Against Appeasement

by Steven Grueshaber

In chapter four of Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars, Walzer explains the idea of aggression and its role in a war. He also discusses the way in which a political community is an incarnation of the multitude of individuals within that community. However, when he moves on to the topic of appeasement, which is the policy of conceding to enemies in order to preserve a state of peace, he does not spend a whole lot of time discussing the idea. Instead, he gives us historical examples of appeasement. I feel that much more needs to be said on this subject. The primary goal of this paper is to define many of the problems with appeasement and demonstrate why it is a poor plan of action in a warlike scenario.

There is often some confusion as to what exactly constitutes a war, so I feel that I must define what I mean by war. The definition I will be using is from the American Heritage Dictionary, which defines it as “A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.” There are also several criteria that some use to determine whether a war is just or unjust. The most common of these are just cause, right intent, legitimate authority, last resort, and probability of success. The first four seem to limit just wars to only those that are fought in self-defense. The remaining criterion, the probability of success, is the one used to defend the idea of appeasement.

To better understand the concept of war, I will use what Walzer calls the “domestic analogy.” When people gather together, they form communities. These communities represent the collective wills of their respective members. Therefore, we can perceive each community as a separate entity. In the world as a whole, there are hundreds, thousands, even millions of these communities, depending on how you decide to break them down. The larger of these communities are nations, and we are often speaking with regard to nations when we talk of war. This will be an important distinction later on.

When one person commits a crime against another person, we call it ‘murder’ or ‘theft.’ When one community does the same to another community, however, we call it an ‘act of war.’ On a smaller scale, these crimes are easily controlled. Police forces exist in order to keep the peace. We invent courts and justice systems to punish the guilty. Although there are problems with some forms of these, they, for the most part, tend to work out nicely and go a long way to getting the job done. However, as I’ve stated previously, this only works on a smaller scale.

Problems begin to arise when these crimes occur on a much larger scale, such as state vs. state or nation vs. nation. On the lesser end of this spectrum we have civil wars and small-scale riots. On the other end we have several nations fighting several other nations, which we often describe as a world war. While we attempt to have international laws, we do not have a dedicated international police force. Occasionally, nations will take it upon themselves to act as a temporary police force in a given situation. Even in these situations there can still be debates as to which side is right and which is wrong. However, by restricting just wars to those of self-defense, it will more often be clear as to which side is acting justly.

In this domestic analogy we can see all of the world’s nations in a sort of semi-Hobbesian state of nature. Each nation will be acting in its own best interest, which will often be against the best interest of another nation. Every nation would have to be wary of each other nation for fear of aggression. The most logical action may be to strike first and try to catch your opponent by surprise, before it can do the same to you. There are also reasons not to go to war in such a state, such as leaving yourself vulnerable to attack. Also, unlike a true state Hobbesian state of nature, there is some social structure and some alliances form amongst the different nations.

While the domestic analogy does not directly respond to the idea of appeasement, I feel that it’s important to set up the stage, so to speak. In order to better understand my arguments these assertions need to be made. If we use law enforcement and the justice system as a way to reduce and deter crime from individuals in a society, and a nation is an individual in the world’s society, then law enforcement and a justice system would also help reduce and deter crime between nations. Walzer points this out also, and I do not expect that many people would attempt to argue against it. However, Walzer - perhaps inadvertently – gives an example of how appeasement could in fact have better consequences for a nation then war. Some of his reasons for disliking appeasement are sort of abstract, like he says here: “We not only justify resistance; we call it heroic; we do not measure the value of justice, apparently, in terms of lives lost.” (p. 67) My goal is to offer more concrete consequentialist reasons for avoiding it.

The arguments for appeasement are primarily either on utilitarian grounds or they revolve around the aforementioned fifth criterion for a just war: Probability of success. Suppose you have a scenario in which a large and powerful nation invades a much smaller, much less powerful one. The aggressor is unwilling to enter negotiations, they offer only two choices: surrender or die. While the smaller nation may be able to cause considerable losses to the larger nation, the smaller nation will be completely wiped out. The pro-appeasement argument in this case is that the smaller nation has zero – or practically zero - probability of winning this war. Therefore, they do not fulfill the fifth criterion for fighting a just war, making their war unjust. This can be approached in two ways, the first of which is to attack the fifth criterion directly. If we can restrict just wars to those that are fought in only in self-defense, then probability of success has very little meaning. If an aggressor is acting rationally, he will only initiate wars that he can win. Therefore, a defending country would never be able to justly defend itself. The only possible just war, then, is one in which a defending nation is more powerful than an attacking nation. The second approach is also the one that I use to counter the utilitarian argument for appeasement, which I will discuss now.

When given the choice of surrender or die, some would argue that it would be better to surrender and possibly suffer later then to choose death and suffer now. While this may be the case, a true Utilitarian must look at the long-term consequences of actions as opposed to only the short-term. While the short-term consequences are definitely better, the long-term are almost certainly worse. By surrendering to the more powerful aggressor, you are setting a precedent that you most surely do not want to set. I have already shown the importance of law of enforcement and punishment in deterring crime, but here the exact opposite is occurring. If the precedent is set that the weaker nation must concede to the stronger, then we are in fact encouraging nations to be aggressors. Not only are they winning the war, but also they are doing so at no loss to themselves. This argument fits back to the probability of success. By conceding, not only have you given up any chance for success, but it then assumes a negative value, for you are indirectly hampering the success of other defending nations. The consequences for appeasement, then, are much worse than the consequences of fighting the war and losing.

Moreover, this argument against appeasement applies not only to the defending nation, but to all nations. Following the same lines of reasoning, it is unjust for a nation, A, to concede a separate nation, B, to the aggressor nation, C. As I discussed earlier, law enforcement is important in maintaining peace. Rather than an every-man-for-himself state of nature as I described before, it is imperative that nations come to the defense of other nations in time of need. This results in the best set of consequences for those involved.

Throughout this paper, I have stressed the importance of law enforcement as a deterrent to crime and demonstrated its necessity even when dealing with nations as opposed to an individual person. Appeasement results in encouraging aggressors and weakening defenders in a long-term scenario. Appeasement is an inadequate and temporary solution to a very large and long-lasting problem: War.