The Profit Motive as Cause of the Great War: What's the Evidence? - Richard Hamilton
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ก.ค. 2024
- Dr. Richard Hamilton, historian and author of such books as The Origins of World War I, reviews the decision-making in Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Great Britain on the eve of the Great War and discusses how this evidence contradicts Marxist arguments about the causes of the war.
Presented at the World War I Historical Association Symposium, "The Coming of the Great War," November 8-9, 2013.
Recorded November 8, 2013 in J.C. Nichols Auditorium at the National World War I Museum at Liberty Memorial.
For more information about the National WWI Museum and Memorial visit theworldwar.org
International Finanice was in it's infancy in the early 1900s and weilded very little influence, especially in the Central Powers. The real economic clout lay with powerful heavy industrial firms like Krupp - firms that stood to gain a tremendous amount of money and political power from supplying the armies in a general war. I really don't think you can just exculpate private profit motivation entirely because of what a few relatively powerless bankers decided.
bad reading of lenin, capitalist competition and cartels lead to imperial foreign policy with inevitability of war, not that every individual banker or capitalist was for war
Russia borrowed a ton of money from French banks to fund Stolypin's reforms and industrialization. Those loans almost guaranteed that the French Republic would support the Czar ... if only so that his government could keep making payments.
How'd that work out for the French.... Considering the Bolsheviks over threw the Czar.
Ford was a progressive. Most people don't really understand that. Just because he was a profound racist didn't mean he never endorsed any liberal policies. In those days it was similar to abolition, in that those that wanted to end slavery often held very strongly contradictory opinions on some liberal topics, but not all Some policies considered liberal could be driven by very conservative motives.
As for the world of finance and the war, Ford gets shafted because of his hatred of Jews, which was racist, but the fact remains that the six major banks of Europe were run by people of Jewish heritage. But more importantly, one should remember that the fear of loss is a more powerful motivator than the desire for gain, and it was the fear of loss that drove the investors to support the war on both sides, The fact that they also profited was not an inconsiderable plus, but more importantly they knew their institutions could not afford to be solely on a losing side, which is why international banks always like to hedge their bets.
And to have Morgan's fear of disastrous losses believed to a motivator neglects the entire concept of taking short positions for massive profits,
There's no evidence of what ur saying...war causes massive interuptions to trade that would outweigh any profit motive for the establishment of that day...not to mention when governments go to war they tax business to do so! There's a lot of holes in ur little theory you probably picked up from an illuminati video on TH-cam and not from documented facts...if I'm wrong site some sources pls!
Woodrow Wilson was supposed to keep our boys out of war. So, what changed his mind?
What sources are you relying on for your claims about finance during WWI?
I think your post is largely very very true. It is a hard and unhappy assessment, but is accurate is assessing motives, means and ends. Thanks for your post. Little has changed. I take exception to the need to add, even as an asterisk, the Jewish references. The system works exactly the same, even if everyone is an agnostic. The system is the active problem.
Progressivism is deeply illiberal. It's about seizing power, not about leaving alone or being left alone.
kino
The British fought like 50 wars in the 19th century to grow their empire. This was was no different
Yeah except that it nearly killed and starved everyone on the island. Dufus
at its root the 1st World War was a contest between 4 old empires
and the new kid on the block...so what are empires for?
at their roots empires are for profit....
ergo WW1 was about profit,
the divvying up of the massive riches to be made from
empires...it is propaganda to say otherwise
You're talking about 4 completely different kinds of "empires", I doubt you can reduce all of them to the same unicausal "root"
@@jonathanccast thats interesting, but so what? And you don't necessarily contradict the main point Kid Mohair makes. Add the US Empire in defense of global capital in the 20c to this list too. Denying empire and war are not about profits, control of resources and expanding markets is yes, propaganda. How was the US war in Afganistan anyway not a just another example of this basic principle as such a colosal bonanza for the corporate state and its investors?
how about some evidence for your assertions
This relies on the presupposition that large historical events each have a “root,” which is problematic to say the least.
Yes if you ignore everything other than what you care about and are talking about then what you are talking about becomes the main thing, but why should anyone do that with you? Why is the simple reality of your ideas more important or relevant than the more complex observable reality of the world?
Of course it was British greed that led to the war.