Prior to the beginning of world war i, european militarism became the policy of several nations. write a 125+ paragraph consider how militarism affects the art of diplomacy in solving disputes.

Militarism affects the art of diplomacy in solving disputes in a high degree. Causing conflict instead of compromise. Militarism is the policy of building and using the use of arms as a way of running a nation. This policy caused a huge rift in the increase of the development of military advancements. There was the race of naval improvement as an example. It effects solving disputes because each nation tends to get "head-strong" and tries to gain more control and power by out doing another nation. Which in turn only leads to conflict. The European militarism exploded when the Archduke of Prussia Francis Ferdinand was murdered, this was the spark that made the tensions between a great part of the European Nations to explode, militarism is the support of a strong military to defend national interests, so when diplomacy fails there is military to defend you from another nation, or to make another nation do what you want, the problem with militarism is that diplomacy eventually gets relegated by the law of the strongest, so whoever has the strongest army is the one who dictates what is done. Eventually diplomacy is non existant and disputes are solved fighting.

idk

explanation:

du boi was considered a radical because he wanted the immediate end for segregation. the biggest different between him and booker t. washington is that, even though washington believed that segregation should be considered illegal, he did not believe at all that a law was needed to keep blacks away from whites and that this would be something natural (to have the races apart) for a long time until society adjusted, while du boi believe that agitation was the only way to end segregation.