The world is becoming more anxious. Military topics come to the fore, and with it vocabulary. Citizens have to learn new terms. Among them is the word "militarist." This is a multifaceted, political definition, increasingly flashed in the media. In order not to get confused in the perception and understanding of the materials, it is necessary to own the lexical base of the topic of interest. Let's look at who a militarist is. Is it dangerous or not?
Let's dig into the dictionaries
It’s good that smart people work so that ordinary readers can deal with unfamiliar terms. Let's open any dictionary and see what the word "militarist" means. This is the one who maintains the appropriate policy, it is written there. Not much. Although it is clear that a person holding militaristic views is hardly a pacifist. Just the opposite. This person stands for the implementation of belligerent programs. That is, a person is a supporter of militarism. That is what is written in many sources. What does this mean in practice? Let's figure it out next. Read the examples below for a definition. A typical militarist believes that it is necessary to spend state funds on strengthening the armed forces. Already something specific!
What does the militarist think?
This, incidentally, applies to everyone. Perhaps the reader also adheres to the described views, only this term does not apply to itself. In fact, the militarist and the aggressor, as many have it, are not the same thing. The first advocates that the country must be defended. The second is for attacking the weak. True, is there a difference? However, sometimes an equal sign is placed between these concepts. It is generally accepted that a typical militarist has plans to seize states or territories. Moreover, most often his policy is implemented by military means. That is, the militarists are arming themselves for a specific purpose. They think that in this way they will strengthen their influence on neighboring countries and the world community as a whole . It turns out that the path of militarism is closely connected with aggression, pressure, an increase in the role in the geopolitical arena. Interestingly, this term is directly related to economics, although at first glance it does not seem so.
Militaristic state
We have already found out that the advocates of the described views tend to arm themselves. For this, as a rule, you need a lot of money. But not only. Indeed, in the global world, other countries will try to limit the excessively ardent supporter of militarization. No one wants to become an object of attack after a certain time. Therefore, the militarists in power seek to develop their own military industry. They build factories, stimulate science, of course, train soldiers and officers. Society also needs to be directed accordingly.
After all, people will not support a government that does strange things. The rulers of such a hypothetical state have to invent (or appoint) an enemy. Then the corresponding legend is born. Under it are selected facts from history. All this spins the propaganda machine. The people are aware that it is necessary to tighten their belts and engage in arming the country. After all, "the enemy does not sleep"!
The benefits of militarism
The information provided is strictly hypothetical. It does not describe any of the existing states. Although some do not disdain the policy of militarism. We have looked at this problem from one side only. There is a second, so to speak, progressive. To understand it, we turn to the history of Russia. Before the Great Patriotic War, the USSR was often accused of militarism. It is no secret that the country's leadership did everything possible to quickly develop the military-industrial complex and create a modern army. And it brought its hearths. The USSR, though with difficulty, but defeated Nazi Germany, destroyed the "brown plague." And if a country at that time was led by a person holding different views, in what world would we live now? When there is a real aggressor no matter who you are, a pacifist or a militarist, you need to take care of the interests of the people, and not talk about peace. It turns out that contrary to popular belief about the negativity of the desire to strengthen the armed forces, this policy can save the country from complete destruction.
A fine line
You know, in the real world, militarism is losing its original meaning. Weapons become so dangerous and expensive that their very possession makes the state invincible. Nobody wants to get involved, try not to argue. This, incidentally, has been used by the United States for the past twenty years, and even now its president calls the country "exclusively." But the whole world agreed that the States would become keepers of the world. And after several decades they have turned from a real aggressor. The countries in which they unleashed armed conflicts are numerous. US politicians have crossed that fine line that separates defenders from unscrupulous war heaters. It turns out that militarism is a very dangerous thing. If there is a weapon, then it "will certainly shoot", as the classics said. On the other hand, in the modern world one cannot do without it. You will easily fall prey to a stronger and better armed man.