危机管理视角下的绥靖行为论析

An Analysis of Appeasement Behavior from the Perspective of Crisis Management

徐成(XU Cheng)

《史学集刊》 192期 (2021/01) Pp. 134-144

摘要

20世纪30年代英法等西方国家对纳粹德国实施的绥靖政策，一般被认为是鼓励希特勒侵略胆量和野心、最终导致二战爆发的一个重要原因，它在日后甚至发展成了国际政治中软弱无能、胆怯和丧失原则的无益让步的代名词，即所谓“慕尼黑类比”。在“慕尼黑类比”的阴影下，“绥靖”一词被严重污名化，沦为政治攻击的工具，用以反对任何正常和必要的国家间谈判、妥协和友好交往，为强硬外交乃至战争铺路，产生了严重的国际政治后果。但从危机管理的角度来看，绥靖可以是一种通过向对方做出不对等的利益让步来化解危机、避免战争的理性手段，它是一国在面临他国直接威胁挑战或危机情形下，当相互妥协、威慑与强制外交等其他手段都失败或不可行，从而使危机发展到一定阶段时，国家基于成本收益计算和利害权衡，为了避免战争而做出的最后努力。未来研究中应摒弃政治与意识形态上的偏见，发掘更多绥靖案例，对诸如绥靖政策何以成败等问题进行深入分析，以丰富和加深我们对于国际政治中的绥靖现象的理解。

關鍵字

慕尼黑类比 ； 绥靖政策 ； 国际危机

並列摘要

The appeasement policy adopted by Britain, France and other Western countries toward Nazi Germany in the 1930s is widely believed to have embolden Hitler and ultimately led to the outbreak of the Second World War, it even became a byword for weakness, timidity and concessions without principle. In the shadow of the ＂Munich analogy＂, the term appeasement was heavily stigmatized and turned into a tool of political attack, which is used to oppose any normal and necessary negotiations or compromises among states, paving the way for tough diplomacy and even war. However, from the perspective of crisis management, appeasement can be a rational policy to reduce international crisis and avoid war by making unequal concessions to the other party. It's a final effort for the initiator to avoid war based on its cost-benefit calculation when all the other means such as mutual compromise, deterrence and coercive diplomacy fail or are not feasible in international crisis. In order to enrich our understanding of appeasement in international politics, we should conduct more case studies and answer the question why did appeasement succeed or fail for the future research.

並列關鍵字

the Munich Analogy ； appeasement ； international crisis