What is the war for? In this lucid intervention the Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, in justifying the senselessness of an almost pre-modern war of conquest in a totally interconnected and interdependent world, recalls one of the most important and seminal books on peace and war. It is about The Great Illusion of the English journalist and essayist Norman Angell, Nobel Peace Prize in 1933. The book released in 1909 had a huge circulation and was translated into 25 languages, including in Italian in 1913 (and never reprinted).
Angell, analyzing the economic changes that occurred with the second industrial revolution, tried to show the total futility of war from all points of view, including that of power politics.
In an economically interdependent world, war became only a "grand illusion" unable to achieve any goal. War had become a losing and counterproductive option for everyone, both for the defeated and for the winners themselves.
The success and diffusion of the book did not save the world from the catastrophe of the First World War whose devastating consequences did not spare any country whether it was among the winners or the losers. A sad confirmation of the legitimacy of Norma Angell's theses. Then as now. Schadenfreude, bitter satisfaction.
Here, in the Italian version, is what Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times on 4 March
What is war for? All losers
The Ukrainian miracle may not last. Vladimir Putin's attempt to achieve a quick and low-impact victory by seizing important cities with light forces has faced unexpected resistance, but tanks and heavy artillery are advancing. Despite the great heroism of the Ukrainian people, it is likely that the Russian flag will eventually be hoisted over the rubble of Kiev and Kahrkiv.
Even if it does, the Russian Federation will emerge more weakened and more impoverished than it was before the invasion. The war of conquest does not pay.
Why don't you pay? In history, there are many instances where empires have enriched themselves by military action. Certainly, the Romans benefited from the conquest of the Hellenistic world, the same happens to Spain with the conquest of the domains of the Aztecs and the Incas.
However, the modern world – where by “modern” I mean at least the last century and a half – is different.
The great illusion
In 1909, the English writer Norman Angell published a book that became famous. The great illusion. In it he demonstrated that war had become an outdated means. His thesis was misunderstood as the end of all wars, an interpretation that proved terribly wrong. What Angell really meant was that neither the vanquished nor the victors would derive any benefit from a war.
And he was definitely right. We are all grateful to the Allies for having prevailed in World War II, but Britain emerged as half a power, suffering years of austerity and foreign exchange shortages.
Even the United States struggled to find a postwar equilibrium, which was more difficult to achieve than many realize: Americans experienced a period of high prices that drove inflation above 20 percent.
And conversely, even complete defeat did not prevent Germany and Japan from achieving unprecedented prosperity over time.
The meaning of interdependence
Why and since when did wars of conquest become sterile? Angell identified the reason in the emergence of a "vital interdependence" between nations, which "crossed international borders". This interdependence had begun to take hold roughly from the 1870s.
An undoubtedly plausible hypothesis: 1870 was roughly the moment in which the railways, steam navigation and the telegraph made possible what some economists call the first global economy.
In such a global economy it is difficult to conquer a country without cutting it off at immense cost to that country – and to the victors themselves – from the international environment, as well as from the international division of labour, not to mention the global financial system. Already now we can see this dynamic at work in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
What is war for? Because everyone loses
Angell also highlighted the impossibility of taking over a modern economy: one simply cannot subjugate an industrial system in the same way as one does for a territory, since such arbitrary requisition destroys the incentives and sense of security which a advanced nation needs to stay active and productive.
Again, history confirmed his analysis. For a time, Nazi Germany occupied nations with a combined gross domestic product twice its own – but despite ruthless exploitation, the occupied territories appear to have returned only 30 percent to the German war effort, because the economies under pressure in control of Germany collapsed under the weight of the predatory regime.
An aside: isn't it extraordinary and terrifying to find ourselves in a situation in which i Hitler's failures tell us what could happen in the future? Thank you Putin.
I would add two other elements which explain why the conquests cannot be lasting.
What is war for? The resource side
The first is that modern warfare requires an enormous amount of resources. Pre-modern armies needed limited armaments and, to some extent, could plunder conquered territory to maintain themselves.
As late as 1864, the General of the Union forces, William Tecumseh Sherman, could dispense with the supply lines in the rear, marching through Georgia on only 20 days' rations.
Modern armies, on the other hand, require large armaments, spare parts and, above all, fuel for motorized vehicles. It is no coincidence that the British defense minister noted that the Russian advance on Kiev was halted "probably due to persistent logistical difficulties".
This set of things makes a war of conquest enormously expensive and, if successful, very problematic to pay off.
What is war for? The national-popular side
The second element is that today we live in a world of strong nationalisms. Ancient and medieval peasants probably didn't care about their conquerors, but today the matter is very different. The attempt by Putin to take over Ukraine seems to be based not only on the belief that there is no such thing as a Ukrainian nation, but also on the assumption that Ukrainians themselves can consider themselves Russians.
It seems very unlikely that this will happen. Even if Kiev and other important cities fall into Russian hands, Russia will find itself fighting for years in an attempt to subjugate a hostile population.
Therefore, conquests are a concept that does not pay. This has been in everyone's eyes for a century and a half; it is evident to anyone willing to look objectively at the facts. Unfortunately, there are still madmen and fanatics who are convinced otherwise and sadly, some of them control nations and armies.
. . .
From Paul Krugman, War, what is good for?, in The New York Times, March 4, 2022
