"When studying wars in history look at it from the view point as an economist, not from a past nation's morals. The reason because morals do not cause wars, money and political power do."
War is to take land, assert dominance over a region through force, and kill any oposition. The first one is usually the most important reason we have wars. The 2nd is good to create political/economic leverage, the 3rd is just a necessary biproduct.
Any moral tag line is bullshit because you can't win hearts and minds through war. You can only silence them.
Absolutely. The crusades are a great example of this, as they are perceived to be about religion, they were really just Western European imperialist incursions into the Middle East, with barons and kings trying to expand their influence and power. They managed to convince people that they were fighting for their religion, but we're really just fighting for their leaders own gain.
However, I don't this is true of the American and French revolutions, or even the Bolshevik Revolution as they were purely ideological and not about monetary gain. Same goes for the American civil war, and WW2 (to an extent).
The Bolshevik Revolution was financed by a lot of international bankers, it was mainly for political gain. What do you think the Bolsheviks killed fellow communists, anarchists, and Marxist parties at the time?
Again, it was all ideological, that's why they killed them. Of course it was for political gain but it was seen as a mad grab for tyrannical power. Yes it was financed by outside banks but it wasn't fought by them, they were merely looking for a way to make money and someone's always going to profit from war. But their reason for starting the war was purely ideological and wanted to replace the old regime with a new one.
*Wasn't seen as a mad grab for tyrannical power