The formation of nation-states characterised post-First World War Central and Eastern Europe. A publication compiled by Major Richard Maasing, which provides some idea of the nationalism that set the tone in the leadership of the Estonian Army in the mid-1920s, is analysed in this article as an example based in Estonia of broader developments. This publication was a supplemented version of the dissertation entitled Moraal ja sõda [Morale and War] that Major Maasing had defended at Estonia’s Higher Military School, which was published by the General Staff in 1926. As an author, Maasing does not present entirely new ideas, yet his previous experience in war and his work as a military attaché helped him to see general developments and effective propaganda methods. Both the emergence of nationalism and the military preparation of youth were widespread trends in Europe of that time.

The handbook that Captain Oskar Jalajas had previously compiled in 1925 focused on methodology for cultural explanatory work and it reflected nationalism very little. The problem of the work by Captain Jalajas, who taught how to give lectures, might have been the fact that lectures were not a popular format. Another drawback may have been insufficient explanation of nationality as a phenomenon. There was nevertheless a need for a handbook on nationalism and for educational work to develop it, and Major Maasing’s brochure filled this gap. It can be said that Maasing’s work was meant to shape the ideology of Estonian youth and of the Estonian Army, educating educators in both the army and schools. Maasing called for building the Estonian state based on national unity, but also on justice and trust, where the people and the army would be in step with one another in terms of nationality, and would be united in language and attitude. Without further research, it is difficult to say to what degree his proposals were followed. It may be that the publication of this work also made it possible to make better use of the handbook by Captain Jalajas.

One of Maasing’s primary ideas was to carry out nationalist propaganda for the intense moral preparation of the army and the people, uniting both the state and the people into a more cohesive whole. In his assessment, this was the only possibility for a small country like Estonia to wage a victorious struggle. Maasing critically assessed the current situation in the organisation of nationalist propaganda in Estonia. He expressed reprimands for squabbling between political parties as well as for the influences of foreign languages and attitudes in schools and in the army. According to Maasing, nationalist propaganda should be carried out under central, primarily military, guidance. The benefits of nationalist propaganda were supposed to be greater in schools and in the army, where there were better conditions for it to take root. Compared to the present, propaganda in the 1920s was not seen to have such a negative undertone as it is sometimes thought to have. The viewpoint that propaganda can be carried out through education, which Maasing adopted from leading figures in the Estonian Army, had been used previously in history and was not exclusive to Estonia in the interwar period. Educational work was not identified with propaganda, but rather was in the service of propaganda. Nationalism was propagated with the help of education, with the wish to raise students as sturdy nationalists starting from primary school right through to the Higher Military School. To this end, nationalist colouring was added to all educational means.

A suitable educator had to be an Estonian and a nationalist. Maasing did not limit himself to presenting only ideological standpoints, rather he proposed a whole series of teaching aids as an educational methodology. Maasing considered agitation and propaganda to be the best methods for strengthening the morale of the people and the army. Similarly, all manner of visual images with symbolic value were to be used, starting with the blue, black, and white tricolour, and ending with the insignia of military units.

Unlike the handbook by Captain Jalajas, Maasing’s work was not aimed narrowly at the army, but rather was meant for use in schools by teachers of national defence. Positive reviews were initially published in the press after the publication of the work, yet his book attracted the negative attention of the socialist newspaper in 1928. For this reason, a minor departmental argument broke out between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of War. One critical review did not nevertheless lead to any restriction on the use of Maasing’s work. His brochure could continue to be used in the future as well for carrying out nationalist propaganda in both general education and the army.