This   level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

The first question is whether a respected dictionary will normally provide a 'neutral point of view'. Actually, this is a little misleading - dictionaries do not provide points of view, they describe the meanings of words. The definitions which are quoted in the article are from respected dictionaries.

The question then seems to become, does a certain range of phenomena at the national and international level correspond to the dictionaries definition(s). The only contentious case in this article is of course that of the USA. It might be helpful if those who question the applicability of the definitions to the USA declare their national affiliations, due to the possibility of conflicts of interest.

In the case of potential human rights violations, Amnesty International has a way of dealing with such contention, by assigning specific nationalities to specific regions where conflicts of interest are least likely.

In this case, the best guess is that those who claim that the application of the definition(s) to the USA is not neutral are likely themselves not neutral, because citizens of the country at issue.

Nevertheless, the 'point of view' issue really is a red herring: the question of whether a definition of this kind fits a set of well-documented phenomena is a straightforwardly factual question.

Let's not beat around the bush here. Did we need to wait 20 years after the end of World War Two to decide that Germany had been an example of militarism?

Can this be NPOV'd? (The POV is one I tend to agree with, but it is a point of view.)

Sure, by focusing a little more on history, and a little less on what happened in the last 15 minutes. The Romans were successfully militaristic for the better part of a thousand years,

Hoom. Hum. That's one measure of success, perhaps. We got a lot of culture from the Romans. Important political DNA. Worth noting. Hoom. Hmm. EntmootsOfTrolls

THE INTRODUCTION IS A SHAME .THE USA was THE COLDWAR S BIG PLAYER ,invaded IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN HAS GOT
THE WORLDS mOST POWERFUL ARMY and SpeNDs ENOUGH ON IT TO FEED THE EARTH 8 BILLION INHABITANTS EACH YEAR
AND NOT NOT IRAQ "UNDER HUSSEIN" SO IF SOVIET RUSSIA IS MENTIONED  YOU COULD AS WELL SLIP IN THE US;

BY FAR TODAY,s MOST MILITARISTIC SUPERPOWER

I am told that official Chinese government documents say flatly that the U.S. is pursuing exactly the Roman strategy: bread and circuses, absolute power for the Roman Emperor, a fawning Roman Senate consisting of patricians, and all the pomp and ceremony of elections for key posts - back to Augustus Caesar who retained all forms of the Roman Republic. EntmootsOfTrolls

Germans and Japanese in the late 19th century are interesting because we get to see how it ended.

Yes, it ended in extreme pacifism after crushing military defeat after only five or six generations. Worth noting. Hoom. Hum. EntmootsOfTrolls

My suggestion is to delete most of the US stuff, too immediate for anybody to be neutral about it, and revisit US militarism twenty years from now, see how it looks then. 1/2 :-) Stan 19:16 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

Assessment of the U.S. is too hasty by far, yes. But accusations must be put in context, or we lose our relevance. Agreed that modern militarism must be assessed differently from historical, with different mesaures applied. So a recent-history versus ancient-history may do best. We can't really measure "public support" for Roman Emperors so implying it's a general measure of all forms of militarism is weak, but we do in fact know a lot about public opinion from mid-19th-century to present. EntmootsOfTrolls

Another article on evidence of U.S. militarism could be started for the too-recent stuff, if it just doesn't fit well in the new article. Hm? EntmootsOfTrolls

I mention Romans, Germans, and Japanese, because in the case of the Romans, the militaristic strategy was extremely successful, not only bringing to an end the two centuries of instability that was part of Alexander's legacy to the Greek world, but going on to maintain peace for centuries more. It was so stunningly successful that it was looked upon nostalgically by Europeans until the beginning of the modern age. So at least that bit of historical evidence suggests that militarism can be a route to long-term stability and peace. The German and Japanese experience suggests that it can also go horribly wrong in a hurry. I don't think an encyclopedia article can do much more than define the concept and list examples that have been thoroughly studied and agreed upon by historians and political scientists. Stan 02:17 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)

Blaming the Prussians for German militarism is a stale, outdated idea. And there are no citations for this section. -- AJH ( talk) 19:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply

This article isn't balanced at all. Many more, if not all modern nations can be deemed "militaristic" by the (non-existent) criteria incoherently laid out in this ridiculous article. Let's talk about militarism where it's adopted as official state policy, such as in pre-WWII Japan. It's simply ludicrous to lump the US and Israel in with Japan. The United States portion in particular is a pile of rubbish, composed of selectively chosen facts, chosen to portray a narrative of a militaristic United States. It's ludicrous. Furthermore, where are the citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.216.233 ( talk) 19:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

This article is a disgrace. The most militaristic nation of history, the United Kingdom, is hardly dealt with at all. The content is largely allied war propaganda used for putting down Japan and Germany.-- 2001:4C50:12D:2600:1DA9:418E:EA95:8202 ( talk) 13:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC) reply

I think this entry too thinly veils the opinions of the author, and should be edited accordingly. Discussing modern issues is fine, in my opinion, if it can be done without any noticeable bias. As a side note, I enjoy hearing peoples opinions about subjects, and would love a link to/portion of each article which could involve some debate and opinion posting.

---

about the "Where does the word come from"

isn't that kind of obvious? if not, the whole 'equation' thing doesn't seem very professionally written..

Please sign your entries so we can keep track of the conversation. You do that by typing four tildes. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

After comparison of the original and current forms of this article the overwhelming methods of establishing NPOV have been obfuscation of direct statements and removal of information rather than the clarification of concepts. I propose that we make a concerted effort to refine the varied aspects of militarism (historical and concurrent instances, economic causes and effects, political implications, etc.) regardless of any nationalist sensitivities and with global scope to ensure NPOV while providing greater substance for this article.

For example? Deryc k C. 00:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Under new account. For example, this segment modified for clarity and NPOV:

Militarism tends to be defined in recent times as the direct opposition to peace. However, historically it carried a different meaning as reference to nations with a paramount military focus-particularly those that engaged in Imperialism; e.g. Empire of Japan, British Empire, Third Reich, New Roman Empire of Mussolini, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under Stalin, Iraq under Saddam Hussein. This historic definition continues to be used in the present day to refer to both nations with modern militaries requiring substantially higher budgets to maintain than the average among nations (Israel, United States, Kuwait) and to developing nation-states devoting substantial portions of their GDPs to accumulate such forces (North Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Saudi Arabia). Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_cap# Militärwissenschaften 02:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Anymore help needed? I'm always here to help. Deryc k C. 14:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Certainly. A rewrite will require the removal of vast swaths of information from the current article (to eliminate redundancy, etc); as I understand it this requires often lengthy discussion to justify. A relation of rewrite/expansion of the article and objection/justification on this talk page between we who are currently active in editing this article can only improve it and might serve to offset troll reverts and vandalism. Certainly greater expansion to cover more occurrences of observed militarism in history are required (Danish, Swedish, English, French, perhaps reference to Prussia and northern confederation member states of pre-Germany, perhaps reference to pre-unification states in the area that became China, etc.). Perhaps a description of the contributory relation between many of these occurrences (Napoleon's occupation spurring onset of greater German nationalism, description of continental power concentrations, etc.), or at least a theoretical framework for identification of militarist deviance in a nation (Size, funding, development of forces in varied aspects) should be provided to unify such descriptions? What are your thoughts on the development and inclusion of this sort of information in a new form of the article? Militärwissenschaften 17:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

To be frank, I don't understand much about the definition and contents of "militarism" as stated here. My work on this article is to associate the Jap. militarism during WW2, which is usually known as the "narrow sense" of militarism, with the "wide militarism" here. Deryc k C. 13:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

---

"the loosely allied Anglo-Saxon powers led by the United States and Australia" Since when is Western Anglo-Saxon nations led by... Australia? I can see it's important for their continent but it only has a population of 20 million and follows the United States more than leading any other nation on its own... The United States alone seems to hold the reins for us. (I'm not just saying that being biased towards American... I'm Canadian.)

Can't verify your argument. D e ryc k C. 07:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply

---

Post Deleted. -- Shenshuai 21:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC) reply

---

"A rewrite will require the removal of vast swaths of information" - "information" is perhaps a strong word in the context of this article. As for removing "vast swaths," I'm all for it as nothing would be better than this... Jmdeur ( talk) 01:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Just a small note to editors who might be interested in this topic, I've expanded civilian control of the military a fair bit lately and am looking to send it to peer review soon; if anyone has any insights to its improvement before I take that next step, your comments are invited on the talk page. Thanks. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 00:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi, I removed the re-direct, and created an article for militarization. It's my first wikipedia article, based on reading I've done this semester. Since it is so closely related to this topic I though it would be appropriate to post here and see if anyone had any input on the article or redirect-removal. Thanks. gallen01 17:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

You did an extremely great job. I don't know much about militarization myself, so you may consider reading other articles to see how and what you can do to make your great article an even better one. Deryck C. 07:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Maybe an addition about Militarism in Israel? There is a section in the hebrew wikipedia i am willing to translate. -- UVnet 09:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Do it. Deryck C. 09:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Done. -- UVnet 09:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply

In the same vein, one could say something about ' warhawks' and ' chickenhawks' in the USA, and the focus around the candidates' military service in the 2004 campaigns. John Kerry military service controversy, George W. Bush military service controversy. Joffeloff 17:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply

"commanders often being called by name rather than by rank by their subordinates, very little saluting except in ceremonies and such-like" This statement is unsupported by sources and in my personal experience as an ex-IDF soldier I find it to be false. I saluted my commander every time I saw him, and if I dared called him anything but "commander"(let alone his private name) I would have been sent to jail for 7-14 days, and I wasn't even a combat soldier, where discipline is far greater. Even so, I do not feel comfortable removing parts of the article and I prefer to let others do it, so I have bumped the 'citation needed' a paragraph up to include it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.202.166 ( talk) 13:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply

For any who has read the popular Bob Hamburger book, RUP, I believe he is expousing (espousing?) a character trait of certain militarist groups when he goes into the point of talking of the 'ninja clans' he tried to join when he was young. He mentions that they were hard to find and tended to be secretive and highly selective of their memebers. Now tell me this, whoever happens to be ready to answer right now: Is this a sign of fascist pro-militarist groups, or is it a sign of socialist pro-militarist groups, or is it just grassroots legalism (if there even is such a thing?)? I'd like to know. Thanks! -- Shenshuai 21:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC) 1624 HRS ZONE EST 2124 HRS ZULU reply

I guess since they have no political affiliation mentioned, and to not use the term 'fascist' freely, we can just call them grassroots legalism. Whattaya say, EntmootsOfTrolls? -- Oakland University 21:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I have a problem with this sentence: The concept of profiteering is central to militarization, as it denotes the private collusion between military and business to profit excessively from a state of war, in violation of the public good. It is totally POV, it talks about "militarization" which is not precisely the same as militarism, and it is actually about the military-industrial complex which is a different issue entirely. It is a slanted leftist comment; a militarist would argue that military buildup is designed for security, not profit, and is not necessarily "in violation of the public good". I have taken the sentence out. Walton monarchist89 09:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not impressed by the first-person style of this section - viz. and yet Germany was the only one that we can say had a militaristic government. or Let us take a glance at the development of this sort of government. It's also getting a bit POV in places: We should perhaps consider as a third result the fact that the possession of such a splendid and efficient military machine tended to make its possessors arrogant and unyielding in their intercourse with other nations. The whole thing reads more like an assignment or an academic essay than an encyclopedia entry. I will wait 7 days, then if no one objects I will rewrite the section, taking some of this out. Walton monarchist89 09:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I have now rewritten it. Walton monarchist89 12:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I disagree security is the highest aim of a Militaristic society. My perception is it is discipline. Discipline enables the society work in orderly manner like a clockwork - with no dissidence, no negotiations, no playing solo. The German phrase Ordnung muss sein! (There must be order!) summarizes this view well. All militaries in the world are based on discipline - not on security - and the erosion of the discipline within the forces and within the society, is seen as sign of societal collapse.

Valid point, but surely security is also central to a militarist society; after all, the purpose of a military force is to protect and defend the security of a nation and its people. Anyway, I don't see how this can be worked into the article. By the way, please sign your contributions. Walton monarchist89 09:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

A very nice start, though perhaps it could be expanded a bit more in the general areas - how is militarism defined, how is it related to other ideologies, when/where was the term coined, etc. I applaud your careful and beautifully worded treatment of the question of Israeli militarism, and of course your inclusion of the discussion of German, Japanese, and other countries. Like "feudalism", "fascism" and countless other terms, "militarism" means something slightly different in each case it is applied to, and I think you've done a fine job of representing that. LordAmeth 09:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Sparta? Roman Empire? Huns? Russia/Soviet Union? Great Britain? Turkey? France? Arab world? Normally I agree with the notion that if you have a problem with an article then fix it however this is a worst case scenario. I am not an expert on "militarism" or the perseption of it but I do know that this page is a cop out. Let's glancingly mention everyone else but only highlight Germany and Japan (hell, after all they lost the war) and the US and Israel (the ones that everyone loves to hate today.) The fact that even small or stubbed sections have not been created speaks wonders. -- Looper5920 12:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• I agree. This page is a disgrace. It is more of a political statement than anything else. I guess this is what you get when an encyclopedia is written by volunteers who only write about subjects which interest them. You get incomplete articles written with a simplistic political slant rather than comprehensive articles based upon objectivity.-- 76.104.136.71 22:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

"militarism" is being overloaded here. For some of these countries, a driver might be security, authoritatianism (not a negative in some cultures), or economics. Colonial Great Britain would much rather establish economic dominance than invade. Singapore generally accepts a lack of political freedom for a sense of order.

Modern Japan is about as nonmilitaristic a state as one can pick, while pre-Meiji Japan was more authoritarian/Confucianist while 1868-1944(5) was more clearly military-dominated. Still, Japan has its own unique system, partially oligarchy and partially economic. Hcberkowitz 00:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

When adding to this entry or changing any part of it avoid advocacy and biased statements, and do try to retain an objective tone. Militärwissenschaften 19:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC) I thought that the article wwas fine. It breifly describes militarism. The fact that it did not provide ecessively lengthy rational is a plus not a negative. Maybe my political views drive this comment. I'm a democrate, but I don't believe that any comment on the militarism page is biased. Everyone knows that wikepedia is written by people so if their political beliefs can be figured out by thosse reading an article, who cares. As long as the facts are accurate it does not matter what context they are presented in. Everything seems to be accurate. There is no distortion of the truth so the article is fine not (pov). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.52.35 ( talk) 02:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Was the Greek city-state Sparta considered a militarist state?-- Jerry 19:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Considered by whom? It seems obvious that it was. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta#Life_in_Classical_Sparta Don Quixote de la Mancha ( talk) 12:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

This article has no sourcing and no neutrality. Like citing imperialism without backing it up. This page has a SERIOUS problem and needs attention. Contralya ( talk) 14:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Please cite specific sections for improvement. Substantiate your claims or I will remove your tags. The one section you removed is one of the main points of the sourced book from by Ronald J. Barr "The Progressive Army: US Army Command and Administration 1870-1914,". Yes, I do know that off hand since I was the one who reformed this page years ago and added that material. I have restored that part since it is sourced. If you removed it for other reasons I welcome you to discuss them here. I know several sections need to be polished for clarity and fluidity, but note the Military history (fhdhha dhdnd snsnd fd) review; this article was assessed as decent then. There may be problems with information added since then but much of it comes from other articles in this encyclopedia that are cited. I aim to work for a better grade eventually but my other commitments have not allowed me to work here much. Militärwissenschaften ( talk) 02:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply

User that marked tags failed to identify complaints and like on other pages tags and does nothing to resolve or specify complaints. Militärwissenschaften ( talk) 01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply

The tag plainly states not to remove it "until the dispute is resolved." Therefore, I have reinstated it with its original (December 2007) date. Very sincerely yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Enough time has passed so the tag can be removed, I think. Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 01:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I attempted to find sources for the Overview, but was stumped at the first sentence. If these opinions are taken from the list of books at the bottom of the article, they should have page numbers attached (inline source references). If they can't be sourced, then they should be removed. Yours very sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Since nobody bothered to add the sources which I challenged, I removed the entire section. Kindly reinsert anything for which you have sources. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Orwell's 1984 is more about totalitarianism than militarism. It seems the government leaders are civilians, not military men. Querulously, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 00:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Remember the fictitious Comrade Ogilvie was portrayed as a soldier, Smith Winston talks about announcements of military victories almost certainly meaning cuts in the food ration. He also, IIRC, comments on occasional, possibly staged missile hits on Airstrip One. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 05:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Militarism and totalitarianism are inextricably bound together in 1984, and to say that "1984 is more about totalitarianism than militarism" seems not to be a very useful observation. Most novels are "about" many things -- there is no one-to-one mapping of a book to a topic. Consider these passages from 1984: "The primary aim of modern warfare ... is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living."; "The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labor. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent." Clearly 1984 has a great deal to say about militarism as well as totalitarianism. In fact, it is about both, and their relationship. Don Quixote de la Mancha ( talk) 11:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Who is doing this downgrading? Querulously, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 23:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Article reassessed and graded as start class. -- dashiellx ( talk) 20:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Again, who is doing all this reassessing and grading? Kindly inform us. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Militärwissenschaften has removed the Trivia section, but did not give a reason. I supply one here: See WP:Trivia. I hope this helps. Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Can we please get some sources for these opinions? Also it would be nice to know how these various nations fit into the categories of militarism defined in the leed paragraph, if they do. I particularly challenge the definition of the United States as a militaristic nation. Also the USSR, which was run by Party leaders, not generals. Same in China. Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 07:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I second your desire for citations. I was surprised to see France listed as a militaristic country, and not to see (say) North Korea, the nation that spends the largest percentage of its GDP on military expenditure. 65.213.77.129 ( talk) 13:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The Federal Republic of Germany today maintains a large, modern military and has one of the highest defence budgets in the world. However, the general populations of today's Germany has a rather pacifistic attitude and there is a high degree of suspicion toward the use of military force.

This sounds POV. First, why is the default position one of militarism? This is setup so as to imply that non-aggression is abnormal, and that nations should be militaristic by default. And claiming that an entire country has a "pacifistic attitude" is quite a sweeping claim. This needs to be rewritten. Viriditas ( talk) 02:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The wording there has changed significantly from the last version of this page I looked at. I will try to revise that to remove all subjective points. Militärwissenschaften ( talk) 03:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply

User 173.69.140.45 has recently tagged this article without giving any explanation. I put a note on his/her talk page a while ago but I suspect the tag was a vandal act from a dynamic IP. I will leave it in place for a month or so but will then remove that tag unless it is pointed to specific areas.

This is the second time I have seen the article ambiguously tagged. If you are not going to be constructive enough to actually DESCRIBE what you find somehow offensive don't leave a tag. If you leave a tag here, describe what you want to accomplish through it so the work can proceed. Militärwissenschaften ( talk) 07:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 15:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply

This article does not, in any meaningful way, even usefully define its subject, despite listing Vagts in the further reading. Every state could be defined as at least intermittently "militaristic" by the definitions cited in the lead. It sometimes describes states as absolutely and continuously militaristic, despite histories that show, not surprisingly, different levels over time. It makes no distinction based on real (or perceived) need for defense - an important aspect, say, of Prussia's history. Whole sections-Germany for instance, are citeless. Anmccaff ( talk) 07:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I agree, I am looking at an OUP source that discusses Vagts as well and gives a very different definition of militarism. There is a lot of unsourced information and it seems to be written as an essay. I would support a rewrite of this article based on academic sources. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 03:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply

the subsection on venezuelan militarism just regurgitates the false arguments of the venezuelan opposition as if they were facts. saying the government is a narco and that the police is militarized excessively are opposition arguments and only true if taken out of context. illegal drug trade is nothing new nor relevant whether in government or not and the police is only being used more because of the current unrest. the last part about maduro should just be scrapped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.57.157.218 ( talk) 04:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply

The United States is engaged in an on going effort to overthrow the current Government in Venezuela. The US strategically disseminates any information that will help it achieve this stated goal. These details are appropriate under the United States subsection on militarism. The subsection on Venezuela appears to be included here only because the country is under siege by the United States. Inconsistently there are no entries for other South American countries.

— Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
71.251.50.174 (
talk) 00:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
reply 

A large military in a country with a large external threat -real or perceived - is not "militarism" in most senses of the word, but one possible rational response to the world seen around it, rather than an extolation of the military for its own sake. Anmccaff ( talk) 19:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Militarism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060531192548/http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/vorontsov20060526.htm to http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/vorontsov20060526.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

This:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_050526-N-0000X-001_Cover_photo_of_the_new_coffee_table_photo_book_Defending_Freedom.jpg

Proud strong males brandishing guns, weak females tending to babies. A beauty of implicit propaganda. Zezen ( talk) 08:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply