Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations

Winston Churchill served as British prime minister from 1940 to 1945 and again from 1951 to 1955. In his first stint as prime minister, Churchill led Great Britain through World War II to victory. He is a celebrated figure in British history and around the world for his inspirational leadership and determination to defeat Nazism. Walzer analyzes several of Churchill’s wartime decisions and criticizes some for their failure to adhere to the war convention. For example, Walzer argues that Churchill was wrong to violate Norway’s neutral status early in the war. Walzer excuses the early British bombings of German cities given the imminent threat of defeat at that time. However, Walzer condemns the British bombing campaign from 1942-1945 because too many civilians were killed. In so doing, Walzer emphasizes the potential for those fighting a just war to use unjust means. The author is not entirely critical of this revered figure, as he justifies Churchill’s warning of reprisal to the Germans if the latter used chemical warfare. Walzer additionally notes that Churchill’s snub of the bomber unit demonstrated an embarrassment and “went a small distance toward re-establishing a commitment to the rules of war” (325).

Thucydides is an ancient Greek historian and the author of The History of the Peloponnesian War. Walzer argues that Thucydides is part of the realist school of international relations. Interpreting his work to imply that the “realm of force” or war is distinct and separate from the laws of morality, Walzer maintains that this approach makes moral criticism of wartime policies and acts impossible. Walzer therefore confronts Thucydides in his opening chapter. He uses the accounts of ordered executions and enslavement from Thucydides’s history to argue instead for a sense of common moral judgments of wartime actions. There can be intense disagreement over their application but there are underlying moral principles. Specifically, he cites the Athenian debate over the Mytilene decree, which was to kill all the men and enslave the women and children, as punishment for its rebellion. Even its defender acknowledged that it would be cruel to punish those who were not involved in the rebellion, but he claimed they all were. Walzer points to a shared moral vocabulary about the punishment of innocents even if the application was a point of disagreement. In so doing, he undermines the pure realism of Thucydides.

The Nazi regime, led by Adolf Hitler, committed genocide, and threatened the most fundamental human rights and values. Because of this, it was imperative for the Allies to defeat this regime in World War II. Few wars posed such high stakes, and as a result, Walzer uses many examples from this war to elaborate on the war convention and its exceptions. In some cases, he chastises Allied leaders for claiming that exceptions were necessary to survival when that was not the case. For example, he condemns the continued bombing of German population centers in the later years of the war. However, because a Nazi victory would be unacceptable, he allows for some exceptions when the circumstances were such that no other strategic options were available to stave off defeat. It is for that reason that he excuses the initial bombing raids on German cities.

In his work On War, Prussian military theorist Karl von Clausewitz argues that there are no limits in wartime. It is hell; decisions must be made quickly under dire circumstances, and decision makers do not have the luxury of weighing the moral cost of expedient actions. He believed that the experience of war should dictate the theories of war, not the other way around. Walzer argues against this position, claiming that war is not limitless. Even in the case of Nazi Germany, the Allies ultimately rebuilt the country with a new regime in place after the war was over.

A general for the Union forces in the American Civil War, Sherman infamously led a march of destruction and death from Atlanta to the sea. He justified his actions because he was on the side of justice; the Confederacy had started this war and deserved punishment. His noble ends justified unjust means. Walzer strongly argues against this position. Whether soldiers are on the side of justice or not, they are limited in their means. They cannot indiscriminately kill noncombatants or violate other rights. If all soldiers could justify unjust means by claiming to be on the side of justice, wars would indeed be limitless.