Some Historical Fallacies

Today I sat in my economics class at college and had a hard time controlling the outburst that was building within in. It is the last day before Easter break, and as many of the students had skipped class to catch early flights back to their homes our professors decided to give a lecture on the economics of war. However, in the process, my libertarian professor proceeded to put forth some serious historical fallacies. Since I have to wait several hours to be picked up before heading home, and my roommate is taking the xbox, I have decided to empty my anger at the class by correcting his mistakes. Now, don’t get me wrong, my economics professor is a really nice guy. But he, like the other libertarian economists at my school, have a very poor understanding of history because their view of history is filled with libertarian bias. They try to universalize an ideology that works well with economics but not elsewhere.

He tried to make the case (correctly) that wars do no benefit economically for a country. Wars, he said, are started only because the ruling elite see an opportunity to expand their power. First I would like to point out that this libertarian economics professor is, ironically, making a Marxist argument. A Marxist view of history teaches that wars are fought for the benefit of the ruling capitalist elite for their economical or political benefit. History is driven not by ideals or ideology but for material gain. The problem with this view of history is that it was destroyed in the First World War. Socialists and capitalist alike enthusiastically clamored for war and there were celebrations in the streets of London and Berlin when war finally broke out on August 1, 1914. World War I was fought primarily over nationalist sentiment that had reached a boiling point in the 1910s with a volatile diplomatic environment as countries practice realpolitik to advance their national interest. Wars do not benefit monetarily, but, like other costly transactions, a decision is made that the material costs of the war outweigh the national interest or ideological victories that might be won. Wars, in short, are not fought for material gain, which is a point lost on many libertarians and leftists to this day.

Secondly he put forth the libertarian myth that the American entry into World War I, and thus breaking the “sacred” advice of our founding fathers, had terrible consequences on the rest of twentieth century history. He stated that the American intervention inadvertently caused the rise of the USSR because the approach of the “yanks” caused the Germans to send V.I. Lenin back to Russia to foment revolution and end the Eastern Front. First I would like to point out that the Kadets and the Mensheviks had already thrown the tsar in March before the US entered into the war in April. Second, the Germans did not need any motivation to send Lenin to Russia to collapse the Russian state later in April. The war was already costing the Germans millions of lives and the German population was living in perpetual starvation by the time 1917 came and any chance to exploit the political stability in Russia would be seized by the German General Staff. Contrary to what my professor said the Germans were not “holding their own” in the war, but rather needed an immediate end to the conflict, even if the US had not entered the war.

Whether the US had gotten involved in World War I or not Lenin would have made his way back to Russia and launched the October Revolution. Even if the Germans had considered the risk of sending Lenin to Russia outweighed ending the war (unlikely given the state of Germany in the spring of 1917) can it honestly be believed that Lenin would not have made his way back to the Russia to take part in the “inevitable unfolding of history?” The consequences of the US entering the war actually benefitted the European situation by decisively ending the war. By 1917 the populace that had embraced war in 1914 was now shocked by the affects of total war and growing angry with appalling poverty and starvation that the war had caused. Socialists and communists had been steadily growing louder and more radical. Earlier in 1917 the French army mutinied and refused to continue fighting until it the mutiny was crushed. If the senseless slaughter that the Europeans were unable to extricate themselves from continued longer, it was likely that disillusionment with the war may have caused a socialist revolution across Europe. Such a revolution almost occurred in Germany in 1919.

Thirdly my professor claimed that the US also, by winning the war for the Allies, paved the way for Hitler and the Third Reich. I will not deny that Versailles was a major contributor to the rise of Nazism, but history is not inevitable. The Germans had fourteen years to choose their course and unwisely, for a variety of reason including Versailles, chose National Socialism in 1933. But this is not to say that the Germans could not have chose otherwise or that Hitler was inevitable given Versailles. The Americans under Wilson actually presented a peace plan (the Fourteen Points) that would have staved off the effects that a punitive peace had on Germany, but David Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau reneged on their agreement to the Fourteen Points in the spring of 1919.

These stories are merely the propaganda of libertarians who want to equate deviating from the Jeffersonian model with mortal sin. The advice of Washington in 1798 not to become involved abroad was given in a historical context that has long since passed. Strictly adhering to foreign policy advice made in the 1790s simply was not prudent in the 20th century and remains so in the 21st. Contrary to libertarian rhetoric a proactive government is not a heinous sin. It was precisely the isolationism of the US during the 20s and 30s that facilitated the rise of Hitler in the 1930s. Hitler was able to make his territorial claims on Europe because he knew that the US would not intervene. While the US should not entangle itself in needless foreign interventions, a proactive US foreign policy can be quite beneficial both to Americans and the world. As a Christian, I think that that what Paul says concerning government is true: “for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” (Romans 13:4)