Prussian (and later German) ChancellorOtto von Bismarck, right, with GeneralHelmuth von Moltke the Elder, left, and GeneralAlbrecht von Roon, centre. Although Bismarck was a civilian politician and not a military officer, he wore a military uniform as part of the Prussian militarist culture of the time. From a painting byCarl Steffeck.
Militarism is the belief or the desire of a government or a people that a state should maintain a strongmilitary capability and to use it aggressively to expand national interests and/or values.[1] It may also imply the glorification of the military and of the ideals of a professional military class and the "predominance of thearmed forces in the administration or policy of the state"[2] (see also:stratocracy andmilitary junta).
The roots of German militarism can be found in 18th- and 19th-centuryPrussia and the subsequent unification ofGermany under Prussian leadership. However,Hans Rosenberg sees its origin already in theTeutonic Order and its colonization of Prussia during the late Middle Ages, when mercenaries from the Holy Roman Empire were granted lands by the Order and gradually formed a new landed militarist Prussian nobility, from which theJunker nobility would later evolve.[3]
During the 17th-century reign of the "Great Elector"Frederick William, Elector of Brandenburg, Brandenburg-Prussia increased its military to 40,000 men and began an effective military administration overseen by theGeneral War Commissariat. In order to bolster his power both in interior and foreign matters, so-calledSoldatenkönig ("soldier king")Frederick William I of Prussia started his large-scale military reforms in 1713, thus beginning the country's tradition of a high military budget by increasing the annual military spending to 73% of the entire annual budget of Prussia. By the time of his death in 1740, thePrussian Army had grown into astanding army of 83,000 men, one of the largest in Europe, at a time when the entire Prussian populace made up 2.5 million people. Prussian military writerGeorg Henirich von Berenhorst would later write in hindsight that ever since the reign of thesoldier king, Prussia always remained "not a country with an army, but an army with a country" (a quote often misattributed toVoltaire andHonoré Gabriel Riqueti, comte de Mirabeau).[4]
AfterNapoleon Bonaparte defeated Prussia in 1806, one of the conditions of peace was that Prussia should reduce its army to no more than 42,000 men. Since the time ofFrederick The Great, however, Prussia practiced the Kruemper System, formed by dismissing a number of trained men at regular intervals and replacing them with raw recruits, thereby passing a large number of men through the ranks.[5] The officers of the army were drawn almost entirely from among the land-owningnobility. The result was that there was gradually built up a large class of professional officers on the one hand, and a much larger class, the rank and file of the army, on the other. These enlisted men had become conditioned to obey implicitly all the commands of the officers, creating aclass-based culture ofdeference.[citation needed]
World War I propaganda of Germany
This system led to several consequences. Since the officer class also furnished most of the officials for the civil administration of the country, the interests of the army came to be considered as identical to the interests of the country as a whole. A second result was that the governing class desired to continue a system which gave them so much power over the common people, contributing to the continuing influence of theJunker noble classes.[citation needed]
Militarism in Germany continued after World War I and the fall of the German monarchy in theGerman Revolution of 1918–1919, in spite of Allied attempts to crush German militarism by means of theTreaty of Versailles, as the Allies saw Prussian and German militarism as one of the major causes of the Great War. During the period of theWeimar Republic (1918–1933), the 1920Kapp Putsch, an attemptedcoup d'état against the republican government, was launched by disaffected members of the armed forces. After this event, some of the more radical militarists and nationalists were submerged in grief and despair into theNSDAP party ofAdolf Hitler, while more moderate elements of militarism declined and remained affiliated with theGerman National People's Party (DNVP) instead.[citation needed]
Throughout its entire 14-year existence, the Weimar Republic remained under threat of militaristic nationalism, as many Germans felt theTreaty of Versailles humiliated their militaristic culture. The Weimar years saw large-scale right-wing militarist and paramilitary mass organizations such asDer Stahlhelm as well as militias such as theFreikorps, which was banned in 1921.[6] In the same year, theReichswehr set up theBlack Reichswehr, a secret reserve of trained soldiers networked within its units organised as "labour battalions" (Arbeitskommandos) to circumvent the Treaty of Versailles' 100,000 man limit on the German army.;[7] it was dissolved in 1923. Many members of theFreikorps and the Black Reichswehr went on to join theSturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary branch of the Nazi party. All of these were responsible for the political violence of so-calledFeme murders and an overall atmosphere of lingering civil war during the Weimar period. During the Weimar era, mathematician and political writerEmil Julius Gumbel published in-depth analyses of the militarist paramilitary violence characterizing German public life as well as the state's lenient to sympathetic reaction to it if the violence was committed by the political right.[citation needed]
Nazi Germany was a strongly militarist state; after its defeat in 1945, militarism in German culture was dramatically reduced as a backlash against the Nazi period, and theAllied Control Council and later theAllied High Commission oversaw a program of attempted fundamental re-education of the German people at large in order to put a stop to German militarism once and for all.[citation needed]
In recent years, the Indian government has increased the military expenditure of the 1.4 million-strong military across all branches and embarked on a rapid modernization program.[11][12]
Japanese march intoZhengyangmen ofBeijing after capturing the city in July 1937
In parallel with 20th-century German militarism, Japanese militarism began with a series of events by which the military gained prominence in dictating Japan's affairs. This was evident in 15th-century Japan'sSengoku period orAge of Warring States, where powerfulsamurai warlords (daimyōs) played a significant role in Japanese politics. Japan's militarism is deeply rooted in the ancient samurai tradition, centuries before Japan's modernization. Even though a militarist philosophy was intrinsic to the shogunates, anationalist style of militarism developed after theMeiji Restoration, which restored theEmperor to power and began theEmpire of Japan. It is exemplified by the 1882Imperial Rescript to Soldiers and Sailors, which called for all members of the armed forces to have an absolute personal loyalty to the Emperor.
In the 20th century (approximately in the 1920s), two factors contributed both to the power of the military and chaos within its ranks. One was the "Military Ministers to be Active-Duty Officers Law", which required theImperial Japanese Army (IJA) andImperial Japanese Navy (IJN) to agree to theMinistry of Army position in theCabinet. This essentially gave the military veto power over the formation of any Cabinet in the ostensibly parliamentary country. Another factor wasgekokujō, or institutionalizeddisobedience by junior officers.[13] It was not uncommon for radical junior officers to press their goals, to the extent of assassinating their seniors. In 1936, this phenomenon resulted in theFebruary 26 Incident, in which junior officers attempted acoup d'état and killed leading members of the Japanese government. The rebellion enraged EmperorHirohito and he ordered its suppression, which was successfully carried out by loyal members of the military.
Elementary school students were given military drills, May 1942.
In 1945, Japan surrendered to the United States, beginning theOccupation of Japan and the purging of all militarist influences from Japanese society and politics. In 1947, the newConstitution of Japan supplanted theMeiji Constitution as the fundamental law of the country, replacing the rule of the Emperor with parliamentary government. With this event, the Empire of Japan officially came to an end and the modernState of Japan was founded.
Sŏn'gun (often transliterated "songun"),North Korea's "Military First" policy, regards military power as the highest priority of the country. This has escalated so much in theDPRK that one in five people serves in the armed forces, and the military has become one of thelargest in the world.
Songun elevates the Korean People's Armed Forces within North Korea as an organization and as a state function, granting it the primary position in theNorth Korean government and society. The principle guidesdomestic policy andinternational interactions.[14]It provides the framework of the government, designating the military as the "supreme repository of power". It also facilitates the militarization of non-military sectors by emphasizing the unity of the military and the people by spreading military culture among the masses.[15] The North Korean government grants theKorean People's Army as the highest priority in the economy and in resource-allocation, and positions it as the model for society to emulate.[16]Songun is also theideological concept behind a shift in policies (since the death ofKim Il Sung in 1994) which emphasize the people's military over all other aspects of state and the interests of the military comes first before the masses (workers).
In the pre-colonial era, theFilipino people had their own forces, divided between the islands which each had its own ruler. They were calledSandig (Guards),Kawal (Knights), andTanod. They also served as the police and watchers on the land, coastlines and seas. In 1521, the Visayan king of MactanLapu-Lapu ofCebu, organized the first recorded military action against the Spanish colonizers, in theBattle of Mactan.
During the World War II, the Philippines was one of the participants, as a member of Allied forces, the Philippines with the U.S. forces fought the Imperial Japanese Army (1942–1945), one of the notable battles is the victoriousBattle of Manila, which also called "The Liberation".
During the 1970s the PresidentFerdinand Marcos declared P.D.1081 ormartial law, which also made the Philippines agarrison state. By thePhilippine Constabulary (PC) andIntegrated National Police (INP), the high school or secondary and college education have a compulsory curriculum concerning the military, and nationalism which is the "Citizens Military Training" (CMT) and "Reserve Officers Training Corps" (ROTC).But in 1986, when the constitution changed, this form of national service training program became non-compulsory but still part of the basic education.[17]
Military parade onRed Square in MoscowVladimir Putin with members of the 'Yunarmiya' – or Young Army. The Young Army movement is the Kremlin's attempt to mobilize and provide basic military skills to Russian youth.
Russia has also had a long history of militarism continuing on to the present day driven by its desire to protect its western frontier which has nonatural buffers between potential invaders from the rest of continental Europe and her heartlands in European Russia. Ever sincePeter the Great's reforms, Russia became one of Europe's great powers in terms of political and military strength. Through the Imperial era, Russia continued on her quest for territorial expansion into Siberia, Caucasus and into Eastern Europe, eventually conquering the majority of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
The end of imperial rule in 1917 meant the loss of some territory following thetreaty of Brest-Litovsk, but much of it was quickly reconquered by the Soviet Union later on, including events such as the partition of Poland and reconquest of the Baltic states in the late 1930s and ‘40s. Soviet influence reached its peak after WWII in the Cold War era, during which the Soviet Union occupied virtually all of Eastern Europe in a military alliance known as the Warsaw Pact, with the Soviet Army playing a key role. All this was lost with thedissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Russia was greatly weakened in what Russia's second PresidentVladimir Putin called the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. Nevertheless, underPutin's leadership, a resurgent modern Russia has maintained a tremendous amount of geopolitical influence in the countries spawned from the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and modern Russia remains Eastern Europe's leading, if not dominant, power.
Following theRussian invasion of Ukraine, the Russian government increased their efforts to introduce "patriotic education" into schools.[18] TheAssociated Press reported that some parents were shocked by the militaristic nature of the Kremlin-promotedImportant Conversations lessons, with some comparing them to the "patriotic education" of the former Soviet Union.[19]
By the end of 2023, Vladimir Putin planned to spend almost 40% ofpublic expenditures on defense and security.[20] UK Chief of Defence Staff AdmiralTony Radakin said that "the last time we saw these levels was at the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union."[21]
TheOttoman Empire lasted for centuries and always relied on its military might, but militarism was not a part of everyday life. Militarism was only introduced into daily life with the advent of modern institutions, particularly schools, which became part of the state apparatus when the Ottoman Empire was succeeded by a new nation state – the Republic of Turkey – in 1923. The founders of the republic were determined to break with the past and modernise the country. There was, however, an inherent contradiction in that their modernist vision was limited by their military roots. The leading reformers were all military men and, in keeping with the military tradition, all believed in the authority and the sacredness of the state. The public also believed in the military. It was the military, after all, who led the nation through theWar of Liberation (1919–1923) and saved the motherland.
Military parade duringRepublic Day celebrations in Ankara
The first military coup in the history of the republic was on27 May 1960, which resulted in the hanging of PMAdnan Menderes and 2 ministers, and a new constitution was introduced, creating a Constitutional Court to vet the legislation passed by parliament, and a military-dominated National Security Council to oversee the government affairs similar to thepolitburo in the Soviet Union.[22] The second military coup took place on12 March 1971, this time only forcing the government to resign and installing a cabinet of technocrats and bureaucrats without dissolving the parliament. The third military coup took place on12 September 1980, which resulted in the dissolution of parliament and all political parties as well as imposition of a much more authoritarian constitution. There was another military intervention that was called a "post-modern coup" on28 February 1997 which merely forced the government to resign, and finally an unsuccessful military coup attempt on15 July 2016.
The constitutional referendums in2010 and2017 have changed the composition and role of the National Security Council, and placed the armed forces under the control of civilian government.
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries political and military leaders reformed the US federal government to establish a stronger central government than had ever previously existed for the purpose of enabling the nationto pursue an imperial policy in the Pacific and in the Caribbean andeconomic militarism to support the development of the new industrial economy. This reform was the result of a conflict between Neo-Hamiltonian Republicans andJeffersonian-Jacksonian Democrats over the proper administration of the state and direction of its foreign policy. The conflict pitted proponents of professionalism, based on business management principles, against those favoring more local control in the hands of laymen and political appointees. The outcome of this struggle, including a more professional federal civil service and a strengthened presidency and executive branch, made a more expansionist foreign policy possible.[23]
After the end of theAmerican Civil War the national army fell into disrepair. Reforms based on various European states including Britain, Germany, and Switzerland were made so that it would become responsive to control from the central government, prepared for future conflicts, and develop refined command and support structures; these reforms led to the development of professional military thinkers and cadre.
A pie chart showing global military expenditures by country for 2019, in US$ billions, according to SIPRI
During this time the ideas ofsocial Darwinism helped propelAmerican overseas expansion in the Pacific and Caribbean.[24][25] This required modifications for a more efficient central government due to the added administration requirements (see above).
The enlargement of theU.S. Army for theSpanish–American War was considered essential to the occupation and control of the new territories acquired from Spain in its defeat (Guam, thePhilippines,Puerto Rico, andCuba). The previous limit by legislation of 24,000 men was expanded to 60,000 regulars in the new army bill on 2 February 1901, with allowance at that time for expansion to 80,000 regulars by presidential discretion at times of national emergency.
U.S. forces were again enlarged immensely for World War I. Officers such asGeorge S. Patton were permanent captains at the start of the war and received temporary promotions to colonel.
Between the first and second world wars, theUS Marine Corps engaged in questionable activities in theBanana Wars in Latin America. Retired Major GeneralSmedley Butler, who was at the time of his death the most decorated Marine, spoke strongly against what he considered to be trends toward fascism and militarism. Butler briefed Congress on what he described as aBusiness Plot for a military coup, for which he had been suggested as leader; the matter was partially corroborated, but the real threat has been disputed. The Latin American expeditions ended withFranklin D. Roosevelt'sGood Neighbor policy of 1934.
After World War II, there were major cutbacks, such that units responding early in the Korean War underUnited Nations authority (e.g.Task Force Smith) were unprepared, resulting in catastrophic performance. WhenHarry S. Truman firedDouglas MacArthur, the tradition of civilian control held and MacArthur left without any hint of military coup.
TheCold War resulted in serious permanent military buildups.Dwight D. Eisenhower, a retired top military commander elected as a civilian president, warned, as he was leaving office, of the development of amilitary–industrial complex.[26] In the Cold War, there emerged many civilian academics and industrial researchers, such asHenry Kissinger andHerman Kahn, who had significant input into the use of military force. The complexities of nuclear strategy and the debates surrounding them helped produce a new group of 'defense intellectuals' and think tanks, such as theRand Corporation (where Kahn, among others, worked).[27]
It has been argued that the United States has shifted to a state of neomilitarism since the end of theVietnam War. This form of militarism is distinguished by the reliance on a relatively small number of volunteer fighters; heavy reliance on complex technologies; and the rationalization and expansion of government advertising and recruitment programs designed to promote military service.[28] PresidentJoe Biden signed a record $886 billiondefense spending bill into law on December 22, 2023.[29][30]
Militarism in Venezuela follows the cult and myth ofSimón Bolívar, known as the liberator of Venezuela.[31] For much of the 1800s, Venezuela was ruled by powerful, militarist leaders known ascaudillos.[32] Between 1892 and 1900 alone, six rebellions occurred and 437 military actions were taken to obtain control of Venezuela.[32] With the military controlling Venezuela for much of its history, the country practiced a "militaryethos", with civilians today still believing that military intervention in the government is positive, especially during times of crisis, with many Venezuelans believing that the military opens democratic opportunities instead of blocking them.[32]
Much of the modern political movement behind theFifth Republic of Venezuela, ruled by the Bolivarian government established byHugo Chávez, was built on the following of Bolívar and such militaristic ideals.[31]
Hafez Assad visiting a military camp near Damascus, 1978.
The history ofSyrian militarism begins in 1963, when thearmy staged amilitary coup against the democratically elected presidentNazim al-Qudsi and brought theBa'ath Party to power, beginning anew era in Syrian history. It was after this coup that Syria turned towards militarization, and with each new internal partycoup it increased.Neo-Ba'athism (whose supporterscame to power in 1966) differed greatly from the standard version ofBa'athism, including the idea of strong militarization.
Syrian Arab Army parade, 1990.
In 1970 (afteranother coup), military GeneralHafez al-Assad came to power. His regime turned out to be the most stable and long-lasting. Assad also conducted an active campaign to militarize Syrian society throughout his rule to resistIsrael, including alone (starting in the 80s).[33][34] This policy led to Syria becoming one of the most militarized countries in the world with alarge and professional army with high number of soldiers,Air Force andtank fleets.[35][34][36]
Like neighboring Syria, Iraq has been a highly militarized state for decades. From rule ofAbd al-Karim Qasim until the Ba'athistseizure of power in 1968, the Iraqi government had followed a policy of themilitarization of society.
Abdul-Karim Qasim, whoseized power in 1958, was anIraqi nationalist andQasimist. This brought him into conflict with his neighbors,Kuwait andIran, whose territories he claimed (in the Iranian case, only the province ofKhuzestan). To protect his ambitions, Qasim needed acompetent army, which he was able to build.
Aftercoming to power in 1968, the Ba'athists continued the militarization policies begun by their predecessors. While the period from 1960 to 1980 was peaceful, expenditure on the military trebled: in 1981 it stood at US$4.3 billion and nearly equaled thenational incomes ofJordan andYemen combined.[37][38] Per capita military spending in 1981 was 370 percent higher than that for education. During theIran–Iraq War military expenditures increased dramatically (while economic growth was shrinking) and the number of people employed in the military increased fivefold, to one million.[39]
Parade of New Iraqi army, 2011.
By 1990,Iraq had become the most militarized country per capita in the world, and was in the top ten on many measures.[35] However, despite the high costs of the army (in comparison with the strength of theIraqi economy), the huge number of soldiers and all types of weapons, as well as a very good domestic military industry, its effectiveness remained questionable. In1991 and2003, this army was literally routed by enemy forces and suffered very heavy losses without inflicting any serious on the enemy.
^Wilson, Tim (2010).Frontiers of Violence. Conflict and Identity in Ulster and Upper Silesia 1918-1922. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 83.ISBN978-0199583713.
^Wheeler-Bennett, John W. (1953).The Nemesis of Power (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 92.ISBN978-1-4039-1812-3.
^Columnist M. Ali Kışlalı cites Army commander Faruk Gürler for this comparison in his article "MGK değişti ama" in the newspaper "Radikal", dated 4 July 2007.https://www.ab.gov.tr/p.php?e=36535
^Fareed Zakaria,From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America's World Role (Princeton Univ. Press, 1998), chap.4.
^abcBlock, Elena (2015).Political Communication and Leadership: Mimetisation, Hugo Chavez and the Construction of Power and Identity.Routledge. pp. 74–91.ISBN9781317439578.
^abReich, Bernard, ed. (1990).Political leaders of the contemporary Middle East and North Africa: a biographical dictionary. New York: Greenwood Press.ISBN978-0-313-26213-5.
Frevert, Ute.A Nation in Barracks: Modern Germany, Military Conscription and Civil Society. Berg, 2004.ISBN1-85973-886-9
Huntington, Samuel P..Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1981.
Ito, Tomohide:Militarismus des Zivilen in Japan 1937–1940: Diskurse und ihre Auswirkungen auf politische Entscheidungsprozesse (Reihe zur Geschichte Asiens; Bd. 19). Iudicium Verlag, München 2019.ISBN978-3862052202
Ritter, Gerhard.The Sword and the Scepter; the Problem of Militarism in Germany, translated from the German by Heinz Norden, Coral Gables, Fla., University of Miami Press 1969–73.
Vagts, Alfred.A History of Militarism. Meridian Books, 1959.
Western, Jon.Selling Intervention and War. Johns Hopkins University . 2005.ISBN0-8018-8108-0
.jpg)
.jpg)
%2c_1942.jpg)
.jpg)
_soldiers_and_T-55_tank_on_the_Golan_Heights_during_Yom_Kippur_War.jpg)
