6 ms·
> War is a highly profitable enterprise No, this is a relatively new phenomenon that arose after WWI, when warfare became highly industrialized and too costly
by smallnamespace 8y ago
> War is a highly profitable enterprise
No, this is a relatively new phenomenon that arose after WWI, when warfare became highly industrialized and too costly to fight personally for the rich.
During WWI, the aristocracy led from the front, as was their traditional calling, and they were mowed down in droves just like the most common soldier.
For the British, an entire generation of their sons were killed at Marne, Verdun, the Somme, Ypres, and other large battles, and the effect was stark:
At the outset of the 1870's, the British aristocracy could rightly consider themselves the most fortunate people on earth: they held the lion's share of land, wealth, and power in the world's greatest empire. By the end of the 1930's they had lost not only a generation of sons in the First World War, but also much of their prosperity, prestige and political significance. [1]
This largely held true for the Austro-Hungarian elite (they were decimated and the empire was torn apart), the Germans, and every other participant in the fight.
Note that historically, European aristocrats were military elites and were descended from the knightly class. The whole reason they were a cut above the population was because they would fight and take the danger first. The realization after WWI that war was simply a number's game doomed the legitimacy of their leadership in all countries.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/750411.The_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_British_Aristocracy https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/750411.The_Decline_and_F...
- mistrial9 8y agofeudal lords often but not always, strong soldiers. Intelligence and family bonds were also ways to become a feudal lord. The post above reminds us of an important truth (feudal lords fought and died themselves, in great numbers) but risks glorifying the feudal combat system, which resulted in alarming numbers of healthy males dying and maimed early in life.
- bobwaycott 8y agoYou seem to be asserting that those who profit from war are/were aristocracy. This is (and was) not the case. The industrialists and capitalists rose from outside the aristocracy. Your other comments on the cost of war to the aristocracy are on point, but that is orthogonal to recognizing those who find war profitable.
- sswaner 8y agoThe Pity of War by Niall Ferguson is an in-depth study of the economics of WW1. It covers where the billions went. The industrialists did very well, to the point that Eisenhower in his farewell address cautioned against them.
- alfredallan1 8y agoAlthough it should be pointed out that many modern royal families still have a tradition of sending their sons to serve in the military for a period of time. I don’t have any figures on whether they go to actual combat, and if so, if they lead, or just take orders.
- icebraining 8y agoI don't see how your post contradicts madaxe_again's. Are you saying those elites didn't profit from the pre-WWI wars? Yes, the early 20th century was a turning point, but it only changed who was profiting.
- smallnamespace 8y agoYes, the vast majority those elites did not profit, either in an economic (they mostly owned land, not corporations) nor more important (they / their sons were dead) sense; something like 1 in 4 young men were killed. Even at the turn of the century, the foundation of the wealth of the British aristocracy rested on ownership of land, agriculture, and control of the Empire. The Great War disrupted all three greatly. It was mainly the merchant and upper middle class that owned stocks, ran businesses, and profited from the war, with a tiny fraction of aristocrats benefiting. Most of the rest saw the value of their land go towards zero, their manors used for wartime purposes while their servants were conscripted away, their sons killed on the field of battle, and confiscatory tax rates imposed to help fund the war effort. This pattern was repeated again in WW2. There's a reason Downton Abbey is set on the eve of WW1 and goes into the interwar period — that's when the British aristocracy was systematically taken apart piece by piece. Common people largely supported monarchical, aristocratic governments before WW1. One reason was because their elites that actually put their money (and their lives) on the line for their nation... although sometimes with disastrous consequences. Note that historically, the world wars were when wealth inequality dropped the most quickly. The US raised marginal tax rates to 90% during WW2, and most wealth was real assets, which obviously suffered greatly all throughout Europe. In a total war, everyone can give up their lives, but the wealthy can also lose their wealth.
- icebraining 8y agoI don't think you read my post carefully; I wrote "pre-WW1". I understand they did not profit from WW1 itself. You wrote that wars being a profitable enterprise is a relatively new phenomenon that arose after WW1. What I'm saying is that pre-WW1 wars were already a profitable enterprise (for that aristocracy - exactly in terms of extra land, etc), and that WW1 only changed who profited from them.
- arethuza 8y agoA lot of very posh people in the UK still do a stint in the Army - usually in a Guards regiment. Even the Royals do their bit ...
- Brockenstein 8y agoBeing in the Army and being on the front lines getting mowed down are not mutually exclusive. And for example, U.S. casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 15 years is ~4,424. Being in the army in the U.S., UK, or nearly any advanced nation today isn't quite the meat grinder that WWI was.
- arethuza 8y agoTo be fair to the small number of posh people I've known who have been in the British Army they all had led troops on the ground - probably desperately trying to live up to the reputations of their ancestors at Waterloo/Culloden/Hastings...
- Brockenstein 8y agoWell there's a lot of caveats to this depending on how you're defining "posh people" to the previous ideas of aristocracy and nobility of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I mean one of the big ones is that WWI was atrocious for infantry because the tactics were 19th century, but the weapons were 20th century. IE generals were fighting the war like there weren't machines guns, chemical weapons and a laundry list of revolutionary developments that made outdated tactics just devastating. A lot of wars have been fought since then and our tactics have adjusted quite a bit. Which means we're generally not sending wave after wave of men into entrenched enemy fortifications and railing about their cowardice when those assaults fail or saluting their "heroism" when those units are wiped out to the man. We've got better protection and better medical care leading to higher survivability. We're not in a state of total war, and we're not anywhere near close to talking about lost generations from current conflicts. Probably most of the posh people you know came back whole. Well that didn't always happen and amount of risk certainly tempers many peoples decisions about whether to serve in the military if they have options. And frankly given a choice between serving in the darkest days of WW1 and a current conflict wouldn't be a tough choice for many soldiers.
- nerdponx 8y agoSure, but you don't think gun manufacturers didn't profit from war before WWI?
- emodendroket 8y agoI don't know about that. People got rich off the Civil War too. It's true that more wealthy people served as officers, though.
- sotojuan 8y agoPoliticians and businessmen have profited from war since the Industrial Revolution, but the point that GP is trying to make is that beforehand, the "ruling class" (i.e. aristocracy, not rich business/politics tycoons) was directly involved in warfare and suffered human and economic loss from it.
- emodendroket 8y agoI don't think you can really liken the experience of an officer to that of the enlisted men, though. Incidentally, in the Civil War and all previous Anglo-American wars, you could literally buy your way out of a draft.