War Socialism: the Irresistible Temptation

While the damage which combat inflicts on people is obvious - wounds, deaths, and the destruction of property - , combat is only one part of war. War creates injuries beyond, aside from, and outside of, combat.

For those who may be hundreds, even thousands, of miles away from the physical fighting, war inflicts harm in different ways. Physically, there are shortages of materials, including important nutrients and medicines. Diseases can flourish among civilian populations during wartime.

War can also devastate political liberty. The crisis created by war provides the opportunity for political leaders to argue that urgent and exceptional circumstances necessitate and justify their suspension of the usual civil rights.

The government may contend that during peacetime, citizens have the right to freely discuss and analyze a government - pointing out its flaws - but during wartime, the situation is too important or too critical to allow unrestrained free speech. This is precisely what Woodrow Wilson’s administration did, in 1917 and 1918, when it enforced the Sedition Act and the Espionage Act.

A wartime government can inflict even more detriment on its citizens when it restricts not only their freedom to speak, but their freedom to act: when it regulates various aspects of ordinary life.

Again using war’s urgency as an excuse, governments tell farmers which crops they may grow, and at which prices they may sell them. Governments may tell bakers which type of bread to bake, and at which prices it may be sold.

This violation of an individual’s economic freedom is carried out in the name of the war effort. But such government intervention may destroy the very liberty which the war is allegedly defending.

Historians often call wartime regulations “war socialism.” Many political leaders simply can’t pass up the opportunity to gain more control over the lives of their subjects. After WWI, when Woodrow Wilson left the presidency in 1919, the voters expressed a strong desire for “normalcy.”

But Wilson’s thirst for power extended beyond the borders of the United States, and past the end of the war: not content with intervening in the lives of citizens during the war, Wilson wanted to control global relations after the war.

Redrawing the map of Europe, Wilson inflicted his revenge, largely against the Austrian Empire, for which he harbored a hatred: a hatred which many historicans find difficult to explain. Historian Hans-Hermann Hoppe writes:

As an increasingly ideologically motivated conflict, the war quickly degenerated into a total war. Everywhere, the entire national economy was militarized (war socialism), and the time-honored distinction between combatants and non-combatants and military and civilian life fell by the wayside. For this reason, World War I resulted in many more civilian casualties — victims of starvation and disease — than of soldiers killed on the battlefields. Moreover, due to the ideological character of the war, at its end no compromise peace but only total surrender, humiliation, and punishment was possible. Germany had to give up her monarchy, and Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France as before the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71. The new German republic was burdened with heavy long-term reparations. Germany was demilitarized, the German Saarland was occupied by the French, and in the East large territories had to be ceded to Poland (West Prussia and Silesia). However, Germany was not dismembered and destroyed. Wilson had reserved this fate for Austria. With the deposition of the Habsburgs the entire Austrian-Hungarian Empire was dismembered. As the crowning achievement of Wilson's foreign policy, two new and artificial states, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, were carved out of the former Empire. Austria herself, for centuries one of Europe's great powers, was reduced in size to its small German-speaking heartland; and, as another of Wilson's legacies, tiny Austria was forced to surrender its entirely German province of Southern Tyrolia — extending to the Brenner Pass — to Italy.

Although the logic of Wilson’s foreign policy is obscure, he felt that Habsburg dynasty and the Austro-Hungarian Empire posed a greater danger than the new Soviet Union.

Wilson’s policies seem to stem both from a desire to control and from a mysterious animus. He wanted to control economies, the expression of ideas, and the general shape of society. For unclear reasons, he harbored a deep antipathy against the Austrian monarchy.

Marriage: a Woman’s Free Choice

Understanding the complexities and nuances of societies which existed long ago requires both patience and the ability to set aside one’s own cultural concepts. We must reflect on our own society and recognize our era’s assumptions; we must then set those assumptions aside in order to enter into the society of a different civilization.

Historians have done this by examining personal letters and diaries of individuals from previous centuries. We are happy to have papers detailing the personal lives of a married couple, Emm Potter and Roger Lowe, who met in the 1660s in England.

Roger was learning a trade; he was learning to be a mercer. A ‘mercer’ is someone who works with fabrics. He was progressing through the system in which one begins as an apprentice, advances through a series of stages including ‘journeyman,’ and then finishes as a ‘master.’

Some English towns had a regional holiday called the ‘wakes.’ In the town of Ashton, the Ashton Wakes was celebrated on the third Sunday in September. Concerning Roger Lowe, historian Paul Griffiths notes that

It was in an alehouse during Ashton wakes that he first plucked up the courage to talk with Emm Potter his future wife.

Roger Lowe was not a major historical person. That’s what makes this event important: we see how ordinary people met, fell in love, and married. They were not the rich and famous, not the kings and queens, but the ordinary working people. Roger and Emm represent the vast majority of ordinary English folk of their era.

Significant in the marriage of Roger and Emm is that the society of the time gave her the power to accept or reject Roger’s offer of marriage. Historian Olwen Hufton writes:

Most young people, wherever they lived in western Europe, sought to bring their marriage plans together in their mid-twenties. Roger Lowe, an apprentice mercer, felt he was approaching the time for marriage in 1663 when he saw reasonable prospects of the mastership and a livelihood. However, he waited five years to wed Emm Potter, whom he met in the company of friends and relatives in an alehouse during Ashton Wakes in 1664. His courtship of Emm consisted of walks and drinks in the company of friends as well as escorting her to weddings and funerals. At the latter he also met her parents. Emm waited, however, before making up her mind.

By contrast, American society of the early 21st century has reduced the woman’s power in social relationships. Many couples live together before marriage, which reduces the social leverage of the woman.

Note that an ‘alehouse’ is considered a reasonable place for people of different genders to meet. The consumption of alcohol was done in moderation, in well-lit institutions with windows, during daylight hours.

The psychology of alcohol in England in the 17th century, compared to America of the 21st century, was much more likely to avoid both addiction and excess.

Comparing America of the 21st century with England of the 17th century, we see that Roger Lowe was taught by society to respect the will of the woman, and to respect her honor.

Despite narratives which focus on the concept of marriages arranged for money, power, land and politics, the reality for the vast majority of English people was marriage based on mutual consent and love.

The only people who did endure negotiated weddings for land, money, power, and politics were the thin layer at the top of society - the “one percent” - but, happily, the “99%” were able to marry voluntarily for love.

Of course, the popular phrase “one percent” and “99%” are not exact mathematical measurements, but merely hyperbole reflecting the small number of aristocrats and royals at the upper levels of society.

As it turns out, being one of the “upper crust” was a pain: you didn’t get to marry the person you loved.

The people of that time and place understood marriage as a free choice to give your life away to another person, to surrender your own desires for the well-being of another: it was not a right, but rather the giving up your rights. Marriage is freely letting go of any claims you might make, and offering your service to help another person.

Marriage, then, at the time of Roger Lower and Emm Potter, observed the will and humanity of the woman in a way which has sadly since then decreased in frequency.

Poland Suffers under Stalin While Allies Vegitate

One of the events which triggered the start of WWII was the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939. The western allies declared war on Germany and on the Soviet Union, which at that time was allied with Germany and had also invaded Poland.

By 1941, the USSR would join the western allies and fight against Germany. But the Soviet change in alliances did not change Soviet behavior toward the Poles.

In 1940, a unit of the NKVD, part of the Soviet secret police, executed approximately 22,000 Poles at or near a place called Katyn. The victims were unarmed, mostly civilians, and not part of any combat operation: the invasion of Poland had already ended in late 1939.

In addition to terrorizing the Poles, Stalin also annexed Polish territory. In 1945, the USSR seized 77,000 square kilometers of Poland and made it part of the Soviet Union.

The question raises itself: why did the western allies allow, or even enable, the USSR to perpetrate atrocities against Poland? Historians Herbert Romerstein and Stan Evans write:

Among the most striking features of wartime diplomatic history was the oft-repeated belief of the Western leaders that they had to make concessions to Moscow, while asking little or nothing in return from Stalin. The rationale for this would vary from one case to the next: to keep the Soviets from making a separate peace with Hitler, to build up their confidence in our intentions, to reward them for “killing the most Germans,” to placate them because of their great military power. Whatever the stated purpose, the result in nearly all such instances was the same: to give Stalin things that he demanded.

The postwar world was shaped by a series of agreements made among the Allies at a series of major conferences. These meetings were held at Teheran in 1944, and at Yalta and Potsdam in 1945.

Stalin claimed that he needed to keep Poland under Soviet domination because it would act as a defensive shield: a “buffer” zone. Anyone trying to invade the USSR by going through Poland, Stalin argued, would be stopped before reaching Russian soil.

In reality, however, no such potential aggressors existed by the time Stalin used this excuse: Germany and Italy had been soundly defeated, and their industrial and military strength dismantled.

The scenes at Teheran and Yalta where these matters were discussed would read like a comedy of errors if they hadn’t been so tragic. Stalin’s posturing on the danger of invasion via Poland — a country he had himself invaded — has been noted. Equally bizarre were his objections to having outside observers monitor Polish elections, on the grounds that this would be offensive to the independent-minded Poles. This was said by Stalin with a presumably straight face, even as his agents were imposing a brutal dictatorship in Poland that would crush all hope of independence. All this was known by the Western allies to be bogus, but in the end they would swallow the whole concoction.

One reason why the western allies stood by while the USSR ravaged Poland was because the NKVD had placed secret agents (“moles”) inside their governments. These Soviet operatives fed only selected bits of information to the policymakers in the allied governments.

Winston Churchill was one of the few western allies who was alert to Stalin’s deceptions and plans to create a communist hegemony in eastern Europe. Churchill was, however, unable to alert or persuade other western leaders about this.

Allied foreign policy was therefore shaped on the basis of reports generated by the international communist conspiracy. Acting on the Stalinist propaganda which had been presented to them as military intelligence or foreign policy analysis, the Allies let the USSR occupy and oppress Poland under a ruthless dictatorship for several decades after 1945.

Poland after WWII

In April and May of 1940, the NKVD, a branch of the Soviet secret police, executed approximately 22,000 unarmed Polish citizens at or near the town of Katyn in Poland. The majority of the victims were civilians and had nothing to do with the war effort.

In 1940, the USSR was still one of Hitler’s allies, and Poland was caught between the Soviet army invading from the east and the Nazis invading from the west. Poland was quickly vanquished in 1939; the 1940 Katyn massacre was not a part of any combat operations.

By the end of 1941, the USSR would be fighting against Hitler. But that didn’t change Soviet aggressiveness toward the Poles.

Hitler’s attack on Poland in 1939 was the trigger which caused the western allies to enter the war; one of their goals was to fight for Polish freedom. Although the Allies ostensibly won the war, they did not, at war’s end, liberate Poland.

In the two decades after the war, Poland was mercilessly subjugated; in the two decades prior to the war, Poland enjoyed more political liberty than at any other time in its history.

The Allies began the war in order to free Poland. The war, however, damaged Polish freedom, and the peace settlement at the end of the war - negotiated in Teheran and Yalta - made that damage permanent. Historians Stan Evans and Herbert Romerstein write:

The political outcomes of World War II were disastrous not only for the defeated nations, but also for many who sided with the victors. Nowhere was this more obviously so than in the case of Poland. The war in Europe was ostensibly fought for Polish independence, but would end in the country’s total subjugation. Poland thus embodied the tragedy of the conflict as described by Churchill: the democracies at terrible cost had won the war, then lost the peace that followed.

When the Soviets invaded Poland, one of their goals was the permanent annexation of Polish territory. At the war’s end in 1945, with Poland totally controlled by Stalin’s army, the USSR took 77,000 square kilometers of area from Poland.

Several other border adjustments in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1970s, brought about further territorial losses for Poland. The worst losses for Poland, both in terms of human life and in terms of land mass, came not from the 1939 invasion by the Nazis, but rather from the communists. Stan Evans and Herbert Romerstein write:

Poland became the proximate cause of fighting by the Western powers in September 1939, when it was invaded first by Hitler, then by Stalin, and the dictators divided up the country between them. Hitler’s invasion triggered a guarantee from England and her ally France to come to the aid of Poland in the event of such aggression. However, neither the British nor the French had the means of enforcing these brave pledges, so that Poland quickly fell to the invaders (as France herself would fall some nine months later).

The focus and goal of the Soviet communists, in the case of Poland, was to seize territory from the Poles, and tyrannize the land mass which remained as Poland.

The wartime understanding, that the Allies were working to liberate Poland, was instantly discarded at war’s end. The western allies stood back and allowed the USSR to occupy Poland.

Subsequently, when the United States entered the war as well, the Anglo-Americans would make further vows to Poland, as to other nations conquered by the Nazis. Such pledges were implicit in the Atlantic Charter of 1941 and related statements by the Allies about self-government and freedom, reinforced in comments to Polish exile leaders about the reign of liberty that would follow when the war was over. But these promises too would not be honored. Rather, when the fighting ended, Poland would again be conquered and dismembered — this time with the explicit sanction of the Western powers.

The question stands: why did the western allies allow the brutal imposition of communism on Poland? The answer is simple but shocking: Soviet agents had been planted as “moles” inside various western governments.

These agents controlled the flow of information to the policy makers in those governments. Advisors, who were actually Soviet operatives, apprising leaders about foreign relations reported some items prominently, concealed other items, and fabricated narratives when events did not play into their hands.

Thus it was that some of the western leaders unwittingly enabled the Soviet plot. Others, like England’s Winston Churchill, saw that Stalin was a threat, but could not do anything about it.

East Asia: the World's Stage

Although Vice President Joe Biden still refers to eastern Asia as “the Orient” - he did so in a September 2014 speech - more astute observers of the region are keeping their analyses current. Understanding China’s ambition is one key to understanding the Pacific Rim.

Mainland China does lots of saber-rattling and posing. How much of it should diplomats from other nations take seriously? Although eager to expand its hegemony, China does not want a major war with a major global power: it does not want a war, at least at the present moment, with the United States.

It does, however, want to intimidate its smaller neighbors in the region. In May 2014, Michael Auslin wrote:

Just over six months ago, China set up an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) over a large part of the East China Sea, including in airspace over the Japanese-administered Senkaku Islands. Tokyo had already established its own ADIZ decades earlier that included the Senkakus. Beijing’s move was provocative, destabilizing, and an indicator of its relentless attempts to redefine Asia’s international order for its own interests. The Obama administration’s response was either praised as rightfully downplaying an insignificant action that didn’t really change much in Asia or was derided as a weak attempt to pretend that nothing serious had happened. Washington flew two B-52s through some part of the zone and then let the whole matter slip from public view, even though civilian airliners changed their operating practices to comply with Beijing’s unique demands to identify themselves even when not approaching Chinese airspace.

Developments in the region are shaped largely by maritime considerations. Robert Kaplan concludes from this that the likelihood of a major land war is small. He writes:

East Asia is a vast, yawning expanse, stretching from Arctic to Antarctic reaches — ­from the Kuril Islands southward to New Zealand — ­and characterized by a shattered array of coastlines and archipelagos, themselves separated by great seas and distances. Even accounting for the fact of how technology has compressed distance, with missiles and fighter jets — ­the latter easily refueled in the air — ­rendering any geography closed and claustrophobic, the sea acts as a barrier to aggression, at least to the degree that dry land does not. The sea, unlike land, creates clearly defined borders, and thus has the potential to reduce conflict. Then there is speed to consider. Even the fastest warships travel comparatively slowly, 35 knots, say, reducing the chance of miscalculations and thus giving diplomats more hours — ­and days even — ­to reconsider decisions. Moreover, navies and air forces simply do not occupy territory the way armies do. It is because of the seas around East Asia that the twenty-­first century has a better chance than the twentieth of avoiding great military conflagrations.

Despite Kaplan’s optimism, there is cause for concern. Chinese and Japanese military pilots are playing a complex form of chess - or a supersonic form of “chicken” - with each other. If a misstep occurs, a handful of pilots and millions or billions of dollars of aircraft could wind up at the bottom of the Pacific.

If that happens, the two belligerents might begin trading missiles with each other - first at each other’s navies, then possibly at military installations on land.

Although the United States would probably want to play the role of peacemaking diplomatic intermediary in such a scenario, increasing escalation could force the U.S. to choose a side.

Islam’s War on Archeology and History

Officers in the military sometimes work on unexpected tasks. Major Corine Wegener (U.S. Army) is tasked with rescuing and preserving ancient manuscripts and artifacts.

Major Wegener leads the U.S. Committee of the Blue Shield, which she coordinates with the Association of National Committees of the Blue Shield and the International Committee of the Blue Shield. Her task is to save artworks and archaeological finds from the “Islamic State” (ISIS) which is currently terrorizing the region which many historians call the “cradle of civilization.”

Sculptures and clay tablets are the main evidence of the great civilizations which once inhabited that region: Babylonians, Akkadians, Sumerians, and others. The ‘Islamic State’ terrorists are bent on not only tyrannizing the present, but also on destroying much of humanity’s past.

The United States Army, and Major Wegener in particular, is hoping to protect these artifacts so that future generations can study them.

In case this sounds familiar, the 2014 movie The Monuments Men tells a similar story. George Clooney, Matt Damon, Bill Murray, and John Goodman star in this film which show how the United States Army preserved paintings and sculptures during WWII in the 1940s.

Seventy years later, the same logic is at work. Authors Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra and Gordon Govier report on Major Wegener’s efforts:

“We teach various emergency methods for protection and evacuation,” she said. Last summer, the committee trained 14 Syrian archaeologists and museum professionals who risked their lives both to attend the training and to hide museum artifacts.

In addition to Major Wegener’s activities with the army, other groups are trying to safeguard these ancient finds. Columba Stewart is the executive director of the Hill Museum and Manuscript Library in Minnesota.

Blue Shield isn’t the only organization working on the problem. Stewart’s library has digitized 2,500 manuscripts from Syria since 2005, and about 5,000 more from Iraq since 2009. Manuscripts are small enough to move and hide, so they are relatively easy to protect from looters. But they are also relatively easy to sell on the black market, he said.

Terrorists from the “Islamic State” are not only destroying artifacts, papyri, parchments, and other documents, but are sometimes selling texts on as a way to fund their attacks. These “blood antiquities” are sold to private collectors, not to museums or universities, and become unavailable for further research and scholarship. Such manuscripts often degrade and decay, as private collectors do not usually have access to the best preservation methods.

ISIS is violating its own propaganda: it destroys artworks because it claims that orthodox Islam demands such destruction; but it preserves other artworks in order to sell them.

Small items can be smuggled out of Islamic countries to safety. Buildings cannot. For archaeological sites,

taking photographs is the only way to preserve them, said Stewart. “A statue or a carving you might be able to hide, but if somebody is intent on destroying [a building] for ideological reasons, there’s not a lot you can do.”

Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra and Gordon Govier note that “ISIS bulldozed the ancient city of Nimrod,” just as the Taliban had destroyed the Buddha statues of Bamiyan. International cultural treasures are at risk: many of the items destroyed by the Islamic State and by the Taliban were UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

Blood Antiquities: Islam’s War on Art History

The Hill Museum and Manuscript Library in Minnesota is not only a warehouse of priceless historical documents, but also sends out teams of researchers and preservationists to rescue parchments, papyri, and other ancient texts. These manuscripts are endangered because of the activity of the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Authors Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra and Gordon Govier write:

“ISIS is very savvy, very alert to economics,” said Columba Stewart, executive director.

Not only texts, but artworks in the forms of paintings and sculptures are being destroyed wholesale by the terrorists. Stewart seeks to save as many historic items as he can. “His team has been taking digital photographs of” those which cannot be brought to safety. The team has been working to preserve “artifacts in the Middle East for 12 years.”

It’s a tale of victory and tragedy. Each piece preserved, snatched from the hands of the terrorists, is a triumph. Every item left behind is loss.

Also known as IS (“Islamic State”) or ISIL (“Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant”), this group is a manifestation of the Muslim antipathy to representative art. While some Muslim scholars permit paintings, drawings, and other images, mainstream Islam condemns any artistic image. For centuries, Muslim artists have specialized in abstract or nonrepresentational art: architecture and calligraphic patterns.

Most of the contents in Syria’s 34 national museums were transported to safe havens, United Nations officials reported last February. Still, the remaining museum pieces — or worse, uncatalogued items in archaeological sites — are at risk.

A few Islamic artists have produced images and representational art over the centuries. They, and their works, find safe havens outside Islamic nations.

In addition to the team from the Hill Museum, there are other scholars seeking to preserve artworks and ancient documents.

Enter the US Committee of the Blue Shield, the subject of George Clooney’s WWII movie The Monuments Men. Along with training the US military on how to protect cultural heritage during armed conflict, the committee also trains and teaches foreign museum staff who are trying to protect endangered artifacts, said member Corine Wegener.

The US Committee of the Blue Shield operates in concert with the Association of National Committees of the Blue Shield and the International Committee of the Blue Shield.

Major Corine Wegener (U.S. Army) was a founder and leader of this effort. It is clear that many nations around the world are eager to see cultural artifacts saved from Islamic terror.