FRLT-bird:
"Oh I disagree with that.
Most wars are ultimately about money.
Money is simply what people fight over be it individuals or nations." "Ultimately"?
You mean, if there's a list of the top ten reasons for some particular war, "money" will be at the bottom, #10, the "ultimate"?
I could agree with that.
But only Marxists dialectics put "money" and "class warfare" as reasons #1 or #2 in, for example, WWII.
Hitler went to war in 1939 over "lebensraum" for his "master race" and to revenge German losses in the First World War.
Hitler was almost as socialist as Stalin, but he never said: let's conquer Europe for more money.
Sure, Japanese did conquer in the name of their "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", with primary focus on raw materials like oil & rubber, but that was only tangentially "money" and primarily or "ultimately" about Japanese dominance and use of force to make economics go their way, regardless of who had, or didn't have money.
"The Japanese government directed that local economies be managed strictly for the production of raw war materials for the Japanese; a cabinet member declared, 'There are no restrictions.
They are enemy possessions.
We can take them, do anything we want.'[20] "
Indeed, their "ultimate" reason was to glorify the Japanese emperor.
The same is true of any war -- for example, the US entered the First World War on the Allies' side somewhat over money, but primarily because we like the Brits & French better than arrogant, rude Prussians, and we didn't want to see our friends lose.
"Lafayette, we are here" -- US troops, July 4, 1917, at Lafayette's tomb while parading in Paris.
No amount of money would pay those troops to shout similar praises of, for example, the German Kaiser.
So, contrary to what your Marxist professors taught you, it's not "all about money", never was, never will be.
FRLT-bird: "I could cite a litany of history’s wars that boiled down in the end, to money - that includes WWII.
East Asia Co Prosperity Sphere anyone?
Lebensraum?"
Again, only if by "money" you mean metaphorically "anything of value", otherwise not so much.
Clearly "lebensraum" was not even firstly or secondly to do with money, but rather with things like "living room", national territory, racial superiority, revenge for 1918 and the Versailles Treaty, Blitz Krieg and German technical prowess.
Like the Japanese Co-prosperity Sphere, Germans were not interested in the voluntary exchanges implied by money, but rather in forced expropriations of conquered nations' resources.
That's not "money", that's brute military power.
FRLT-bird: "Patrick Henry was an anti federalist.
I would say pretty much every single one of his dire predictions about how the federal government would usurp ever more power for itself and eventually become a leviathan were true."
Right, "anti-Federalist" means he opposed ratifying the Constitution and went on to oppose the Federalist administrations of Washington & Adams.
Remember, anti-Federalists were just 1/3 of the First Congress in 1789, but 2/3 of anti-Federalists were Southern, as were nearly 2/3 of Jefferson's majority Democrats in the 1801 7th Congress.
Today Democrats still oppose the Constitution, albeit for quite different reasons, while the descendants of Federalists, Republicans, defend it however weakly.
FRLT-bird: "It is a quote from Patrick Henry and it is accurate."
I doubt that. At best it sounds taken out of context.
At worst it may simply be yet another fake projection of more recent sentiments back to our founding generation.
FRLT-bird: "The Colonists’ secession from the British Empire started over taxation."
Nooooooo… over representation.
"No taxation without representation."
Colonists understood taxes were necessary, but wanted to tax themselves.
And more urgent & personal even than mere representation in Parliament was the Brits' 1774 abrogation of Massachusetts' 1691 Charter of self government.
That was effectively an act of war and Americans responded accordingly.
The Brits 1775 Proclamation of Rebellion sealed Americans' fate leading a year later to our Declaration of Independence.
None of that had anything directly to do with money.
FRLT-bird: "The English Civil War started over taxation.
Tax revolts have a very long history in Anglo-Saxon culture."
Maybe, but it was never only about money, and seldom primarily about money.
Of course, in ancient times, when your army sacked a city, you took the city's treasures and its women & children as slaves.
So even then "money" was only part of the equation, national glory, power, land & raw sex played important roles.
Some Roman conquerors were known to payoff their troops not only with loot & land but also with slaves.
It was never only about money.
Even they fought for Roman glory, for land, for loot & slaves:
BroJoeK:
"Ultimately"? You mean, if there's a list of the top ten reasons for some particular war, "money" will be at the bottom, #10, the "ultimate"? I could agree with that. No. As in money is the driving force behind the VAST majority of all wars.
BroJoeK: But only Marxists dialectics put "money" and "class warfare" as reasons #1 or #2 in, for example, WWII. Hitler went to war in 1939 over "lebensraum" for his "master race" and to revenge German losses in the First World War. Hitler was almost as socialist as Stalin, but he never said: let's conquer Europe for more money. Sure, Japanese did conquer in the name of their "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", with primary focus on raw materials like oil & rubber, but that was only tangentially "money" and primarily or "ultimately" about Japanese dominance and use of force to make economics go their way, regardless of who had, or didn't have money. "The Japanese government directed that local economies be managed strictly for the production of raw war materials for the Japanese; a cabinet member declared, 'There are no restrictions. They are enemy possessions. We can take them, do anything we want.'[20] " Indeed, their "ultimate" reason was to glorify the Japanese emperor. The same is true of any war -- for example, the US entered the First World War on the Allies' side somewhat over money, but primarily because we like the Brits & French better than arrogant, rude Prussians, and we didn't want to see our friends lose.
I didn't say "class warfare". I said money. Look back through history. The demands for tribute...access to this or that river...or a seaport....or good farmland...or some other natural resource....or trading rights.....or taxes....its all MONEY. Hitler was a socialist. WWII....it is utterly no coincidence that the 3 major powers which were latecomers in unifying or coming out of isolation (1860 for Italy, 1868 for Japan, 1870 for Germany) were dissatisfied powers. They looked around the world and saw that the Chinese, Russians, Americans, French and British had grabbed all the good stuff already. Oh gee...lookie here! Those just happened to be the Allied powers. Yeah, no surprise they were satisfied with the way things were and equally no surprise that Germany, Italy and Japan weren't satisfied. That war - like most others - was about money. Call it resources, call it national power, it boils down to money.
BroJoeK: "Lafayette, we are here" -- US troops, July 4, 1917, at Lafayette's tomb while parading in Paris. No amount of money would pay those troops to shout similar praises of, for example, the German Kaiser. So, contrary to what your Marxist professors taught you, it's not "all about money", never was, never will be.
Always was about money, and always will be in the vast majority of cases. Your little anecdotes are cute and all but let's look at one you cited.....US Entry into WWI. Do you have any idea how heavily invested in French and especially British stocks Americans were? Do you have any idea how much credit US companies extended to France and especially Britain? They stood to lose huge amounts of money if the Entente Powers did not win. Freedom of navigation? Oh please. The Royal Navy was interfering with freedom of navigation more thoroughly than the Germans were. But the US had nowhere near the trade and investment with Germany, let alone Austria-Hungary it had with Britain and France. You would do well to lose the naivette. Most wars are not fought over any noble principles. They're almost invariably fought about wealth/resources/money.
BroJoeK: Again, only if by "money" you mean metaphorically "anything of value", otherwise not so much. Clearly "lebensraum" was not even firstly or secondly to do with money, but rather with things like "living room", national territory, racial superiority, revenge for 1918 and the Versailles Treaty, Blitz Krieg and German technical prowess. Like the Japanese Co-prosperity Sphere, Germans were not interested in the voluntary exchanges implied by money, but rather in forced expropriations of conquered nations' resources. That's not "money", that's brute military power.
Lebensraum was all about grabbing natural resources....farmland and oil especially...so that the German Empire could be wealthy and secure. What the Nazis wanted was Autarchy. They wanted to have all the resources they would need directly under their control so that they would not be subject to outside pressure. This was what those massive empires like Britain, America, Russia, France and China (OK maybe a little less so for China) already had. It was directly about resources and money. Japan wanted all kinds of resources within their empire...rubber, tin, iron ore, oil, lumber, food, yada yada yada.
BroJoeK: Right, "anti-Federalist" means he opposed ratifying the Constitution and went on to oppose the Federalist administrations of Washington & Adams. Remember, anti-Federalists were just 1/3 of the First Congress in 1789, but 2/3 of anti-Federalists were Southern, as were nearly 2/3 of Jefferson's majority Democrats in the 1801 7th Congress. Today Democrats still oppose the Constitution, albeit for quite different reasons, while the descendants of Federalists, Republicans, defend it however weakly.
There was no Democratic Party at that time. There was no Republican Party at that time. Your attempts to link everything then directly to current political parties is ridiculous.
BroJoeK: I doubt that. At best it sounds taken out of context. At worst it may simply be yet another fake projection of more recent sentiments back to our founding generation.
You doubt any quote or source that is inconvenient for what you want to believe whether you have any basis for that doubt or not.
BroJoeK: Nooooooo… over representation. "No taxation without representation." Colonists understood taxes were necessary, but wanted to tax themselves. And more urgent & personal even than mere representation in Parliament was the Brits' 1774 abrogation of Massachusetts' 1691 Charter of self government. That was effectively an act of war and Americans responded accordingly. None of that had anything directly to do with money.
Oh for goodness sake! Pick up a history book sometime - not one written by PC Revisionists. It was over taxation. The colonists were just fine with not having representation until taxes were demanded of them.
BroJoeK: Maybe, but it was never only about money, and seldom primarily about money.
Yes it was. Google "ship money" some time. Say...why did Charles recall Parliament? Rather than simply trying to say the opposite of anything I say, you would do well to actually read.
BroJoeK: Of course, in ancient times, when your army sacked a city, you took the city's treasures and its women & children as slaves. So even then "money" was only part of the equation, national glory, power, land & raw sex played important roles. Some Roman conquerors were known to payoff their troops not only with loot & land but also with slaves. It was never only about money. Even they fought for Roman glory, for land, for loot & slaves:
Gimme a friggin' break. That's ALL money in the end.