WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
Your posts prove only that there are differing opinions on the causes of war, albeit, all of those you presented do have some degree of economics in them. I never said or thought that there would not be differing views.
Since our friend Iss has abstained from this debate I find myself presenting what might be his input into this discussion. I never thought it would happen but, here goes:
Quote
Wars were a tool of the political rulers and were fought with comparatively small armies of professional soldiers, mostly made up of mercenaries. The objective of warfare was to determine which dynasty should rule a country or a province. The greatest European wars of the 18th century were wars of royal succession, for example, the wars of the Spanish, Polish, Austrian, and finally the Bavarian successions. Ordinary people were more or less indifferent about the outcomes of these conflicts. ... It is different with the princes or ruling aristocracies. They can increase their power and their tax revenues by expanding the size of their realms. They can profit from conquest. They are bellicose, while the citizenry is peace loving.
... President Woodrow Wilson was fully convinced that what was needed to make the world safe for peace was to make it safe for democracy. During the First World War it was believed that if only the German royal house of the Hohenzollern and the privileged German landed aristocracy, the Junkers, could be removed from power, a durable peace could be achieved. What President Wilson did not see was that within a world of growing government omnipotence this would not be enough. In such a world of growing government power, there exist economic causes of war.
Ludwig von Mises This is the major part of a lecture delivered in Orange County, California, in October 1944.
Now on the diametrically opposed angle of the political spectrum we have:
Quote
The basic cause of modern war is the international rivalries inseparable from capitalism and the capitalist class's domination of the world's resources. World War Two was no exception.
The particular background to this, the most destructive war ever, was the formation of the German-Italian-Japanese alliance in the 1930s and their concerted effort to expand at the expense of weaker neighbours and the older colonial powers, notably Britain, France and Holland. Italy and Germany had long before 1914 entered into the colonial scramble but they developed late and found all the best territories, strategic positions and trade routes already dominated by the 'older and fatter' bandits. The line-up before 1914 was, on the one side, the 'Triple Alliance' of Germany, Italy and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and arrayed against their expansionist ambitions the 'Triple Entente' of Britain, France and Russia.
So, as you can see, there are many who argue that the economic cause IS a main cause of war. What is more, they hail from opposite poles of political ideology.
Again, I don't think there is proof positive of this or any other claim - at least I have not read one. But, I do think that the economic cause is the main cause.
"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them." Lenny Bruce
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month." Dostoevsky