It is possible for a stratocracy to be formed on the 20th century?

Today the most militarized country on earth is north korea, with 23,3% of it's total GDP and over seven million (about 25% of the population) at arms.

While extremely self destructive and impressive at the same time, this amount of war spending is not so much as we saw in the 1940s europe:
pp7c5khh52kz.png

I remember reading somewhere that nazi germany spent about 45% of it's GDP on the armed forces by 1939.

based on this I want to ask: It is possible to completely militarize a nation in the 20th century, to the point that over 50% of the population and the GDP is at arms? Once someone pointed to me that Burma had a socialist stratocratic dictatorship from the 1960s until 2011, but still didn't reached this levels shown above. There is a scenario (or to be more precise, a game) called "The New Order" were Ferdinand Schorner can take over nazi Germany in the 1960s and do a level of militarization high as it is described above, but as it is commented on the forum of the game this is completely unsustainable.

One example on fiction about a state like that is Amestris from the anime Full metal alchemist, that got it's own citation on wikipedia:
"The country of Amestris in the Fullmetal Alchemist manga and anime series is a nominal parliamentary republic, where parliament has been used as a facade to distract from the authoritarian regime, as the government is almost completely centralized by the military, and the majority of government positions are occupied by military personnel."

What are your toughs on this?
 
based on this I want to ask: It is possible to completely militarize a nation in the 20th century, to the point that over 50% of the population and the GDP is at arms?

The only way I can see this happening is if D-Day failed and the Soviet Union takes over Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium. I can definitely see the French military creating some kind of junta in post-war France, with the stated purpose of protecting France from the Warsaw Pact, with conscription into the armed forces and a military takeover of the economy becoming unpleasant realities for the French people. Assuming the French colonial empire remains intact, France could use colonial troops and resources from those colonies to support the stratocracy.
 
Today the most militarized country on earth is north korea, with 23,3% of it's total GDP and over seven million (about 25% of the population) at arms.
Most of those seven million are reservists, who are presumably principally occupied with various civilian occupations rather than their military duties--the active duty forces of the DPRK number a little less than a million.
It is possible to completely militarize a nation in the 20th century, to the point that over 50% of the population and the GDP is at arms?
In 2018, the US had 155 million employed out of a population of 327 million, for a total of 47% of the population. For 50% of a country's total population to be at arms, you would need virtually everyone with a job to be working for the military, although if you went full Nazi Germany in the closing days of WWII and started conscripting retirees and twelve-year-olds you might manage to whittle this down to only "pretty much everyone." Either way, unless you have a rather generous definition of what counts as being at arms, this does not seem to me like a situation that would be sustainable for any significant length of time. Military spending in excess of 50% of GDP would likewise not be sustainable over the long term, as the case of Nazi Germany demonstrates.
 
In 2018, the US had 155 million employed out of a population of 327 million, for a total of 47% of the population. For 50% of a country's total population to be at arms, you would need virtually everyone with a job to be working for the military, although if you went full Nazi Germany in the closing days of WWII and started conscripting retirees and twelve-year-olds you might manage to whittle this down to only "pretty much everyone." Either way, unless you have a rather generous definition of what counts as being at arms, this does not seem to me like a situation that would be sustainable for any significant length of time. Military spending in excess of 50% of GDP would likewise not be sustainable over the long term, as the case of Nazi Germany demonstrates.

I wanted to add something but since the thread didn't had many contributors I gave up, but since you showed up I gonna add this: A lot of infraestruture in Brazil are built by the army, maybe what you said above can be doable if the people working on state owned projects are doing that as army personell, so like, the country can spend 50% of the GDP in the army, but only 15% goes for the army per se and the rest are for army related works, maybe the school sistem is militarized and so you can consider the education budget as army budget.
 
Top