Militarization is the formation of large industrial. Militarization is a term and concept. Conflicts between unofficially organized groups that have developed along ethnic, clan, religious, national or tribal lines

Under the Versailles Peace Treaty, Germany was prohibited from having tank formations and an air force. But very soon the world started talking about the fact that the factories of the former cannon king of Germany, Krupp, were producing "baby carriages that could be quickly turned into a machine gun," and German design bureaus were developing new tank designs instead of tractor models.
The USSR helped in the training of qualified pilots and tank crews in Germany. Pilots were trained in Lipetsk, and tankers were trained in Kazan. At the same time, one of the first marshals of the USSR, M.N. Tukhachevsky, improved his military qualifications in Germany.
Hitler came to power under the slogan: "Down with the chains of Versailles!"
The truce was fragile. Already in the early 30s, the world was faced with the specter of World War II, which the world stubbornly refused to notice. The first hotbeds of war appeared: Japan conquered China, Italy conquered Ethiopia.
In 1936, Hitler and Mussolini took part in the Spanish Civil War. It was in Spain that the interests of Hitler and Stalin clashed openly for the first time. War 1936 - 1939 in Spain was in some way a test of combat power, a show of the latest technology of the two great powers.
Against this background, spy mania arose. The Pravda newspaper of June 11, 1937 wrote: “Thousands and tens of thousands of spies and intelligence officers are sending the capitalist states to each other.
Using the brightest historical examples, Comrade Stalin, in his report at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (Bolsheviks) on March 3, 1937, showed and proved: there is every reason, from the point of view of Marxism, to suppose that bourgeois states should send twice, three times more wreckers to the rear of the Soviet Union, spies, saboteurs and murderers than in the rear of any bourgeois state. "
In his first speech to the leading generals of the Wehrmacht on February 3, 1933 (in Berlin), it was declared that the goal of his policy was “to regain political power. All state leadership (all bodies!) Should be aimed at this. " In the same speech, he outlined the outlines of his program.

“I, Inside the Country. Complete transformation of the current internal political conditions in Germany. Do not tolerate any activity of carriers of thoughts that contradict this goal (pacifism!). He who does not change his views should be crushed. Destroy Marxism by the roots. Education of young people and the whole people in the sense that only struggle can save us ... Death sentences for betraying the state and people. The most brutal authoritarian state leadership. Cancer elimination - democracy. In foreign policy terms. Fight against Versailles. Equality in Geneva; it is meaningless if the people are not in the mood to fight. Acquisition of allies. Economy! The peasant must be saved! Colonization policy!
The development of new lands is the only opportunity to partially reduce the army of the unemployed again ... The construction of the Wehrmacht is the most important prerequisite for achieving the goal - the conquest of political power. Compulsory military service must be reintroduced. But first, the state leadership must make sure that the military before conscription are not already infected with pacifism, Marxism, Bolshevism, or at the end of their service they are not poisoned with this poison.
How should we use political power when we acquire it? It is still impossible to say now. Perhaps the conquest of new sales markets, perhaps - and perhaps this is better - the seizure of a new living space in the East and its merciless Germanization. "
After the establishment of the fascist dictatorship, the German economy began to undergo restructuring. Fascist Germany was preparing for war. In the secret law "On the defense of the empire", adopted on May 21, 1935, it was stated that the general commissioner in the field of war economy Schacht should "put all economic forces at the service of the war." This was consistent with a whole system of measures aimed at organizing the mass production of weapons and military materials and reducing peaceful industries.

Germany spent colossal sums on armaments. Funds for this were obtained through a continuous increase in taxes, the use of insurance funds for unemployment, disability and old age, compulsory fees "for winter aid", "air fleet", "for air defense."
Germany sought to reduce food imports and expand exports in every possible way in order to provide the necessary amount of currency for the ever-increasing import of strategic raw materials: iron and copper ore, lead, oil, bauxite, etc. In 1934, a new Schacht plan was put into effect, according to which the import of any materials or food could take place in a centralized manner, provided the Reichsbank provided the necessary currency.
German exports began to grow, and from 1935 some excess of exports over imports was achieved.
In August 1936, Hitler outlined a broad program of measures in a memorandum on economic preparations for the war. He began by declaring that "Germany will always be considered as the main center of the Western world in repelling the Bolshevik onslaught" and that in Europe "there are only two states that can seriously oppose Bolshevism - these are Germany and Italy ... And in general, apart from Germany and Italy, only Japan can be considered a force capable of withstanding the global threat. "
Hitler argued that if the German armed forces in the shortest possible time are not turned into the most powerful army in the world, then Germany will perish. "In this case, the principle applies: what will be missed in a few months in peace, it will be impossible to make up for centuries."
In September 1936, at a regular congress of fascist parties in Nuremberg, Hitler proclaimed a "four-year plan" that was supposed to ensure autarky ("self-satisfaction") of the German economy, i.e. complete independence from foreign markets. Goering, the author of the slogan "guns instead of butter", was put at the head of the "department of the four-year plan". This department began to carry out active activities to limit consumption and organized the production of some types of local raw materials and substitutes - synthetic rubber, synthetic gasoline, artificial
natural fiber. The "four-year plan" did not live up to the hopes placed on it. A year later, at a secret meeting of military leaders, Hitler admitted that the achievement of autarky in a number of decisive types of raw materials, as well as in food, was unrealistic.
For the purpose of militarization, agriculture was placed under the control of the leadership of the so-called imperial food class, the main body of the fascist state for the "regulation" of agriculture.
State "regulation" provided for the transformation of each peasant into a "soldier of the supply front", obliged to sow what the leaders of the "imperial food class" dictated. Agricultural products were strictly registered, and the peasant had to hand over most of it at extremely low prices. Not only every peasant cow was registered, but every chicken as well.
According to the 1937 law "On ensuring normal farming", even the so-called hereditary yard could be taken away from the owner for failure to comply with the instructions of the "imperial food class". The mandatory delivery of all grain was introduced, which caused especially strong discontent among the peasants, since most of the peasant farms in Germany had a livestock bias. The peasants usually did not produce grain for sale.
Military factories worked in three shifts, and workers in the light, food and a number of other industries were employed for an incomplete week. Enterprises producing consumer goods completely stopped working due to the lack of imported raw materials.
The 1934 law "On the organic structure of the German economy" created six imperial economic groups: industry, trade, banks, insurance, energy, handicrafts, to which dozens of sectoral and territorial economic groups were subordinate. The largest German industrialists - Schroeder, Krupp and others - were placed at the head of the imperial groups as "Fuhrer" with broad powers.
State entrepreneurship has taken on significant proportions. The Hermann Goering Werke Concern, founded in 1937, quickly became one of the largest industrial associations in Germany.

Hundreds of thousands of small business owners have gone bankrupt as a result of government regulations on the import and distribution of raw materials.

The unification of Germany gave the strongest impetus to her economic and political development.

The German Reichstag adopted a series of laws aimed at strengthening the unity of the empire and the general imperial state apparatus. In 1871-73. a single gold currency was introduced, which unified the monetary system in Germany. In 1874, the general imperial post office was established. In 1875, civil and criminal codes uniform for the whole country were adopted. Throughout the 70s. there was also the formation of the imperial system of government, the organization of which was not provided for by the Constitution. During this period, a number of sectoral government bodies - ministries - arose: foreign affairs (1871), imperial railways (1873), justice (1877), internal affairs (1879).

The formation of a single internal market, the establishment of administrative and legal uniformity created the prerequisites for the rapid development of the economy. The industrial revolution in Germany as a whole began relatively late. But this circumstance also contained a number of advantages. It coincided with major scientific and technical discoveries and the widespread introduction of progressive technological processes into production. Therefore, industrialization in Germany took place taking into account the advanced experience of developed countries, and the industry was built on the basis of modern technologies. New inventions were introduced into communications technology, electrical engineering, organic chemistry, etc. The structure of industry was changing, new industries related to the production of machines, electrical engineering, chemistry, etc. arose and developed rapidly. At the same time, heavy industry developed more intensively than others and dominated over other sectors economically. This allowed Germany over the past quarter of a century to turn into a strong capitalist power and to advance to first place in Europe in terms of industrial production.

A characteristic feature of the development of capitalism in Germany in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. were not only the high rates of industrialization, but also the accelerated process of the growth of capitalism into imperialist with the rule of monopolies and financial oligarchy.

High rates of industrialization of the country, concentration and; centralization of industry and capital led to changes in the structure of German capitalism. The emerging interweaving of industrial capital with banks contributed to the formation of financial and industrial oligarchy, subjugated almost the entire economy of the country. Having concentrated in her hands the key positions in the economy, she began to exert a significant influence on the domestic and foreign policy of her state. The need for new sources of raw materials and sales markets pushed the German financial and industrial oligarchy towards colonial conquests.

The desires of the big bourgeoisie coincided with the policy of the German Junkers, which sought to create a military-police state with a huge army and a powerful navy. The unification of Germany on a Prussian basis led to the fact that the military system that had long been established in Prussia began to spread throughout the country. A huge part of the budget went to the maintenance of the army and the police, whose powers to maintain "order" were steadily expanding. The political system of the united Germany allowed the military institutions to concentrate considerable power in their hands, influencing the general political course and the solution of specific issues.

The presence of a huge, well-trained army, combined with the economic aspirations of the financial and industrial oligarchy, allowed Germany to create its colonial empire in a short time and at the same time expand its economic expansion in the Ottoman Empire, China, and South America.

Changes in the economic sphere had a significant impact on the social structure of German society. Political parties have become the expression of the interests of various strata of the population.

The interests of large cadets expressed the Conservative Party. She opposed the expansion of the competence of the imperial authorities and was a protective one for feudal vestiges and privileges.

The main political force supporting the course of the imperial government was the party "Free conservatives" or imperial. The social base of this party was formed by the cadets and the financial-industrial oligarchy. From this party, the imperial government of Bismarck was mainly formed.

Another pillar of the government was the party national liberals, expressing the interests of the big and partly the middle bourgeoisie.

Some opposition was shown by the party of the petty and middle bourgeoisie - the party progressives. She opposed an increase in the army and military spending, for some democratization of public life.

The interests of the working class and petty bourgeois strata were represented by social democratic the consignment. The influence of this party in the working class steadily increased from year to year, which was reflected in the elections to the Reichstag.

Under the circumstances, Bismarck, who was the permanent chancellor of the empire from 1871 to 1890, led through the Reichstag the so-called exceptional law. Under this law, which was in effect until 1890, all socialist organizations were dissolved, the dissemination of socialist ideas was prohibited, and membership in such organizations was punishable by imprisonment and a large fine. However, Bismarck understood that the influence of the new party was due to the plight of the working class. Using the carrot and stick method, he initiated laws aimed at improving the position of the working class. In 1883 a law on health insurance was passed, in 1884 accident insurance was introduced, and in 1889 a law on insurance for disability and old age. Despite this, he failed to achieve a weakening of the influence of the socialists among the working class. In 1884, in the elections, despite the party's ban, 24 socialists were elected to the Reichstag, and in 1890 20% of the voters already voted for them.

Thus, by the beginning of the XX century. Germany turned into an economically developed, militaristic state in which the weak shoots of democracy were barely breaking through. The militaristic interests of the financial and industrial oligarchy will push Germany into a war for the redivision of the world. In World War I, Germany suffered a crushing defeat, and the empire ceased to exist.

Militarization- actions of state bodies in the sphere of economy, politics and society, aimed at building up the military power of the state.

Militarization- "militarized economy", when the state allocates most of the budget for the production of military equipment, paying much less attention to other goods.

Militarization- subordination of the economic and social life of the state (states) to the goals of preparing for war; transfer of the methods of military organization to the field of civil relations.

Militarization- subordination of the country's economic, political and social life to military goals.

Militarization can be used to create jobs, improve industry. Adolf Hitler found such a use for improving the economy in Germany after the First World War.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what "Militarization" is in other dictionaries:

Militarization, militarization, many others. no, wives. Action according to Ch. militarize. The militarization of the railways. Industry militarization. Ushakov's explanatory dictionary. D.N. Ushakov. 1935 1940 ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

Militarization Dictionary of Russian synonyms. militarization n., number of synonyms: 2 militarization (2) ... Synonym dictionary

militarization- and, w. militarisation f. The spread of militarism; strengthening the role of the military factor in what l. branches of activity, life. M. country. M. space. M. teaching the younger generation. The militarization of schools. RB 1913 3 297. The Congress resolutely rejects ... ... Historical Dictionary of Russian Gallicisms

Militarize, ruin, ruy; anny; owls. and not sov. that. Subordinate (nyat) (economy, industry) to the goals of militarism. Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 ... Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

- (from Latin militaris military) English. militarization; German Militarisierung. Subordination of all spheres of society to the goals of the military. 2. Application of forms and methods of military organization in different areas of society. econom. life. Antinazi. ... ... Encyclopedia of Sociology

- (lat. militaris military) the subordination of economic, political in public life to the goals of militarism. New dictionary of foreign words. by EdwART, 2009. militarization [Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

G. Subordination of the economy, politics and public life of the state to military goals; implementation of militaristic policy, militarism. Efremova's Explanatory Dictionary. T.F. Efremova. 2000 ... Modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language by Efremova

Militarization, militarization, militarization, militarization, militarization, militarization, militarization, militarization, militarization, militarization, militarization, militarization, militarization (Source: “Full accentuated paradigm ... ... Forms of words

militarization- militarization, and ... Russian spelling dictionary

militarization- (1 g), R., D., Pr. militarism / tion ... Spelling dictionary of the Russian language

Books

• The militarization of the FRG, A.F. Zaletny. The monograph provides a critical analysis of the process of militarization of the Federal Republic of Germany. Particular attention is paid to the characteristics of the armed forces, the impact of militarization on the economy, ...
• Black Silence, Yuri Glazkov. 1987 edition. The preservation is very good. The book of science fiction works by cosmonaut Yuri Glazkov is mainly devoted to the space theme. There are also warning stories about how to ...

The dynamic and active development of civilization and society over the past few centuries has significantly replenished the vocabulary of mankind with a variety of concepts and terms. The concept of "militarization" also belongs to them. In fact, this is far from a new phenomenon, but it has begun to manifest itself especially vividly over the past few centuries in history. Many political scientists, sociologists and historians speak about this concept. What is militarization?

The main essence

This concept covers a fairly wide range of phenomena. In fact, militarization is a process characterized by the adaptation and change of the economy, scientific and technological progress, public, political and social spheres to the concept of militarism, which becomes the main and sometimes the only ideology at the state and legislative level. Militarism is a doctrine that is expressed in the need to actively build up an impressive military potential, improve weapons, and develop the art of war. Militarization is a justification for the use of predominantly military force in external and internal conflicts, since it is the solution of issues with the help of force in this doctrine that is the main one.

The history of the development of the term

Militarization is a concept that originated in the middle of the nineteenth century in France. The word itself comes from the French militarisme, which translated into Russian means "military". This term characterized the state of affairs in France during the reign of Napoleon III. Closer to the beginning of the twentieth century, this word has become very firmly established in the lexicon of historians and political scientists. At that time, political, territorial and economic contradictions between the largest capitalist states were in the stage of open military confrontation. The militarization of society and the economy at that time reached its limit. The process affected the social and political structure of the leading countries of the world and moved at an alarming pace.

Main features

Militarization is a globally ambiguous process for the states in which it takes place. The main feature is the translation of the economic system "on a war footing". This is done to ensure a rapid increase in the country's military potential, which determines the success in military competition and an arms race between rival states. On the one hand, militarization leads to an increase in budget spending on the military industry, the maintenance and support of a large army, weapons, the development of new types of weapons and strategies. Taken together, this leads to a decrease in the allocated funds for the development of social, cultural and social spheres of life. On the other hand, such a doctrine prevailing in the mood of society is capable of extremely stimulating design and research activities in all areas of technology and science: mechanics, electronics, computer science, nuclear physics, and so on.

Is militarization evil or good?

As general conclusions, it can be argued that militarization is the penetration of military ideology into virtually all spheres of life of society and the country, the transfer of its economic system, financial system, ideology, political vectors, the vast majority of technical and engineering directions, scientific discoveries and research into exclusively military channel. Naturally, this process actively stimulates technical and scientific progress, raises the rating of aggressive politicians and public figures, enhances the country's defense capability, increases its importance in the world arena, however, it severely depletes resources within the state itself, hinders the comprehensive development and harmonious existence of social, social and cultural traditions.

The level of militarization of the economy. World economic development until the 90s was characterized by a significant level of militarization. The burden of military spending under the influence of geopolitical changes decreased to 4.2% of the GDP in 1998 (6.7% in 1985). The number of people employed directly in military production fell to 11.1 million people. The largest decline took place in Eastern European countries and in developing countries.

Protection against a possible external attack is one of the most important functions of the state. However, the accumulated stocks of nuclear missile, chemical, and bacteriological weapons still many times exceed defense requirements. The process of accumulating weapons of mass destruction no longer meets its main goal of suppressing the enemy, but casts doubt on the very further existence of man on Earth. The NATO countries in 1994, the number of combat aircraft and tanks exceeded the 1980 level by 8 and 20%.

In terms of the volume of military spending in the world, the leading place belongs to the developed countries

1985 - 51.2%, 1998 - 60%, and in this subsystem the share of NATO countries increased to 56.5%. If we evaluate the level of militarization of their economies by the share of GDP spent on the creation of weapons and the maintenance of the armed forces, then it remains quite high in the leading countries, fluctuating within 1-4% (USA - 3.8%, Japan

1%). The largest funds for military purposes are spent in the United States - about $ 300 billion, which is more than five times the expenditure of the PRC and seven times the expenditure of France, Japan, and Germany.

Western countries are purposefully striving to maintain their military advantage on a global and regional scale. While comparative advantage theory states that each participant benefits from trade, it also assumes that the stronger party gains more. The core of the "free world" system has always been the dominance of American military power. The desire of the Soviet Union to create military parity, movements and wars for national liberation were seen as a threat to the global system of the "free world" and were accompanied by military preparations and wars on the part of the West.

Military spending is justified by the need to protect Western values ​​in non-Western countries, human rights and national minorities in these countries, and the fight against terrorism. NATO's strategic concept provides for the possibility of using its armed forces outside the bloc's area of ​​responsibility and is aimed, in essence, at ensuring a new world order.

Military spending in developing countries has steadily increased, mainly due to the countries of East and South Asia. The highest share of military spending in GDP is observed in Saudi Arabia - 13.5%. Large scale military spending is an unaffordable luxury for countries where almost all major development problems have not yet been resolved. The World Bank estimates that a third of the external debt of some of the leading developing countries can be attributed to arms imports.

The impact of military spending on economic development. In terms of their size, military spending exceeds many items for civilian purposes: education, health care, and the economy. They amounted to 15.5% in 1983, 11.5% in 1993, and

16.6% of global government spending.

The main stimulators of the military build-up are the military-industrial complexes (MIC), consisting of the largest companies producing weapons, the military elite, parts of the state apparatus, scientific institutions, ideological structures, which are all united by common interests. Both international and national military-industrial complexes do not have a clearly defined structure and fixed status, but they have a serious impact on the adoption of military-political and military-economic decisions. Their core is made up of military-industrial concerns, which are especially interested in a steady demand for military products.

At the heart of the process of militarization is the war economy associated with the production, distribution, exchange and consumption of special products designed to meet the military needs of the state. The funds allocated by the state for military needs are neither a social nor an economic good. The military purged does not serve neither for the production of means of production, nor for satisfying the people's needs. Therefore, the diversion of material resources for military purposes directly damages the socio-economic well-being of nations. True, there are statements of a different order. They are based on the Keynesian provision on the stimulating effect of government spending on the level of national income, regardless of which sector of the economy is increasing investment activity and employment.

Indeed, military demand can revive the economy for a while, but ultimately militarization creates many problems for economic development. A comparative analysis of a number of researchers in different countries has shown that spending on the formation of social capital (building roads, housing, etc.) has almost twice the positive effect on economic growth (the level of national income) than stimulating the military industry.

The growth in military spending is one of the reasons for the increase in the budget and the formation of budget deficits, which are covered mainly by issuing government securities. As the experience of the previous decades has shown, the deficit financing of military expenditures not only does not contribute to the stabilization of the economy, but in the long-term aspect it turned out to be a factor that intensifies the imbalance of various parts of the economy. Under certain conditions, the issuance of government securities to cover or reduce the budget deficit leads to an increase in interest rates. This means an increase in the cost of a loan, which leads to a slowdown in the investment process. In the context of the internationalization of economic life, the negative role of budget deficits in countries with a multiplier effect negatively affects the state of the world economy.

Increased spending on military R&D reduces opportunities for economic growth and development. Military research and development absorbs 26% of the world's research spending, which is approximately 10% of total military spending. They employ 1/4 of the world's scientists and engineers. A number of Western economists emphasize the leading role of military R&D in determining the direction of development of science and technology. In their opinion, military R&D solves technical problems, the results of which are subsequently used to introduce the latest technological processes into production. But this does not take into account that the use of the results of scientific and technical progress to build up the arms race is an unproductive waste of productive forces. Military research limits scientific research to tasks and characteristics that are not necessary for civilian use. Only 10-20% of military R&D in recent years has found civilian use. However, over the past fifty years, this figure has been declining. Adapting the results of military R&D for peaceful purposes requires additional research and development.

Country end use of military finance is also important to economic development. Thus, approximately 95% of the US Department of Defense budget is spent in American industry, while over 80% of the military budgets of small NATO countries are spent outside these states. From this it follows that the same percentage increase in defense spending is more painful for the economy of small countries, which, moreover,

They have fewer opportunities for organizing an independent military industry.

Developing countries that do not have a military industry experience the same adverse effect on their economies. They get the least benefit from increased military spending. It is more difficult for them to use the scientific research achievements available to the military sector in civilian industries. An increase in military spending inevitably leads to a reduction in investment here and, on the whole, impedes economic growth.

Major arms suppliers. Large industrial countries compensate for part of their military expenditures on the production of weapons and military equipment through foreign supplies on a commercial basis. The volume of export deliveries in the 90s fell sharply: by 1.5 times compared to the mid-80s (Table 14.5).

There have also been significant changes in the composition of the largest suppliers. The deliveries to the USSR / RF dropped absolutely and relatively sharply. In the mid-1980s, military supplies from the USSR exceeded American ones, and at the end of the 1990s, Russian military exports were nine times inferior to American ones. The United States accounts for half of the world's arms supplies.

In many parts of the world, an understanding of the need to demilitarize the economy and re-convert military production is maturing. The conversion of the war economy to the production of peaceful products is associated with significant difficulties. They are associated not only with the technological reorientation of the production capacities of military enterprises, but also with a significant retraining of the labor force, which requires large funds. Studies show that as a result of the reduction in 17 countries with the largest military budgets in 1994-2002. military spending by 1/4 in the first five-year period is expected to decrease the growth of world product to more than 1% and an increase in the unemployment rate in industrialized countries by 0.3-0.7%. Then the growth of the gross regional product will return to the previous level, mainly under the influence of the growth of trade.

The transition of the military industry to a peaceful track affects not only the problems of economic growth and employment. The need for it is dictated by the needs of solving environmental, demographic and other problems that have long gone beyond the framework of national states.