Athens, Churchill, Neocons, and Unnecessary War

If you haven’t yet read the Unnecessary War by Patrick Buchanan and you consider yourself an America first conservative you should drop everything and go read that book. I have yet to find a better historical argument as to why neo conservative philosophy has been and always will be a destructive and empire destroying philosophy. All empires From the Ancient Greeks to the British and now the American empire have engaged in this philosophy to their detriment. War becomes not a tool of protection or necessity but rather a show of strength to the rest of the world. The capital of the empire Washington, London, Athens do not feel the effects of the war but rather read about it in newspapers, isolated from its negative consequences. Military expeditions by the Athenians into Sicily, British security guarantees in Eastern Europe, and US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were not vital to the safety and security of their regimes but rather a message to the world that they are the most powerful nation. Instead of using their power as a hegemon to increase the welfare of their citizens, nefarious actors, war mongers, and neo conservatives promote unnecessary wars that serve only two interests. First, these wars make a few actors in positions of power wealthy. Secondly, and most importantly the superpower wants to make an example of an uncooperative state to demonstrate its own power. The lessons of history make it clear that if we do not rid our country of this perverse ideology of neo conservative nation building we are planting the seeds of our own destruction. America must defend its borders, people, trade with other countries, end sanctions, and return to an era of splendid isolationism. A world of American isolationism, where countries are not punished or threatened to comply with American hegemony by devastating weapons of war, is a world of peace, trade, and sovereignty.

The History of the Peloponnesian War is a book that should be made mandatory reading for those who argue America should be militarily involved in conflicts around the world. Thucydides provides a detailed account of the long and difficult war that took place between the Athenians and the Spartans. Though there were many battles and expeditions that occurred between the two warring nations, Thucydides highlights one certain military decision that proved devastating for the Athenians. The Athenians were engaged in an arduous battle with the extremely competent Spartan warriors. An idea was had, though I will spare some of the details, to invade Sicily, to expand the empire, gain resources, and disrupt supply to the Spartans. The difficulties of this expedition were immense, time consuming, and would require a massive amount of ships and resources. Nicias, an Athenian general, spoke against the invasion of Sicily arguing that the amount of resources needed would prove extraordinary. Unfortunately for Nicias the images painted in the heads of the Athenians of a great fleet, massive armies, and a wonderful show of strength served the opposite purpose. This display of the might of Athens only increased the desire of the Athenians to embark on this expedition. As Thucydides states:

“They, however, had not their desire for the voyage taken from them by the burdensome nature of the preparations, but were much more eager for it than ever ; and the result proved just contrary to what he had expected ; for it was thought that he had given them good advice, and that now certainly they would have even abundant assurance of success. And so all alike were seized with a longing to go on the expedition : the elder, from a belief that they should either subdue the places against which they were about to sail, or that a large force would meet with no misfortune : those in the prime of life, from a desire of foreign sights and spectacles, and because they were in good hope of returning safe from it : the mass of the people and of the soldiery, from thinking that they should both make money at present, and gain additional power, from which an unfailing fund for pay would be obtained. So that owing to the excessive desire of the majority for the measure, even if any one were not pleased with it, he was afraid that by voting against it he might appear ill-affected to the state, and therefore held his peace” (Thucydides, 394).

The expedition was not a well thought out voyage by military experts who determined a smart course of action. It derived from a need to demonstrate to the world the strength of the Athenian empire. Those who were opposed to the expedition for logical reasons kept quiet as they feared being labelled as enemies of the state. This quote is a perfect example of how warmongers convince the public that war is necessary. Thucydides goes on to state “And the expedition was no less celebrated through men's astonishment at its boldness, and the splendour of its appearance, than for the superiority of the armament, compared with those whom they were going to attack.” The invasion of Sicily was not of strategic importance but at the amazement of men at its grandeur and splendor. Military expeditions like the one just described has resulted in the deaths of countless empires “and this too was what afterwards mainly caused the destruction of the Athenian state”(Thucydides, 387). 

The issue I have with how foreign affairs are handled today is that the military actions taken by Washington seem to be remote to American interests. Similar to the Athenian invasion of Sicily the motivation is one not of securing vital American interests but projecting our force and wealth on the world. The end result is never as intended and the fantastical illusions of success dazzled in front of the public before the expedition begins never come to fruition. It is much easier for leaders to start wars than it is for them to hold negotiations and conduct diplomatic outreach. Though war may be beneficial for politicians in the short run it harms the overall country in the long run. It is for these historical reasons I am perplexed as to why leaders who are prone to go to war are so celebrated. Why a man such as Abraham Lincoln is celebrated to such an extent when he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American citizens is beyond me. Though I digress, I only raise this issue to display my strong feelings against war especially when clear paths are visible for negotiation and diplomacy. There is no better example of this imperialistic lust for war displayed by leaders in Athens than the wars that occurred in the 20th century. Specifically, World War I and II from the perspective of the British. It is the quotes of pure blood lust displayed on numerous occasions by Winston Churchill that leave me with little to no respect for the man. A man responsible for not only the complete destruction of one of the most positive forces in the world, The British Empire, but for the deaths of millions of people across Europe. What were these wars for? Are border disputes in eastern Europe or between Belgium and Germany of vital importance to the British? Of course they are not. However, the British empire could not be seen as weak. Once the war drums begin it is hard to turn them back. The desire for Athens and London to dictate the rules of how the world should operate caused devastation to its citizens and the destruction of their own empires. What is even more tragic is both the Pelopensiona war and the World Wars of the 20th century were wars fought between brotherly people. The Pelopensian war was Greeks fighting Greeks and the World Wars were Europeans fighting Europeans. The world could be very different had war hawks such as Churchill been sidelined and peace lovers been elevated. I fear we find ourselves today in a very similar situation and it is more important than ever that lovers of peace and haters of war unite, from any political ideology, to stop the destructive war mongers in their tracts. 

There are a few quotes I will now analyze to convince skeptical readers that Churchill was a war criminal and responsible for the unnecessary deaths of millions of Europeans. It is important to dispel the narrative that surrounds Churchill as a hero and defender of freedom, for there is nothing further from the truth. If we can undermine a central idol of the modern neo conservative movement we can undermine their claims and reasoning. Neville Chamberlain is often used by nefarious neo conservative actors, as an example, to discourage diplomacy and conversation with one’s adversaries. Chamberlain with all his faults believed in peace and his single handed attempt at avoiding destruction is more noble than any action Churchill took in his entire time leading the United Kingdom. 

It is often forgotten or little noted that Churchill was not only a driving force for the initiation of World War II but also World War I. He was a man who switched parties in attempts to maintain his power and influence over politics. As a member of the cabinet on the eve of and during World War I he was an ardent advocate for war at all costs. This was even the case when seven members of the British cabinet threatened to resign if Britain went to war in Europe. For Churchill war was not a position he held out of logical reasoning, military expertise or even economic rationale. Churchill thrived on the power he felt and the rush of war. If one feels this is an unfair categorization of his views I offer the following quote “ Churchill was the only Minister to feel any sense of exultation at the course of events [war in Europe]... My darling [Wrote Churchill] one & beautiful: Everything tends toward catastrophe & collapse. I am interested, geared up and happy. Is it not horrible to be built like that?” (Buchannan, 28). This quote should dispense of the arguments that Mr. Churchill was a devoted Patriot who cherished and protected democracy and his people. A leader who truly cares for those he represents does not feel joy as young men are thrown into trenches, mothers lose their children, and people lose their homes and livelihoods. These are the real costs of war and a virtuous principled leader avoids inflicting these horrors on their people at any cost. The reasons why these horrors were inflicted on the people of the United Kingdom and Europe are as follows: German naval buildup and border disputes in Belgium and Eastern Europe. If the reader finds this as an adequate reason to destroy the lives of innocents you may need to check your moral compass.

To further the demonstration of bloodlust and contempt Churchill held in his heart, it was not enough for him to simply defeat his enemies, in this case the leaders of Germany, but his real goal was to destroy and humiliate the German people. One may ask why the Germans signed the Treaty of Versailles and the true answer is the sinister nature of the allies. The United Kingdom, led by Churchill, convinced the United States to send massive amounts of soldiers to Europe to help defeat the Kaiser’s army. This was a military and political action enacted by the United States to send American boys to fight wars over border disputes in Europe. A move that nearly everyone would see as a disaster and lead to America turning its back on Europe and leading to the rise of Hitler and Stalin. Buchanan states of American sentiment after the end of World War I  

“They had sent their sons across the ocean to make the world safe for democracy only to see the British empire add a million square miles… For having been deceived and dragged into war, Americans blamed the “Merchants of Death” - the war profiteers- and the British propagandists. By the 1930s, Americans, in the worst depression in their history, which had left a fourth of all family breadwinners out of work, believed they had been played for fools and gone to war to pull England’s chestnuts out of the fire and make the world safe for the British Empire” (Buchanan, 168).

This sentiment expressed by Buchanan displays the unintended consequences of war. Especially, the negative impacts that a country as large and powerful as the United States can cause when they engage in military intervention around the world. It was the uneducated and arrogant Allied leaders in Versailles that drew up a treaty that caused resentment in Germany and drew borders in Eastern Europe that would lead to the even greater conflict that occurred in World War II. America was a major reason the Germans agreed to sign the disastrous Versailles Treaty, however, it is not the only one. The second reason is much more sinister and once again displays a bloodlust of Churchill and the allies that has rarely been seen in human history. Allied forces including British and American war ships imposed a starvation blockade in Germany. If the leaders of Germany at Versailles refused to sign the treaty they faced starvation and invasion. The architect of this strategy was the First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill who stated “[the aim] was to starve the whole population- men, women, and children, old and young, wounded and sound - into submission” (Buchannan, 79). Churchill proudly addressed and proclaimed to the British parliament that the blockade was in full force on March 3, 1919, four months after Germany had laid down her arms. 

I provide these examples of uncontrolled desire for war and its unintended consequences to urge current and future leaders of America to refrain from military intervention in the future. Churchill and his modern day neo conservative disciples are not only evil in their intentions but their actions cause untold devastation to not only the countries they oppose but also their own. The Athenian and British example shows what can happen when a nation engages in empire building for the sake of empire building alone. When a country is a superpower there will always be actors like Churchill as well as the urge to use your military strengths to shape the world in the way one sees fit. However, we must reject this urge at all costs. The consequences of not doing so can be catastrophic. Leaders such as Chamberlain and Nicias should not be demonized as weak but rather celebrated as noble men who attempted the impossible to maintain peace and save their people from the horrors of warfare. To not learn from the mistakes of history is unforgivable and leaders who attempt to ignore the past will pay the cost. The lives of innocents around the world are too important to be treated as pawns in a struggle for global hegemony. America is too important of a country to fall as the British and Athenians did.