Militarism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| War
|
|---|
| War Portal |
Militarism is
the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests[1].
It has also been defined as "aggressiveness that involves the threat of using military force" [2], and the
Glorification of the ideals of a professional military class" and "Predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state [3]
Contents |
[edit] Historic and modern manifestations of militarism
|
|
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008) |
Militarism is most clearly observable in the history of nation-states and empires when they engaged in imperialism or expansionism; viz. British Empire, Empire of Japan, Nazi Germany, New Roman Empire of Mussolini, the expansion of the Russian SFSR into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and later reign of Joseph Stalin, Iraq during the reign of Saddam Hussein, and the United States during the period of Manifest Destiny and army reform. An example of militarism in ancient history would be the Greek city state of Sparta.
Characteristics of militarism are observed by critics in several nations and groups of nations; viz. the loosely allied Anglo-Saxon powers (led by the United States), the People's Republic of China, France, Israel, Syria, and Russia.
[edit] German militarism
Prior to the First World War the armed forces were the strongest influence on the government of Germany, and at times used their influence to override the power of the civil government. Additionally, most Chancellors and leading German political figures in this period were either currently serving or retired officers. There was a strong culture of nationalism and deference towards the Kaiser. The Captain of Köpenick incident in 1906 is considered in Germany as an iconic example of that era's attitudes
The roots of German militarism can be found in the history of Prussia during the nineteenth century, and the subsequent unification of Germany under Prussian leadership. After Napoleon conquered Prussia, early in the nineteenth century, one of the conditions of peace was that Prussia should reduce her army to not more than forty-two thousand men. In order that the country should not again be so easily conquered, the king of Prussia enrolled the permitted number of men for one year, then dismissed that group, and enrolled another of the same size, and so on. Thus, in the course of ten years, it would be possible for him to gather an army of four hundred thousand men who had had at least one year of military training. The officers of the army were drawn almost entirely from among the land-owning nobility. The result was that there was gradually built up a large class of professional officers on the one hand, and, on the other, a much larger class, the rank and file of the army. These men had become used, in the army, to obeying implicitly all the commands of the officers, creating a class-based culture of deference.
This led to several results. Since the officer class furnished also most of the officials for the civil administration of the country, the interests of the army came to be considered the same as 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 the Junker noble classes.
Militarism in Germany continued after the First World War and the fall of the German monarchy. During the period of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933), the Kapp Putsch, an attempted coup against the republican government, was launched by disaffected members of the armed forces. After this, some of the more radical militarists and nationalists were subsumed into the Nazi Party, while more moderate elements of militarism declined. Nazi Germany was a strongly militarist state; after its fall in 1945, militarism in German culture was dramatically reduced, as a backlash against the Nazi period.
The Federal Republic of Germany today maintains a large, modern military and has one of the highest defence budgets in the world.
[edit] Japanese militarism
In parallel with 20th century Germany's 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's Sengoku Period or Age of Warring States where powerful samurai warlords or shogun 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, a nationalist style of militarism came in under the Meiji Restoration. It is exemplified by the 1882 Imperial Rescript to Soldiers and Sailors. Still, there was a distinct change, roughly in the 1920s, from two main factors. One was the Cabinet Law that required the Army and Navy to name serving officers as Army and Navy Minister before a cabinet could be formed, essentially giving the military a veto over any cabinet in the ostensibly parliamentary country. Another factor was gekokujo, or institutionalized disobedience by junior officers [4]. It was not uncommon for radical junior officers to press for their goals, to the extent of assassinating seniors.
Centuries of civil wars have brought about rigid military rule and secured a place for the military in government affairs only to last until Japan's unconditional surrender in World War II after the United States brought about democracy to the once militaristic state. With this dictatorial power, Japan invaded the Republic of China in 1931 and overtook half of Chinese land within 11 years, and finally spread the Second World War to the Pacific by the Pearl Harbor Attack.
[edit] US militarism
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 nation to pursue an imperial policy in the Pacific and in the Caribbean and economic militarism to support the development of the new industrial economy. This reform was the result of a conflict between Neo-Hamiltonian Republicans and Jeffersonian-Jacksonian advocates over the proper administration of the state and direction of its foreign policy--between proponents of professionalism based on business management organizations and fuller local control by available figures-including amateurs.
After the end of the American Civil War the national army fell into disrepair. Reforms based on various European states including Imperial Britain, Imperial 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; it led to the development of professional military thinkers and cadre.
During this time the intellectual ideas of Social Darwinism propelled the development of an American Empire in the Pacific and Caribbean. This required modifications for a more efficient central government due to the added administration requirements.
The enlargement of the US army for the Spanish-American War was considered essential to the occupation and control of the new territories acquired from Spain in its defeat (Guam, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Cuba). 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.
Again, US forces were enlarged immensely for the First World War. Officers such as George S. Patton were permanent captains at the start of the war and received temporary promotions to colonel.
Between the first and second world wars, the US Marine Corps engaged in questionable activities in the Banana Wars in Latin America. Retired Major General Smedley Butler, at the time of his death the most decorated Marine, spoke strongly against a trend to what he considered trends toward fascism and militarism. The Latin American expeditions ended with Franklin D. Roosevelt's Good Neighbor Policy of 1934.
Roosevelt briefed Congress on what he described as a business 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. There is little evidence that any serious military coups were planned in the US. During the American Civil War those officers who were sympathetic to the Confederacy resigned their commissions rather than mutiny.
After the Second World War, there were major cutbacks, such that units responding early in the Korean War, under United Nations authority (e.g., Task Force Smith) were unprepared, and resulting in catastrophic performance. It should be noted that when Harry S. Truman fired Douglas MacArthur, the tradition of civilian control held and MacArthur left without any hint of military coup.
Serious permanent buildups were a result of the Cold War. Dwight D. Eisenhower, a retired top military commander elected as a civilian President, warned of the development of a military-industrial complex, more complex than many traditional ideas of militarism. In the Cold War, there emerged many civilian academics and industrial researchers, such as Henry Kissinger and Herman Kahn, that had significant input into the use of military force.
It has been argued that the United States has shifted to a state of neomilitarism since the end of the Vietnam 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.[5]
The Military budget of the United States for 2007 is estimated by the US Department of Defense to be $504 billion dollars [1].
[edit] Indian militarism
Rise of militarism in India dates back to the British Raj with the rise of several Indian independence movement armed organizations such as Indian National Army (INA) led by Subhash Chandra Bose. The INA played a crucial role on pressuring the British Raj after it occupied Andaman and Nicobar Islands with the help of Imperial Japan but the movement lost momentum due to lack of support by Indian National Congress, INA's dramatic defeat during Battle of Imphal and Bose's sudden death.
After India gained independence in 1947, tensions with neighboring Pakistan over Kashmir dispute also led to rise militarism in India which also saw a boost during the various events that led to the political integration of India. After the Sino-Indian War in 1962, India dramatically expanded its military prowess which helped India emerge victorious during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. The rise of Kashmiri insurgency and recent events such as the Kargil War assured that the Indian government remained committed to military expansion.
[edit] Israeli militarism
Israel's many security difficulties since the establishment of the State have led to a prominence of security in politics and civil society, resulting in many of Israel's top politicians being former high ranking military officials (partial list: Yitzhak Rabin, Ariel Sharon, Ezer Weizman, Ehud Barak, Shaul Mofaz, Moshe Dayan, Yitzhak Mordechai, Amram Mitzna).
The military culture of the Israel Defence Forces has been affected greatly by the civilian culture. Israeli culture is much less formal and regimented than most and this has spilled over into the military, especially since the vast majority of the officers and soldiers are reservists who bring their civilian background and behavioural norms into the army when they are mobilized (an example is the minimum of formality between separate ranks - commanders often being called by name rather than by rank by their subordinates, very little saluting except in ceremonies and such-like). Also the army has been entrusted with many civilian missions (social work, providing teachers in areas where they are lacking and so on), and this too has had its effect on the way army career personnel view the role of the army and their commitment to civilian society and norms (see [2]).
[edit] See also
- Antimilitarism
- Christian nonviolence
- Civilian control of the military
- List of military officers who have led divisions of a civil service
- Neomilitarism
- War theory
[edit] Notes
- ^ New Oxford American Dictionary (2007)
- ^ Online die.net dictionary
- ^ American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
- ^ "Strengths and Weaknesses in the Decision-Making Process"Craig AM in Vogel, EM (ed.), Modern Japanese Organization and Decision-Making, University of California Press, 1987.
- ^ Roberts, Alasdair. The Collapse of Fortress Bush: The Crisis of Authority in American Government. New York: New York University Press, 2008, 14 and 108-117.
[edit] References
- Bacevich, Andrew J. The New American Militarism. Oxford: University Press, 2005.
- Barr, Ronald J. "The Progressive Army: US Army Command and Administration 1870-1914." St. Martin's Press, Inc. 1998. ISBN 0-312-21467-7.
- Bond, Brian. War and Society in Europe, 1870-1970. McGill-Queen's University Press. 1985 ISBN 0-7735-1763-4
- Conversi, Daniele 2007 'Homogenisation, nationalism and war’, Nations and Nationalism, Vol. 13, no 3, 2007, pp. 1–24
- Ensign, Tod. America's Military Today. The New Press. 2005. ISBN 1-56584-883-7.
- Fink, Christina. Living Silence: Burma Under Military Rule. White Lotus Press. 2001. ISBN 1-85649-925-1.
- Frevert, Ute. A Nation in Barracks: Modern Germany, Military Conscription and Civil Society. Berg, 2004. ISBN 1-85973-886-9
- Huntington, Samuel P.. Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1981.
- 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.
- Shaw, Martin. Post-Military Society: Militarism, Demilitarization and War at the End of the Twentieth Century. Temple University Press, 1992.
- Tang, C. Comprehensive Notes on World History Hong Kong, 2004
- Vagts, Alfred. A History of Militarism. Meridian Books, 1959.
- Western, Jon. Selling Intervention and War. Johns Hopkins University Press. 2005. ISBN 0801881080