stake in Europe. We could have cut off our trade with them without too much loss. Our entry into that war was mostly a result of internal powerplays. I think President Wilson saw that America could become a powerful world player, but not if it had to work with a German-dominated Europe. After that war America drew back into its shell, only slightly more open than before.

WWII: The war did pull us out of the Depression. I don’t think any politician went into that war thinking “I’ll send American boys over to die so we can pick up the economy” though. We didn’t have economic interests to protect in Europe. Hell, we barely had interests to protect in AMERICA.

I don’t know enough about modern wars to comment.

11

Wow. All SORTS of responses since I started. Looks like PLG’s pretty much convinced, eh? ::shaking head::

Don’t feel bad, pepper. It’s by things like this that people learn. I’ve put up ideas and had them torn to shreds before. At least you were part right. Why, I remember a thread I started… [/old timer talk]

12

**

I can see how some wars over economics are still steeped in principles.

**

The Declaration of Independence was signed by a number of wealthy individuals. By signing that document they signed their own death warrant so far as the British were concerned. These folks were quite wealthy under British rule so there had to be something more then trade and taxes at stake.

**

What money?

**

We probably would have gotten out of the depression anyway. Remember a little guy with some New Deal? Germany’s reasons for the war were a bit more complex than economics alone. Their humilating defeat in WWI played a part.

**

You don’t think there are ideological differences between Captialism and Communism?

Why are you under the impression that economics is divorced from principles or beliefs? I’m a big fan of capitalism for a variety of reasons not just that I make money at it.

Marc

13

But if they were content in their wealth, why worry about taxes? I mean, “no taxation without representation” was a pretty big deal to some people, especially the colonists in Boston.

Well, when a country goes to war, there are economic advantages. And the military and industry were very closely linked at the time, maybe they still are. What other reason was there really to get involved? I mean, the country didn’t even want to go to war. In order to make it seem patriotic, the government stooped to some new lows. Including disgusting propaganda…and there was no greater good. They weren’t fighting for ideals…it was about money.

The New Deal was great. But it was less effective then we think. The majority of the programs there were implented failed miserabley. If the New Deal was going to pull the country out of the Depression, it would have been closer. But at the onslaught of the war, the country was no better off than when FDR took office.
Germany WAS humiliated, but they were severely broken by the severe fines placed on them by France and GB, and the Depression didn’t help matters. Hitler might have larger reasons, but he convinced the German citizens was was a good idea, that everything he did was a good idea, because it would pull the country out of the dire straigts it was in.

I know there are, but it seems the primary concern was simply about the economic differences.
This post not checked for grammer/spelling errors

14

The causes of wars are typically rooted deeply in history - it is almost impossible to come up with a single, overarching cause for any given war. Take WWI, for instance. The war had its direct roots in the First and Second Balkan wars of 1912-1913. That the first nations to declare war on one another were Austria-Hungary and Serbia (July 28, 1914) was no accident, as these nations were involved in the aformentioned Balkan wars. Of course, it didn’t help that the Archduke of Austria-Hungary was assassinated by Serbian nationalists. That seemed to be, however, little more than an excuse for these two rivals to start at each other again. Germany got involved because Austria-Hungary was its closest ally, and feared the consequences of allowing Austria-Hungary to be defeated and humiliated (which, apparently, is what would have happened…). Russia got involved because it considered itself the ‘protector of the Slavs’, and feared for its prestige and authority if it allowed Serbia to be defeated. Germany declared war on Russia on August 1, 1914. The French, having been long-time military rivals with Germany (they lost the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine to Germany during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71), and, conveniently enough, being allies with Russia (they viewed an alliance with Russia as their greates defence against Germany), as well as fearing the greater population, economy, and military strength of Germany, saw this as an oppurtunity to regain lands taken by Germany. They also could not stand idly by as their chief ally was being brought into the war. Germany decalred war on France on August 3, 1914 and invaded Belgium. They then invaded France on August 4th.

Up until now, events, while quickly spiraling out of control, were confined to the European mainland. The Birtish, for their part, feared what might happen if the Germans occupied the Low Countries of France, especialy since Germany had a powerful and sizeable navy. They also feared the consequences for their Empire if they didn’t get involved - France and Russia were their primary imperial rivals, and as a result, they had been cultivating a sense of goodwill with those nations. They used the violation of Belgium’s neutrality as a convenient means of entering the war. The British declared war on Germany that evening. Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia on August 6, and France and Great Britain declared war on Austria-Hungary on the 12th. Within two weeks, pretty much the whole of Europe had been drawn into the conflict.

It was the entry of the British into the war that made WWI a truly ‘World War’. Because of its imperial nature, when Britain entered the war, they took with them Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and India. Concern for the defence of its ‘Crown Jewel’, India, put Britain in direct conflict with the Ottoman Empire, touching off a major Middle Eastern war. Further, because of close political, economic and cultural ties with the U.S., the groundwork was laid for the Americans’ entry into the war.

Things, of course, get even muddier, as other nations enetered the war at later times. This is, of course, a very brief summary!
So, what was the cause of World War I? Simply put, historical tensions. While economics may play a role in some, or even most wars, it is by far not the only, or even the deciding cause in many.

Sorry for the length of this post…but, it’s late, I can’t sleep, I’m sick, and well, I’m just bored out of my skull :stuck_out_tongue:

15

**

 That was the point I made. They were wealthy and living quite comfortably under British rule. So there must have been some serious reasons to place their lives at such great risk. They were fighting one of the most powerful empires the world had ever seen.

**

There are also a lot of disadvantages. You lose a large percentage of the work force for a few years and some for even longer. The military industrial complex was not the same thing in 1915 that it is today. Many soldiers in the US Army had one uniform. The same uniform they trained in was also used for dress occasions and daily wear.

**

 I agree that it wasn't the greatest thing since sliced bread. But since we started selling arms to England during the lend lease act why would we have to enter the war ourselves for money?

 And let's not forget the certain matter of the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor. People tend to get pissed off when they see a bunch of dead American sailors and have no problems declaring war after that.

**

You mean living under a relatively free capitalistic government vs. living under the horrible regimes that made up the USSR, China, and North Korea? Yes, I’d say it was ideological.

16

Most wars can boiled to down to one common factor - land. Pure and simple. The right to own it, the right to control it or just the right to live on it.

Even the Crusades. The Crusades didn’t even begin as a religious issue, or at least not a serious one. It started out as a border dispute between Byzantium and Syria. The Orthodox Byzantine emperor asked the Catholic Pope for assistance, from one Christian brother to another, but the Pope misunderstood the request, believing the heart of Christianity to be overrun with pagans and blasphemers.

Thus it was up to Good Christians everywhere to liberate it, and if the Holy Land happened to come into their possession as a result then so be it.

17

Mauve Dog,

My compliments on your post re World War One. It’s pretty much exactly what I meant to say in this thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=29146&pagenumber=1

But I didn’t do nearly as good a job as you did.

Congratulations on a cogent summary!

18

I have some nits to pick.

soulsling:
The Civil War was fought primarily over slavery. ( See other current thread in this fora. )

Surgoshan:

The colonists did not “carve a home out of the wilderness”. They encountered no wilderness. The land had been inhabited by civilized people. Most of these people were wiped out by disease. In the words of James Loewen, “the land was not virgin, but recently widowed”.
The War of 1812 was also expansionist. The economic angle was not concerning trade so much as the rights to the West and Canada.

MGibson:

I agree with Pepper here. The signers, as wealthy individuals, had much to gain from economic control in America ( under their watchful eye ) than control from London. My understanding is that fears of competition from American manufacturies caused many of the acts of Parliment that so distressed the signers. Colonies are supposed to export raw materiels for manufacturies in the homeland. If all American trade had to be shipped via England, it could only cost these men money.

19

And you must remember, as well, that GB was mercantilistic at the time. They were keeping imports to a bare minimum, and exporting only slightly more. That couldn’t have been helping the economic system too much in the colonies, although it was a great deal for England itself.

20

Oops, I forgot to add
2Sense, I really don’t think the Civil War was STARTED over slavery. Maybe after the Emancipation Proclamation, it became a war for the abolishment of slavery, but not before that point. And the EP was more of a military strategy, not anything to do with the abolitionist movement.