Economy of war or war of economy? War and economy part II

When a war occurs in a country, all resources, budget, national output, human and material capabilities are harnessed to serve the war effort and the goal is to achieve victory.

Any state at war works to strengthen its economy before and during the war to overcome the crisis and achieve internal stability in the domestic market to support and spend on the army.

In contrast, other secondary expenditures are reduced to the necessary with the cessation of social recreational or developmental activities …

The economy of war is mostly consumptive, it becomes productive only in war supplies. Therefore, it is natural for such state to suffer from a shortage of goods and products in the markets, depending on the war , its harshness, duration, and the influence of the enemy state or states on importing consumer goods in case of depletion.

Here appears the role of businessmen, wealthy people and traders in monopolizing goods for profit, or showing their patriotism and distancing themselves from monopolizing the market favoring the interest of the nation on their personal interests.

It also shows the ability and success of governments or their failure in their former economic system, besides it shows the extent of corruption or transparency in dealing with the exceptional situation of war.

When a state enters the war, the economy must become a “war economy,” then the state is obliged to secure the basic materials of the people and the army together, which are food, fuel, medicine and weapons. The government, which fails to do so, turns from “war of economy” to “war on the economy” , basic materials start to disappear and the people and the army start to suffer , as opposed to the availability of recreational materials by the “rich elite of war”,  which lead to the loss of war or to the incomplete victory.

The wars of the present era: After the First World War, direct economic colonization was active as victorious countries, Britain and France in particular, sent their armies to occupy several other countries. With the end of the Second World War and the destruction of both sides, , These countries have reviewed the method of direct occupation, seeing it as a “stupid” way to control the world or certain countries …

Why are these big countries risking their armies and the lives of their soldiers as long as smaller armies of “followers” can do the same task?Here , it first adopted a strategy to achieve economic balance between the income and the outcome, and then the great support of its armies and the armies of its affiliated countries.

Modern theory says: Control of the economy of states is not done by military force, but with capital and giant banks, while maintaining a strong army intervenes when necessary.

Here, the idea of ​​globalization and the “New World Order” began crystallizing, which were worse than the direct military occupation as they are an economic, socio-political, religious, comprehensive occupation.

During the direct occupation there were migrations, but they were not great, and the markets of the occupied countries were not bad.

Some of the occupied countries witnessed a limited revival in their economy and developed in many fields, this was incompatible with colonial policies.

With the economic occupation of third world countries, we notice that migration has doubled and unemployment has increased alongside ignorance and extremism.

How do economic wars take place and what do major powers benefit from them? As we have mentioned, the direct occupation ended with the beginning of the economic occupation, which took the basic ways in which the capabilities of countries are controlled and harnessed to serve the colonial powers, and are carried out in accordance with successive plans.

To carry out an economic war against a country; there are certain conditions that must be there, the country must have: a poorly planned government with poor experience, corrupt officials that are willing to collaborate  with the enemy state, greed businessmen and rich people whom first goal is to increase their assets even if they sold the homeland, a forcibly absent people who is either working hard to provide life essentials, or distracted with side issues  like” religion”.

  • Source:, (War and economy, part II), supervised by Dr. Jameel. M. Shaheen

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *