Post Hoc Fallacy in Geopolitical & Historical Analysis

When posting videos recently — even apolitical ones — I've received comments that follow a similar line of reasoning. Irregardless of whether the commentator is American or Chinese, the argument has proceeded from the notion that because events happened in a particular order, the actors of the earlier events "intended" for the results.

Here are some examples:

1) The 1899-1901 Boxer Rebellion was initiated by Europe to reset their economy and allow the United States to get ahead.
2) The US wants Beijing to attack Taiwan now because, by doing so while China is still weaker, the global balance of power can be reset.
3) The West's deindustrialization was a master plan devised by China to get ahead.

Arguments one and three follow a type of informal fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this." Argument two doesn't but it is based in the same reasoning that pinpoints an economic incentive or desired outcome of an actor and then presumes that actor will try by any means to achieve that goal. It shouldn't need to be said that just because something occurs, the doer in motion intended a result to happen. If I drive my car to the supermarket and get into a crash, while I may have "caused" another vehicle to get damaged if I was the one who hit them, there is no evidence these were my intentions before leaving the house.

In other words, just because events like the Boxer Rebellion caused the Qing dynasty to end, it doesn't follow that they happened for this reason. In fact, believing Europe worked in tandem with the United States, let alone one another, in the late 19th century is looking at history with a modern lens, especially if you buy the whole "Europe is a US vassal" narrative going around. Are we forgetting that World War I was only 15 years away? Why would England, France, and Germany want the US to get ahead of them at their imperial peaks?

Similarly, even if one believes in the fatalism of economics, there still needs to be evidence the US wants Beijing to attack Taiwan. Let's assume history and empire are cyclical. That all great powers eventually peter out, as Britain, Rome, and the Han before. Let's assume no Plaza Accord 2.0 will happen to depreciate the dollar and make it easier to reindustrialize the US so that tangible and eventually intangible American products can compete better with cheaper alternatives from developing nations. Let's assume someone in Washington recognizes the American 20th century emerged not necessarily from better values but because North America benefitted from being a sanctuary across the Atlantic and Pacific during World War II that then had little competition in foreign markets in the 1950s. Even then, where is the intention?

The same question must also be asked of politicians, businessmen, and normal people, but especially the first two who were in decision-making roles in the 1980s through 2000s, who forget it was the West's intentions to open China up and manufacture there.