All wars are bankers' wars

[bankerswars]

John,

I've been reading your blogs for years. At first, generational theory sounded true. But if you have heard some people say "All wars are bankers' wars", how accurate do you think it is?

Many factors may cause wars, for example, ambitions, disasters, the rise of a culture, and greed, etc. Generational theory may be one of them if it's true.

[John]

** 08-Aug-2021 World View: Bankers wars

> I've been reading your blogs for years. At first, generational
> theory sounded true. But if you have heard some people say "All
> wars are bankers' wars", how accurate do you think it is?

> Many factors may cause wars, for example, ambitions, disasters,
> the rise of a culture, and greed, etc. Generational theory may be
> one of them if it's true.

The core reason for war is that the population grows faster than the
supply of food and other resources, so the purpose of a war,
especially a generational crisis war, is to kill enough people so that
the survivors will have enough to eat.

This has been true through all places and times in history, even where
bankers didn't exist. However, if you'd like you can call things like
grain silos and wheat fields as "banks," and that would fit your
theory.

[bankerswars]

Hi John, could you please explain the relationship between Britain and France?
Why, after near a thousand years of war, suddenly don't the two countries fight wars any more?

[bankerswars]

Please also explain how Mutually Assured Destruction, or the guarantee of mutual annihilation would prevent wars. Thanks!

[John]

** 12-Aug-2021 World View: Mutual annihiliation

> Hi John, could you please explain the relationship between Britain
> and France? Why, after near a thousand years of war, suddenly
> don't the two countries fight wars any more?

England and France have a long history of animosity and crisis wars
(Camelot, Norman Conquest, Hundred Years War, Thirty Years War, War of
the Spanish Succession, Napoleonic Wars). But in World War II, France
and England were united against Nazi Germany, so they didn't fight
each other.

> Please also explain how Mutually Assured Destruction, or the
> guarantee of mutual annihilation would prevent wars.
> Thanks!

It doesn't prevent wars at all. Quite the contrary. It means that
one party will want to annihilate the other side quickly, before
it has a chance to retaliate.

[Bob Butler]

Hi John, could you please explain the relationship between Britain and France? Why, after near a thousand years of war, suddenly don't the two countries fight wars any more?

England and France have a long history of animosity and crisis wars (Camelot, Norman Conquest, Hundred Years War, Thirty Years War, War of the Spanish Succession, Napoleonic Wars). But in World War II, France and England were united against Nazi Germany, so they didn't fight each other.

For much of the Industrial Age, war was cost effective, at least for the winner. With nukes, insurgent wars and proxy war, this is much less true. All out conflict will bust the elites, who have much to say about who the leaders are, and stand to lose everything should the leaders try something stupid. Yes, when Britain and France were at each other, conflict could be cost effective. Since then both countries (and Germany) have swapped their culture towards containment. The point is to make sure war is a lose for major powers.

Please also explain how Mutually Assured Destruction, or the guarantee of mutual annihilation would prevent wars.
Thanks!

It doesn't prevent wars at all. Quite the contrary. It means that one party will want to annihilate the other side quickly, before it has a chance to retaliate.

That's the Generational Dynamics theory. Of course, it is inconsistent with the major power ceasing war immediately after nukes were used. It is a theory, but a theory with no evidence with how history has proceeded in the Information Age.