Hidden meaning, or lack thereof

I won't dispute that many, even most authors use plenty of hidden meanings and symbolism in their writings. Sometimes, however, some people just take it too far.
When I was in high school, I was kicked out of class for three days running, because of our reading 1984, by George Orwell. In the novel, a war is raging between the worlds three superpowers, Oceania, Eastasia, and Eurasia. The war and it's changing politics, including the shift of alliances that pits Oceania against Eastasia midway through the book, is central, but it is hinted at that the war may be a fabrication by the totalitarian government.
Now, I appreciate a bit of symbolism as much as the next guy, but if we think about it, there is no way that the war can conceivable be fabricated. The entire county has massive amounts of economic infrastructure dedicated to war. Hundreds of thousands of young men march to the fight, and are killed. For the war to be a fabrication of the government, all of that has to go somewhere. Is it simply burned? Do the march the young men to the beach, shoot them, and throw their bodies to the ocean?
I believe that there really isn't a viable way for the war to be a symbolic plot device only. It HAS to be literal, otherwise the premise of a significant portion of the book falls apart. My old teacher disagreed with me, and didn't like it very much that I refused to blindly accept that it was a plot device, and didn't exist.
I'll never argue that authors use plenty of symbolism in their writing. However, there isn't any need to read more into it than there is. Harry Potter isn't a book about the anti-Christ. It's just a story about wizards and witches. To Kill A Mockingbird is a book about racial tension, not an in-depth study of the human mind and our preconceptions about birds ( there's a story behind that reference), and while Animal Farm does have symbolism about Communism, it's definitely not the Communist Manifesto in disguise.