Fight For Formosa or Not?
[Editor’s note: This article first appeared in the May/June 1955 issue of Faith and Freedom under Rothbard’s pseudonym, Aubrey Herbert. Rothbard is responding to an article by the Buckleyite conservative Willi Schlamm who advocates for military intervention against China. The Schlamm article is printed in full at the bottom of this page. Rothbard, of course, takes the opposite view of Schlamm, condemning preventive war, conscription, and Schlamm’s apparent desire to immediately resort to full-blown war. (Thanks to Joseph Solis-Mullen for finding and transcribing these articles.)]
The publication of Mr. Schlamm’s criticism is, I believe, a healthy development. For it reflects a deep-rooted split within the libertarian camp that badly needs airing and debate. It is a split on the most important tissue of our time: war or peace.
The core of Mr. Schlamm’s case rests on this dilemma: that we are faced with the terrible alternative of war or martyrdom. Either we must fight an alphabet-bomb war or we must bare our breasts to the advancing Red hordes. There is no other choice. The trouble with this simple alternative rests on an equally simple fact that Mr. Schlamm somehow overlooks: we haven’t been attacked.
Perhaps Mr. Schlamm believes that a Soviet or Chinese attack on New York or San Francisco is imminent. But unless he can prove that Soviet bombers have already begun their flight, he is actually advocating preventive war. “Preventive war” is the death-trap formula that has started wars throughout history. We must give thanks that the Soviets have not succumbed to the preventive war ideology.
But, Mr. Schlamm will say, the Communists “want the world.” Sure they do. No one denies this and no one denies that they are earnest and dedicated men. But what does this prove? Many people and many groups would like to run the world if given half a chance. The point is not what the Communists would like to do; the point is what they rationally can do.
What can the Russians or the Chinese do to us? Two facts should be clear. On the one hand, they could pulverize us with alphabet bombs and germ warfare, but at the certainty of being pulverized even more thoroughly themselves. On the other hand, they could not possibly invade and occupy the United States. Most military men will support these opinions. It should be obvious that we can be badly damaged, but only from the air.
It follows that the rational policy for Communists is to avoid any military attack on the United States. Only irrational leaders would want to destroy themselves and their subjects for the sake of destroying others.
As Philip Wylie said, “the Russians are as patient as an oyster making pearls.” They are quick tempered, and so far have shown more cunning than recklessness. Indeed, the foremost plank of Soviet foreign policy has always been defense, defense of the Socialist Motherland. Russia has never engaged in reckless warfare that might endanger the Homeland of Communism. Other countries might profit from her example!
The Communists are reinforced in their caution and rationality by their very dedication. For they are dedicated to Marxist-Leninist theory, which tells them that the coming of world communism is inevitable. Communist theory ordains that the workers of capitalist countries are bound to become Communists, revolt, and establish the millennium. Buoyed up by this “knowledge,” the Communists would be madmen indeed to risk self-destruction through modern total war.
Mr. Schlamm writes confidently about a “reasonable chance of victory.” What kind of “victory”? And victory for what? A “victory” with civilization destroyed irrevocably by alphabet bombs, germ warfare and other scientific horrors? A “victory” where the few Americans left alive are happy in the knowledge that a few less Russians and Chinese are left alive? Of course, I agree with Mr. Schlamm that all wars are bad, even wars fought with bows and arrows. But does he really see no difference between the unfortunate death of a few soldiers, and the total destruction of human civilization?
The facts of modern total war have also the following consequence: in days of old, those warlike fellows who thirsted for a showdown with the knight in the neighboring castle, could have their showdown without injuring the lives of civilians who wished to remain in peace.
But as war grows more terrible and more total, the consequence of war is the mass annihilation of countless millions who only wished to remain in peace. In the H-bo
Article from LewRockwell
LewRockwell.com is a libertarian website that publishes articles, essays, and blog posts advocating for minimal government, free markets, and individual liberty. The site was founded by Lew Rockwell, an American libertarian political commentator, activist, and former congressional staffer. The website often features content that is critical of mainstream politics, state intervention, and foreign policy, among other topics. It is a platform frequently used to disseminate Austrian economics, a school of economic thought that is popular among some libertarians.
