Do WARS exist only for ECONOMIC REASONS?

Answer 1

Generally yes...behind all wars you will find some common elements, frinstance
1; Arms dealers
2; Reconstruction companies
3; Security companies
4; Bigtime political profiteers (individuals, families and corporations)
5; Some measure of geopolitical gamesmanship.

Then again some wars start as a struggle against oppression or fundy idiots and corporate takeovers such as the Zapatistas, the Palestinians, and others.
Behind all wars you will find the worlds major banks who actually get to control all the profits from war.

Answer 2

No, of course not.
"War is only a continuation of state policy by other means" -Carl von Clausewitz.
Wars maybe, and have been, fought for glory (Alexander the Great), revenge (The Trojan War), religion (the spread of Islam, the Crusades), political independence, (the American Revolution) unification (Warring States period of China),
survival, or any number of reasons including two groups of people who just don't like each other for whatever reason.
However, all wars do have an economic component & an economic impact. Sun Tzu pointed this out in the classic "the Art of War". Weapons, armor, training, transport, military campaigns are expensive. They take part of the labor force out of production. In addition, part of the production must be diverted to support that force.

Answer 3

Ultimately, yes. That does NOT mean that's the only reason people will go to war, however. And no, that's not a contradiction--read on:

For example, the American Revolution. On the colonial side, the motives for rebelling against Great Britain were a mix of several factors--but ultimately their motives were not primarily economic.

Britain began to exert greater control ofver the colonies for economic reasons. The primary point was not collecting taxes from the colonists. Rather, they were trying to consolidate their hold on New World colonial trade (that's where the real money was). But, in the process, they ran afoul of the colonial economicinterests--triggering something of a "resistance" movement.

The British response was to use force, economic sanctions, and political/legal measures that violated what the colonists had come to view as their rights--and they had an extraordinarily powerful political/philosophical basis for their position, drawn from the Enlightenment intellectual revolution, then at its height (1776 was also the date of Adam Smth's "Wealth of Nations"--and of the patent for Watt's steam engine--both otgrowths of the Enlightenment).

The British--for primarily economic motives--chose to take a hard-line, military position. The colonists' position was NOT primarily economic in motive--they simply didn't have that much to gain (I know, that isn't the "accepted version these days--but I am a historian, and I don't buy it. The colonists risked their lives--and the potential economic gains simply didn't justify that). Primarialy the motivation was self-government--and freedom. True, that included the belief that such freedom would have strong economic benefits. But the core of the willingness to fight was ideological, not econmic.

There are other examples. The core of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was economic considerations--for the Japanese. For the US, the main reason was in response to the attack.

In any case--the ultimate origin of both--and as far as I know, all--wars is economic motives, ont the part of at least one party. If you look past the propaganda, those who start wars have economic motives--always--and so the ultimate cause of war is economics. But those wwho are attacked are responding to the military threat, for various reasons, and often economic motives play little or no role in their decision to fight.

Answer 4

I just got my degree in History from Berkeley class of'05, and Ill tell you, many historians do believe that the greatest forces for changing or creating history are economic.
I personally feel that there are many other factors that can be more powerful or influential, depending on the circumstances or personalities.
Hitler's motivations were economic as stated in his book Mien Khamph, but he was also an Ideologue. Russia's competition w/ the US in the Cold war was also basically ideological, as was China's Mao Tze Dong.

The Islamic expansion (Mohammed) in the 7th and 8th centuries was motivated by religion, and they conquered 2/3 of the world.

Spain's conquest of the New World was economic but the Catholic Fathers they brought with them would tell you otherwise.
The building of the Roman Empire was almost entirely done for defensive reasons...to push back their frontiers futher and further away from the city of Rome itself.

Your question? I'd have to say no...unless your professor is an "economic historian".
PS Marx was a sociologist, but he was also an economist...and argued that history was driven by economics!
If your Prof. is a leftist or Commie...not beyond possibility were I got my degree, he'd think so too!

Answer 5

Yes, these Days It's Money and Oil. Slavery Began in the New World not because of skin color but Money and The Stock Market was based on Sugar, Rum and moreover Slaves. They brought a higher price, easy to maintain and could reproduce more slaves. Women in the United States still are not much better off. They could Not Vote until the 1920's or own any property or Vote, similar to Slaves. Imagine that

In the Past it was religion in the Crusades, Land the British Empire, the French, Spain and Portugal under the umbrella of the Catholic Church, giving permission for the atrocities in the New World against Native Indians, Aztecs, Olmecs and African Slaves for land, gold, you name it and left them with diseases they never knew.

Answer 6

If you mean that economics is the only reason for all wars, I'd say no, unless you count land as economics. For example, the Muslims and Jews fighting over the land surrounding Jerusalem is arguably about land or religion, but I wouldn't say it's about economics.

Answer 7

Only between department stores.
I'm gonna say religion....and would ask you to present the last war that was solely for economic reasons.

Answer 8

Over the course of human history wars have been fought over a number of things that boil down to economics: trade routes; salt; olives; oil; gold; spices; etc...

Many wars are also fought for religious purposes: Muslims trying to wipe out Christains, Christians trying to convert Muslims.

Answer 9

That's what Karl Marx says, but sometimes some weird @$$ religions tells their followers to kill you, then you fight. It's called defending yourself--something that US public schools are teaching that you shouldn't do--don't comptete, don't defend yourself. Sometimes wars happen when some madman decides to take the freedoms of his own people away from them. War happens.

War must be for the sake of peace--Aristotle

Peace itself is war in masquerade.--John Dryden

To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.--George Washington

Answer 10

Yes and no. I think another reason for war is to DECREASE the population of the world, not just enemy but civilian.. ON PURPOSE.
Oil tycoons reap the benefits, as do international bankers.