Could atheist westerners, please explain?

[Ivan Denisovich]

You're quite right; I stand corrected. 

Insane religious ideologies (including Leninist-style Marxism, which is an economic concept elevated to the level of cult/religion) carried out by leaders who are True Believers™ may indeed be a primary influence of the guy who decides where to send the fodder, and why.

According to Malia and Aron marxism wasn't economic concept as such but rather millenarian philosophy with stron religious overtones, i.e. proletariat being class destined by it's suffering to end the alienation and immutable laws of history. Also entire concept of proletariat as unified class is flawed - workers in this case are like atheists, apart from absence of belief they have nothing in common.

Perhaps we should think of it as an aggravating factor to the horrors of war.

We could think about in such way if not for what was happening in USSR in years of peace. Marxism-leninism preached utopia, and for achieving it no cost are too big. More to the point there can be no compromise with those who stood in the way of humanity coming into earthly paradise; you could try compromise with political opponent but you can't reason with one who is holding back entire mankind.

I would say that Marxism-leninism was more aggravating in peace as evidenced by the Great Terror or collectivization. Brutality of Red Army I would ascribe to Nazis mean of waging war and brutality of war itself. M-l (or it stalinist interpretation) again came to the fore after ending of WW II, during the war ideology on allied side mattered not for they were simply fighting against aggressor who indeed was waging ideological conflict.

Even the Nazis were originally motivated by economics; the hatred stuff was just to help coalesce the feelings of anger and frustration over the economic situation toward a common enemy against whom the Germans could rally.

I would say that they were motivated more by feeling of national humiliation and finding the means of reversing it. Imperialism, antisemitism and wanting to belong also were important things. Economy I see as means to an end with end being lebensraum and egalitarian society where every party comrade was judged on the merit not birth.

I would say that they cared about economy much like the Soviets were - economy was subjected to the ideology, it was more or less on permanent war footing. Nazis armed to invade, Soviets to defend, though according to Oleg Khlevniuk book Stalin: New Biography of a Dictator aggression wasn't out of question when time will be right.

Your view is supported by Gotz Aly in his Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State or at least I interpret his book as supporting you. Primacy of ideology, again from what I understand could be found in Richard Evans Coming of the Third Reich. Interesting tidbits could be also found in Martin Malia History's Locomotives: Revolutions and the Making of the Modern World which I consider one of better books that I read.

That their Furher also was a True Believer™ does mean I need to correct my assertion that only the fodder cares about those factors.

Timothy Snyder in his Black Earth paints Hitler as believer, but not in the way we commonly think. If I remember right he supposedly didn't care much about national humiliation or the rest of party rhetoric but was social darwinist for whom struggle was everything. Also seeing Jews as a disease was supposed to be genuine. Hitler in Snyder book is believer who perfectly use mood of the masses in furthering agenda in which he believed. His agenda though isn't something that German nationalist would like.

I'd say that today's situation, about which Atlas complains, is also the product of economics. We (the Western powers) have dominated those nations and played chess with the peoples of those nations for so long, it's hardly surprising that leaders have arisen among them to feed the aggravating factor of their underlying religious sentiments such that they begin to see us as The Enemies of God™, to be destroyed at all costs. What I meant by that "the fodder" quip was that religious ideology is what it takes to push most of the people of a nation into doing what the leaders want (even if, as you point out, the leaders are also similarly motivated in addition to their economic interests in the conflict), so they will Die Selflessly For The Mother/Fatherland™.

I don't know much about history of that nations but arguing about whether ideology or economy are primary causes is something that I seen in many books. I would say that there are strong argument for both being equally important and in some times it is ideology which at least for a time ruled economy like it was the case in USSR or it could be argued in III Reich where population was spared from economical hardships associated with war thanks to belief that it would rebel if life will became too hard. [Aly, Hitler's Beneficiaries...]

Having said that I don't disagree with your view. But for me it's ideology or way of thinking that is more important; capitalism isn't only about means of production but they way of thinking. You wrote about colonialism and it economic consequences - but weren't sometimes colonies matters of prestige rather than economical gain? Think of pre I WW Germany? Were their colonies matter of Imperial pride and something that Bismarck didn't saw as useful or were they net gain for country finances.

ETA: It's clear to all of us that Atlas' tirades on here are skewed by a heavy-handed propaganda-set he's been fed by such leaders and their cronies/followers, under the guise of religious "wisdom", that is trying to rally the Muslim peoples against the Hated Western Powers™ by teaching them false and overgeneralized information about us and how we think/operate. Which makes it that much more heartbreaking, since he's clearly a smart guy.

Forgive me banality but every debate is skewed by perceptions we have, trick is in recognizing it and realizing that other side also has or could have a point.