What was the last profitable war? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar...
Why are current probes so expensive?
What is "Lambda" in Heston's original paper on stochastic volatility models?
How could a hydrazine and N2O4 cloud (or it's reactants) show up in weather radar?
Did John Wesley plagiarize Matthew Henry...?
New Order #6: Easter Egg
First paper to introduce the "principal-agent problem"
Did any compiler fully use 80-bit floating point?
Keep at all times, the minus sign above aligned with minus sign below
Is this Kuo-toa homebrew race balanced?
One-one communication
.bashrc alias for a command with fixed second parameter
In musical terms, what properties are varied by the human voice to produce different words / syllables?
How to resize main filesystem
Diophantine equation 3^a+1=3^b+5^c
What was the last profitable war?
Why is there so little support for joining EFTA in the British parliament?
Can two people see the same photon?
How to name indistinguishable henchmen in a screenplay?
Does a random sequence of vectors span a Hilbert space?
How can I prevent/balance waiting and turtling as a response to cooldown mechanics
Should man-made satellites feature an intelligent inverted "cow catcher"?
How does TikZ render an arc?
Pointing to problems without suggesting solutions
Why complex landing gears are used instead of simple, reliable and light weight muscle wire or shape memory alloys?
What was the last profitable war?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)What was the first battle in history fought by vast-majority-% “distance-shooting” non-mechanized force?Did the Carthaginians have the option of sending Hannibal to Sicily?Has anyone ever named a war after their own country or faction?What was the cleanest war ever fought?Which was the last war in which swords were used?Has a major war ever occured and a map before the war looked exactly the same after?What are some examples of US states warring with one another?Artillery guns near Triglav?What were the incentives for war during the Warring States Period?What's the origin of differentiating between civilians' and soldiers' “rights” in war?
I was having a conversation with family and friends this weekend and this question came up: "what was the last profitable war?" Of course in history there were wars that turned a profit, ones I can think of are the Dacian war and some of the Mithradatic wars. But once we get to a more recent history it is hard to think of many wars that have been profitable.
The best we could come up with as a possibility were some of the English wars in India. The last war we could say was definitely profitable would have been the 4th crusade, and that was only definitely profitable for the Venetian's.
I have been using google and wikipedia primarily for my research as I am on vacation, and have looked up pretty much all of the wars I can think of but I am sure there are some we have missed.
Also as a caveat, no minor wars, which would eliminate the wars the Dutch fought against minor island kingdoms in their "spice wars" and no wars where a belligerent doesn't fight but receives some recompense for being in the alliance. Also as far as profit, it has to be a financial profit, money, land, etc... No political profit, or other intangible things. So in other words, only short term profit. The profit refers to the regime, government, king in charge, not profitable to some people in society. The profit from the war is meant mainly in spoils, land, etc.
military war
|
show 4 more comments
I was having a conversation with family and friends this weekend and this question came up: "what was the last profitable war?" Of course in history there were wars that turned a profit, ones I can think of are the Dacian war and some of the Mithradatic wars. But once we get to a more recent history it is hard to think of many wars that have been profitable.
The best we could come up with as a possibility were some of the English wars in India. The last war we could say was definitely profitable would have been the 4th crusade, and that was only definitely profitable for the Venetian's.
I have been using google and wikipedia primarily for my research as I am on vacation, and have looked up pretty much all of the wars I can think of but I am sure there are some we have missed.
Also as a caveat, no minor wars, which would eliminate the wars the Dutch fought against minor island kingdoms in their "spice wars" and no wars where a belligerent doesn't fight but receives some recompense for being in the alliance. Also as far as profit, it has to be a financial profit, money, land, etc... No political profit, or other intangible things. So in other words, only short term profit. The profit refers to the regime, government, king in charge, not profitable to some people in society. The profit from the war is meant mainly in spoils, land, etc.
military war
5
It would always come down to "for whom"? As a large-scale arms dealer every war is profitable, for me.
– LangLangC
8 hours ago
1
There's also the question of long-term vs. short-term profit. I've seem plausible arguments that none of the great European empires actually were financially profitable when you count all the costs. It's certainly true that big, tightly-controlled 19th and early 20th century empires correlate very poorly with subsequent prosperity. The one way that conquest seems profitable is when it suppresses existing endemic warfare enough to allow economies to grow in peace. Arguably this is why the Roman Empire worked...and why it failed when it stopped creating peace.
– Mark Olson
8 hours ago
1
@MarkOlson: You would have a hard time arguing that the Pax Britannica didn't have the same effect for a century, from 1815 to 1914. Or that the creation of the United States from 1792 to 1945 didn't have the same effect.
– Pieter Geerkens
8 hours ago
4
Measuring the profit of a war is kind of like ... I don't know, measuring the calorie content of a communion wafer - or the return on investment of marriage. The measurement may be valid, but if the results of the measurement have anything to do with the activity, then there is something very wrong with your value matrix.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
8 hours ago
Seems to me that the definition of "minor war" is tightly coupled with "profitable war". The only time you'd fight a war for profit is when you're confident you can predict the outcome. Risky war (between near equals) should be avoided as an existential threat.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
8 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
I was having a conversation with family and friends this weekend and this question came up: "what was the last profitable war?" Of course in history there were wars that turned a profit, ones I can think of are the Dacian war and some of the Mithradatic wars. But once we get to a more recent history it is hard to think of many wars that have been profitable.
The best we could come up with as a possibility were some of the English wars in India. The last war we could say was definitely profitable would have been the 4th crusade, and that was only definitely profitable for the Venetian's.
I have been using google and wikipedia primarily for my research as I am on vacation, and have looked up pretty much all of the wars I can think of but I am sure there are some we have missed.
Also as a caveat, no minor wars, which would eliminate the wars the Dutch fought against minor island kingdoms in their "spice wars" and no wars where a belligerent doesn't fight but receives some recompense for being in the alliance. Also as far as profit, it has to be a financial profit, money, land, etc... No political profit, or other intangible things. So in other words, only short term profit. The profit refers to the regime, government, king in charge, not profitable to some people in society. The profit from the war is meant mainly in spoils, land, etc.
military war
I was having a conversation with family and friends this weekend and this question came up: "what was the last profitable war?" Of course in history there were wars that turned a profit, ones I can think of are the Dacian war and some of the Mithradatic wars. But once we get to a more recent history it is hard to think of many wars that have been profitable.
The best we could come up with as a possibility were some of the English wars in India. The last war we could say was definitely profitable would have been the 4th crusade, and that was only definitely profitable for the Venetian's.
I have been using google and wikipedia primarily for my research as I am on vacation, and have looked up pretty much all of the wars I can think of but I am sure there are some we have missed.
Also as a caveat, no minor wars, which would eliminate the wars the Dutch fought against minor island kingdoms in their "spice wars" and no wars where a belligerent doesn't fight but receives some recompense for being in the alliance. Also as far as profit, it has to be a financial profit, money, land, etc... No political profit, or other intangible things. So in other words, only short term profit. The profit refers to the regime, government, king in charge, not profitable to some people in society. The profit from the war is meant mainly in spoils, land, etc.
military war
military war
edited 7 hours ago
ed.hank
asked 8 hours ago
ed.hanked.hank
2,70911124
2,70911124
5
It would always come down to "for whom"? As a large-scale arms dealer every war is profitable, for me.
– LangLangC
8 hours ago
1
There's also the question of long-term vs. short-term profit. I've seem plausible arguments that none of the great European empires actually were financially profitable when you count all the costs. It's certainly true that big, tightly-controlled 19th and early 20th century empires correlate very poorly with subsequent prosperity. The one way that conquest seems profitable is when it suppresses existing endemic warfare enough to allow economies to grow in peace. Arguably this is why the Roman Empire worked...and why it failed when it stopped creating peace.
– Mark Olson
8 hours ago
1
@MarkOlson: You would have a hard time arguing that the Pax Britannica didn't have the same effect for a century, from 1815 to 1914. Or that the creation of the United States from 1792 to 1945 didn't have the same effect.
– Pieter Geerkens
8 hours ago
4
Measuring the profit of a war is kind of like ... I don't know, measuring the calorie content of a communion wafer - or the return on investment of marriage. The measurement may be valid, but if the results of the measurement have anything to do with the activity, then there is something very wrong with your value matrix.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
8 hours ago
Seems to me that the definition of "minor war" is tightly coupled with "profitable war". The only time you'd fight a war for profit is when you're confident you can predict the outcome. Risky war (between near equals) should be avoided as an existential threat.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
8 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
5
It would always come down to "for whom"? As a large-scale arms dealer every war is profitable, for me.
– LangLangC
8 hours ago
1
There's also the question of long-term vs. short-term profit. I've seem plausible arguments that none of the great European empires actually were financially profitable when you count all the costs. It's certainly true that big, tightly-controlled 19th and early 20th century empires correlate very poorly with subsequent prosperity. The one way that conquest seems profitable is when it suppresses existing endemic warfare enough to allow economies to grow in peace. Arguably this is why the Roman Empire worked...and why it failed when it stopped creating peace.
– Mark Olson
8 hours ago
1
@MarkOlson: You would have a hard time arguing that the Pax Britannica didn't have the same effect for a century, from 1815 to 1914. Or that the creation of the United States from 1792 to 1945 didn't have the same effect.
– Pieter Geerkens
8 hours ago
4
Measuring the profit of a war is kind of like ... I don't know, measuring the calorie content of a communion wafer - or the return on investment of marriage. The measurement may be valid, but if the results of the measurement have anything to do with the activity, then there is something very wrong with your value matrix.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
8 hours ago
Seems to me that the definition of "minor war" is tightly coupled with "profitable war". The only time you'd fight a war for profit is when you're confident you can predict the outcome. Risky war (between near equals) should be avoided as an existential threat.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
8 hours ago
5
5
It would always come down to "for whom"? As a large-scale arms dealer every war is profitable, for me.
– LangLangC
8 hours ago
It would always come down to "for whom"? As a large-scale arms dealer every war is profitable, for me.
– LangLangC
8 hours ago
1
1
There's also the question of long-term vs. short-term profit. I've seem plausible arguments that none of the great European empires actually were financially profitable when you count all the costs. It's certainly true that big, tightly-controlled 19th and early 20th century empires correlate very poorly with subsequent prosperity. The one way that conquest seems profitable is when it suppresses existing endemic warfare enough to allow economies to grow in peace. Arguably this is why the Roman Empire worked...and why it failed when it stopped creating peace.
– Mark Olson
8 hours ago
There's also the question of long-term vs. short-term profit. I've seem plausible arguments that none of the great European empires actually were financially profitable when you count all the costs. It's certainly true that big, tightly-controlled 19th and early 20th century empires correlate very poorly with subsequent prosperity. The one way that conquest seems profitable is when it suppresses existing endemic warfare enough to allow economies to grow in peace. Arguably this is why the Roman Empire worked...and why it failed when it stopped creating peace.
– Mark Olson
8 hours ago
1
1
@MarkOlson: You would have a hard time arguing that the Pax Britannica didn't have the same effect for a century, from 1815 to 1914. Or that the creation of the United States from 1792 to 1945 didn't have the same effect.
– Pieter Geerkens
8 hours ago
@MarkOlson: You would have a hard time arguing that the Pax Britannica didn't have the same effect for a century, from 1815 to 1914. Or that the creation of the United States from 1792 to 1945 didn't have the same effect.
– Pieter Geerkens
8 hours ago
4
4
Measuring the profit of a war is kind of like ... I don't know, measuring the calorie content of a communion wafer - or the return on investment of marriage. The measurement may be valid, but if the results of the measurement have anything to do with the activity, then there is something very wrong with your value matrix.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
8 hours ago
Measuring the profit of a war is kind of like ... I don't know, measuring the calorie content of a communion wafer - or the return on investment of marriage. The measurement may be valid, but if the results of the measurement have anything to do with the activity, then there is something very wrong with your value matrix.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
8 hours ago
Seems to me that the definition of "minor war" is tightly coupled with "profitable war". The only time you'd fight a war for profit is when you're confident you can predict the outcome. Risky war (between near equals) should be avoided as an existential threat.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
8 hours ago
Seems to me that the definition of "minor war" is tightly coupled with "profitable war". The only time you'd fight a war for profit is when you're confident you can predict the outcome. Risky war (between near equals) should be avoided as an existential threat.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
8 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
After World War 2.0 the assumed international consensus is often read is "no more wars —— of this kind". No aggressive wars, no territorial changes achieved by war, etc.
So, given the current conditions and prerequisites of the question: at the international "country profits", in terms of "land, spoils" etc, the examples for this should be non-existant.
But there seems to be a quite prominent exception to this:
From the 6-Day-War of 1967.
was the land the got more valuable than the entire cost of the war?
– ed.hank
5 hours ago
Financially Israel didn't pay for the 1967 war, Israel's foreign allies did with US aid to Israel jumping from 23.7 million in 1967 to 100 million in 1968, and 170 million in 1969. Jewish Virtual Library
– JMS
4 hours ago
@ed.hank Certainly not if you'd ask me, but I thought perhaps according to the criteria you set forth? (Plus I'd be hard pressed to calculate like that)
– LangLangC
4 hours ago
add a comment |
From 1618 to 1871 the Electorate and Duchy of Brandenburg-Prussia did very well for itself, thank you very much, in a long series of wars, expanding significantly on each cycle:
Thirty Years War (1618-1648)
War of Austrian Succession (1740-1748)
Seven Years War (1756-1763)
Partitions of Poland (1772, 1793, 1795)
French Revolutionary Wars (1790-1815)
Austro-Prussian War (1866)
Franco-Prussian War (1870)
Likewise the United Kingdom did well in all of the same wars that it chose to participate in over the same period, plus the War of Spanish Succession in which it acquired Gibraltar.
The United States did well for itself in a century long series of Indian Wars plus the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War, stretching from its independence into the pre-WW1 twentieth century.
France under Napoleon profited in both territory and allies from all of (mostly at the expense of Austria):
War of the Third Coalition (1803-1806)
War of the Fourth Coalition (1806-7)
War of the Fifth Coalition (1809)
The Last Profitable War - by any stretch - must be at least World War Two for the U.S.
United States industry reaped immense profits from 1945 to about 1970 literally rebuilding Europe. That great boom that spawned the Baby Boomers - that was all the result of the U.S. (and Canada to an extent) rebuilding Europe.
I edited the question some. I think I am more interested in short term profits, ie spoils of war. Not so much long term effects. I will check out the Prussian wars as I am not well read on them.
– ed.hank
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Question:
When was the last profitable war?
I would say all wars are profitable for somebody. The second gulf war has been estimated by both the chief economist of the world bank (a nobel prize winning economist) and a Harvard Economy Professor to cost 3 trillion dollars by when it's all said and done back in 2008. A lot of people walked away from that war with a lot of cheddar.
Financial cost of the Iraq War
Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, and Linda Bilmes of Harvard University, have stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, described in their book The Three Trillion Dollar War and possibly more in a study published in March 2008
But if you are looking for a war which actually turned a profit. Then the first Gulf War came pretty close.
Gulf War Fast Facts
The US Department of Defense has estimated the incremental costs of the Gulf War at $61 billion, with US allies providing about $54 billion of that -- Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states covered $36 billion. Germany and Japan covered $16 billion.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "324"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f52238%2fwhat-was-the-last-profitable-war%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
After World War 2.0 the assumed international consensus is often read is "no more wars —— of this kind". No aggressive wars, no territorial changes achieved by war, etc.
So, given the current conditions and prerequisites of the question: at the international "country profits", in terms of "land, spoils" etc, the examples for this should be non-existant.
But there seems to be a quite prominent exception to this:
From the 6-Day-War of 1967.
was the land the got more valuable than the entire cost of the war?
– ed.hank
5 hours ago
Financially Israel didn't pay for the 1967 war, Israel's foreign allies did with US aid to Israel jumping from 23.7 million in 1967 to 100 million in 1968, and 170 million in 1969. Jewish Virtual Library
– JMS
4 hours ago
@ed.hank Certainly not if you'd ask me, but I thought perhaps according to the criteria you set forth? (Plus I'd be hard pressed to calculate like that)
– LangLangC
4 hours ago
add a comment |
After World War 2.0 the assumed international consensus is often read is "no more wars —— of this kind". No aggressive wars, no territorial changes achieved by war, etc.
So, given the current conditions and prerequisites of the question: at the international "country profits", in terms of "land, spoils" etc, the examples for this should be non-existant.
But there seems to be a quite prominent exception to this:
From the 6-Day-War of 1967.
was the land the got more valuable than the entire cost of the war?
– ed.hank
5 hours ago
Financially Israel didn't pay for the 1967 war, Israel's foreign allies did with US aid to Israel jumping from 23.7 million in 1967 to 100 million in 1968, and 170 million in 1969. Jewish Virtual Library
– JMS
4 hours ago
@ed.hank Certainly not if you'd ask me, but I thought perhaps according to the criteria you set forth? (Plus I'd be hard pressed to calculate like that)
– LangLangC
4 hours ago
add a comment |
After World War 2.0 the assumed international consensus is often read is "no more wars —— of this kind". No aggressive wars, no territorial changes achieved by war, etc.
So, given the current conditions and prerequisites of the question: at the international "country profits", in terms of "land, spoils" etc, the examples for this should be non-existant.
But there seems to be a quite prominent exception to this:
From the 6-Day-War of 1967.
After World War 2.0 the assumed international consensus is often read is "no more wars —— of this kind". No aggressive wars, no territorial changes achieved by war, etc.
So, given the current conditions and prerequisites of the question: at the international "country profits", in terms of "land, spoils" etc, the examples for this should be non-existant.
But there seems to be a quite prominent exception to this:
From the 6-Day-War of 1967.
answered 7 hours ago
LangLangCLangLangC
27.1k587138
27.1k587138
was the land the got more valuable than the entire cost of the war?
– ed.hank
5 hours ago
Financially Israel didn't pay for the 1967 war, Israel's foreign allies did with US aid to Israel jumping from 23.7 million in 1967 to 100 million in 1968, and 170 million in 1969. Jewish Virtual Library
– JMS
4 hours ago
@ed.hank Certainly not if you'd ask me, but I thought perhaps according to the criteria you set forth? (Plus I'd be hard pressed to calculate like that)
– LangLangC
4 hours ago
add a comment |
was the land the got more valuable than the entire cost of the war?
– ed.hank
5 hours ago
Financially Israel didn't pay for the 1967 war, Israel's foreign allies did with US aid to Israel jumping from 23.7 million in 1967 to 100 million in 1968, and 170 million in 1969. Jewish Virtual Library
– JMS
4 hours ago
@ed.hank Certainly not if you'd ask me, but I thought perhaps according to the criteria you set forth? (Plus I'd be hard pressed to calculate like that)
– LangLangC
4 hours ago
was the land the got more valuable than the entire cost of the war?
– ed.hank
5 hours ago
was the land the got more valuable than the entire cost of the war?
– ed.hank
5 hours ago
Financially Israel didn't pay for the 1967 war, Israel's foreign allies did with US aid to Israel jumping from 23.7 million in 1967 to 100 million in 1968, and 170 million in 1969. Jewish Virtual Library
– JMS
4 hours ago
Financially Israel didn't pay for the 1967 war, Israel's foreign allies did with US aid to Israel jumping from 23.7 million in 1967 to 100 million in 1968, and 170 million in 1969. Jewish Virtual Library
– JMS
4 hours ago
@ed.hank Certainly not if you'd ask me, but I thought perhaps according to the criteria you set forth? (Plus I'd be hard pressed to calculate like that)
– LangLangC
4 hours ago
@ed.hank Certainly not if you'd ask me, but I thought perhaps according to the criteria you set forth? (Plus I'd be hard pressed to calculate like that)
– LangLangC
4 hours ago
add a comment |
From 1618 to 1871 the Electorate and Duchy of Brandenburg-Prussia did very well for itself, thank you very much, in a long series of wars, expanding significantly on each cycle:
Thirty Years War (1618-1648)
War of Austrian Succession (1740-1748)
Seven Years War (1756-1763)
Partitions of Poland (1772, 1793, 1795)
French Revolutionary Wars (1790-1815)
Austro-Prussian War (1866)
Franco-Prussian War (1870)
Likewise the United Kingdom did well in all of the same wars that it chose to participate in over the same period, plus the War of Spanish Succession in which it acquired Gibraltar.
The United States did well for itself in a century long series of Indian Wars plus the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War, stretching from its independence into the pre-WW1 twentieth century.
France under Napoleon profited in both territory and allies from all of (mostly at the expense of Austria):
War of the Third Coalition (1803-1806)
War of the Fourth Coalition (1806-7)
War of the Fifth Coalition (1809)
The Last Profitable War - by any stretch - must be at least World War Two for the U.S.
United States industry reaped immense profits from 1945 to about 1970 literally rebuilding Europe. That great boom that spawned the Baby Boomers - that was all the result of the U.S. (and Canada to an extent) rebuilding Europe.
I edited the question some. I think I am more interested in short term profits, ie spoils of war. Not so much long term effects. I will check out the Prussian wars as I am not well read on them.
– ed.hank
7 hours ago
add a comment |
From 1618 to 1871 the Electorate and Duchy of Brandenburg-Prussia did very well for itself, thank you very much, in a long series of wars, expanding significantly on each cycle:
Thirty Years War (1618-1648)
War of Austrian Succession (1740-1748)
Seven Years War (1756-1763)
Partitions of Poland (1772, 1793, 1795)
French Revolutionary Wars (1790-1815)
Austro-Prussian War (1866)
Franco-Prussian War (1870)
Likewise the United Kingdom did well in all of the same wars that it chose to participate in over the same period, plus the War of Spanish Succession in which it acquired Gibraltar.
The United States did well for itself in a century long series of Indian Wars plus the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War, stretching from its independence into the pre-WW1 twentieth century.
France under Napoleon profited in both territory and allies from all of (mostly at the expense of Austria):
War of the Third Coalition (1803-1806)
War of the Fourth Coalition (1806-7)
War of the Fifth Coalition (1809)
The Last Profitable War - by any stretch - must be at least World War Two for the U.S.
United States industry reaped immense profits from 1945 to about 1970 literally rebuilding Europe. That great boom that spawned the Baby Boomers - that was all the result of the U.S. (and Canada to an extent) rebuilding Europe.
I edited the question some. I think I am more interested in short term profits, ie spoils of war. Not so much long term effects. I will check out the Prussian wars as I am not well read on them.
– ed.hank
7 hours ago
add a comment |
From 1618 to 1871 the Electorate and Duchy of Brandenburg-Prussia did very well for itself, thank you very much, in a long series of wars, expanding significantly on each cycle:
Thirty Years War (1618-1648)
War of Austrian Succession (1740-1748)
Seven Years War (1756-1763)
Partitions of Poland (1772, 1793, 1795)
French Revolutionary Wars (1790-1815)
Austro-Prussian War (1866)
Franco-Prussian War (1870)
Likewise the United Kingdom did well in all of the same wars that it chose to participate in over the same period, plus the War of Spanish Succession in which it acquired Gibraltar.
The United States did well for itself in a century long series of Indian Wars plus the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War, stretching from its independence into the pre-WW1 twentieth century.
France under Napoleon profited in both territory and allies from all of (mostly at the expense of Austria):
War of the Third Coalition (1803-1806)
War of the Fourth Coalition (1806-7)
War of the Fifth Coalition (1809)
The Last Profitable War - by any stretch - must be at least World War Two for the U.S.
United States industry reaped immense profits from 1945 to about 1970 literally rebuilding Europe. That great boom that spawned the Baby Boomers - that was all the result of the U.S. (and Canada to an extent) rebuilding Europe.
From 1618 to 1871 the Electorate and Duchy of Brandenburg-Prussia did very well for itself, thank you very much, in a long series of wars, expanding significantly on each cycle:
Thirty Years War (1618-1648)
War of Austrian Succession (1740-1748)
Seven Years War (1756-1763)
Partitions of Poland (1772, 1793, 1795)
French Revolutionary Wars (1790-1815)
Austro-Prussian War (1866)
Franco-Prussian War (1870)
Likewise the United Kingdom did well in all of the same wars that it chose to participate in over the same period, plus the War of Spanish Succession in which it acquired Gibraltar.
The United States did well for itself in a century long series of Indian Wars plus the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War, stretching from its independence into the pre-WW1 twentieth century.
France under Napoleon profited in both territory and allies from all of (mostly at the expense of Austria):
War of the Third Coalition (1803-1806)
War of the Fourth Coalition (1806-7)
War of the Fifth Coalition (1809)
The Last Profitable War - by any stretch - must be at least World War Two for the U.S.
United States industry reaped immense profits from 1945 to about 1970 literally rebuilding Europe. That great boom that spawned the Baby Boomers - that was all the result of the U.S. (and Canada to an extent) rebuilding Europe.
edited 3 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
Pieter GeerkensPieter Geerkens
41.7k6119197
41.7k6119197
I edited the question some. I think I am more interested in short term profits, ie spoils of war. Not so much long term effects. I will check out the Prussian wars as I am not well read on them.
– ed.hank
7 hours ago
add a comment |
I edited the question some. I think I am more interested in short term profits, ie spoils of war. Not so much long term effects. I will check out the Prussian wars as I am not well read on them.
– ed.hank
7 hours ago
I edited the question some. I think I am more interested in short term profits, ie spoils of war. Not so much long term effects. I will check out the Prussian wars as I am not well read on them.
– ed.hank
7 hours ago
I edited the question some. I think I am more interested in short term profits, ie spoils of war. Not so much long term effects. I will check out the Prussian wars as I am not well read on them.
– ed.hank
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Question:
When was the last profitable war?
I would say all wars are profitable for somebody. The second gulf war has been estimated by both the chief economist of the world bank (a nobel prize winning economist) and a Harvard Economy Professor to cost 3 trillion dollars by when it's all said and done back in 2008. A lot of people walked away from that war with a lot of cheddar.
Financial cost of the Iraq War
Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, and Linda Bilmes of Harvard University, have stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, described in their book The Three Trillion Dollar War and possibly more in a study published in March 2008
But if you are looking for a war which actually turned a profit. Then the first Gulf War came pretty close.
Gulf War Fast Facts
The US Department of Defense has estimated the incremental costs of the Gulf War at $61 billion, with US allies providing about $54 billion of that -- Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states covered $36 billion. Germany and Japan covered $16 billion.
add a comment |
Question:
When was the last profitable war?
I would say all wars are profitable for somebody. The second gulf war has been estimated by both the chief economist of the world bank (a nobel prize winning economist) and a Harvard Economy Professor to cost 3 trillion dollars by when it's all said and done back in 2008. A lot of people walked away from that war with a lot of cheddar.
Financial cost of the Iraq War
Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, and Linda Bilmes of Harvard University, have stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, described in their book The Three Trillion Dollar War and possibly more in a study published in March 2008
But if you are looking for a war which actually turned a profit. Then the first Gulf War came pretty close.
Gulf War Fast Facts
The US Department of Defense has estimated the incremental costs of the Gulf War at $61 billion, with US allies providing about $54 billion of that -- Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states covered $36 billion. Germany and Japan covered $16 billion.
add a comment |
Question:
When was the last profitable war?
I would say all wars are profitable for somebody. The second gulf war has been estimated by both the chief economist of the world bank (a nobel prize winning economist) and a Harvard Economy Professor to cost 3 trillion dollars by when it's all said and done back in 2008. A lot of people walked away from that war with a lot of cheddar.
Financial cost of the Iraq War
Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, and Linda Bilmes of Harvard University, have stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, described in their book The Three Trillion Dollar War and possibly more in a study published in March 2008
But if you are looking for a war which actually turned a profit. Then the first Gulf War came pretty close.
Gulf War Fast Facts
The US Department of Defense has estimated the incremental costs of the Gulf War at $61 billion, with US allies providing about $54 billion of that -- Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states covered $36 billion. Germany and Japan covered $16 billion.
Question:
When was the last profitable war?
I would say all wars are profitable for somebody. The second gulf war has been estimated by both the chief economist of the world bank (a nobel prize winning economist) and a Harvard Economy Professor to cost 3 trillion dollars by when it's all said and done back in 2008. A lot of people walked away from that war with a lot of cheddar.
Financial cost of the Iraq War
Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, and Linda Bilmes of Harvard University, have stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, described in their book The Three Trillion Dollar War and possibly more in a study published in March 2008
But if you are looking for a war which actually turned a profit. Then the first Gulf War came pretty close.
Gulf War Fast Facts
The US Department of Defense has estimated the incremental costs of the Gulf War at $61 billion, with US allies providing about $54 billion of that -- Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states covered $36 billion. Germany and Japan covered $16 billion.
answered 4 hours ago
JMSJMS
15.4k344120
15.4k344120
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f52238%2fwhat-was-the-last-profitable-war%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
5
It would always come down to "for whom"? As a large-scale arms dealer every war is profitable, for me.
– LangLangC
8 hours ago
1
There's also the question of long-term vs. short-term profit. I've seem plausible arguments that none of the great European empires actually were financially profitable when you count all the costs. It's certainly true that big, tightly-controlled 19th and early 20th century empires correlate very poorly with subsequent prosperity. The one way that conquest seems profitable is when it suppresses existing endemic warfare enough to allow economies to grow in peace. Arguably this is why the Roman Empire worked...and why it failed when it stopped creating peace.
– Mark Olson
8 hours ago
1
@MarkOlson: You would have a hard time arguing that the Pax Britannica didn't have the same effect for a century, from 1815 to 1914. Or that the creation of the United States from 1792 to 1945 didn't have the same effect.
– Pieter Geerkens
8 hours ago
4
Measuring the profit of a war is kind of like ... I don't know, measuring the calorie content of a communion wafer - or the return on investment of marriage. The measurement may be valid, but if the results of the measurement have anything to do with the activity, then there is something very wrong with your value matrix.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
8 hours ago
Seems to me that the definition of "minor war" is tightly coupled with "profitable war". The only time you'd fight a war for profit is when you're confident you can predict the outcome. Risky war (between near equals) should be avoided as an existential threat.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
8 hours ago