Thepast few weeks have seen the marking of the end of the Second World War. Thus it seems timely to examine one of the chief causes of this war, as well as of the Great War which preceded it: The creed of militarism.
The word "militarism" has acquired in our age quite negative connotations, and its very mention is enough in some circles to bring on uncomfortable silence. Yet it would pay to examine the idea with the aim of discerning what possible attractions militarism might have had to have swayed so many in the first half of this century.
First of all, what exactly is militarism? The Oxford English Dictionary gives its meaning to be "The spirit and tendencies characteristic of the professional soldier; the prevalence of military sentiment or ideals among a people ... the tendency to regard military efficiency as the paramount interest of the state ... a military habit or mannerism."Most reference books have simply nothing to say on the matter, so taboo and outdated has the idea come to seem.
Armed(a pardonable pun) with the OED's definition of the term, we quickly proceed to an examination of its history. The glorification of war above all else in life is not a new phenomenon: virtually all kings of the ancient middle east commissioned large friezes inscribed with boasts of how many enemies they smote. Sparta, that state which so captured Plato's admiration, was organized on the basis of a warrior elite, and it is not for the ideas and cultural achievements of the Spartans that they are known. But militarism as I wish to talk about it, namely the prevalence of a military spirit amongst a people as a whole, and not just an elite, is a peculiarly modern occurrence.
We need look back no further than the French Revolutionary wars for the origin of this type of militarisation. The Revolutionary wars were unique in the extent to which they made war a national activity, not just the sport of kings they had tended to be. For the first time in European history a whole people were mobilized in active support of war, with mass armies and "grand strategy" making their first appearance. The sheer scale of this new method of warfare meant that states, unlike before, now had to target the people and resources of adversary nations, while drumming up enthusiasm for conflicts amongst their own people. When this was combined with the nationalism which swept Europe in the wake of Napoleon, the result was the rise of states such as Prussia, which had few qualms about the continuation of diplomacy by this violent means.
In Prussia one has the epitome of the militarized state, and in Prince Otto von Bismarck, its most impressive advocate. It was Bismarck who said "The great questions of the day will not be decided by speeches and resolutions of majorities, but by blood and iron," and for his period in office at least, he was right. Victory after victory came to Bismarck's militarized Prussia, culminating on January 18, 1871, in the coronation of King Wilhelm I in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles. While with hindsight it may seem obvious that this road would only lead to disaster, to Bismarck's contemporaries, Prussia's successes must have seemed a total vindication of realpolitik and militarism.
There was more to the lure of militarism than Prussia's success, however. The ideas of duty, honor and self-sacrifice appealed to the honorable elements in man's nature, while the promise of an outlet for unrestrained hostility appealed to the baser aspects of men. When this is coupled with the pomp and circumstance associated with things military, it can make for a very attractive mixture. The sight of smart, disciplined soldiers stepping to the "Grand March" fromVerdi's Aida or saluting to Copland's "Fanfare for the Common Man" can have quite strong appeal. When one adds in all the monuments to past wars, such as those that litter Washington DC. or the Crimea monument in London, a heady brew of romanticism, nostalgia and patriotism can be the result.
Even disregarding the outer trappings of military life, the sense of purpose which militarism brings can prove quite welcome, especially in unsettled ages when old ways are rapidly changing. To young men without roots or direction, service in the armed forces can bring them a feeling ofbelonging which is absent in a cosmopolitan, multifaceted world. The life of the military fanatic is in one sense enviable, in that there is no room for doubt or gray areas. Such was the case for a young man called Hitler. A failure in civil life, the Great War brought Hitler camaraderie and recognition in the form of the Iron Cross: little wonder then that he was so favorably disposed to aggression.
The dangers posed by militarism seem remote in the Post-Cold War era, yet who knows what circumstances will bring? The need for moral simplicity and an orderly, disciplined, hierarchical society still haunts many today. If history is a guide, we have not seen the last of the jackboots.
