What if Imperial Germany was actually militaristic?

[Jacarí]

Imperial Germany is always presented as a militaristic state, but that is not something borne by the numbers:

As we can see here Germany spent a smaller % of its NNP in its military than France and Russia, an actually militaristic Germany would spend more.

Germany also recruited just half of its military age men, a true militaristic Germany would match peaceful France's 85%.

The German army was also just the 3rd largest in Europe, a militaristic Germany would ensure that its army at the very least was tied for largest in Europe, meaning doubling their peacetime strength and being able to deploy 30 more divisions during wartime.

With such a German army, one being able to deploy 4 instead of just 1 army on the east in 1914, 40 divisions vs 10 IOTL... does WW1 even occur?

Because in that case there can be no expectation of an easy way into Berlin, no 1912 Franco-Russian protocol to invade Germany simultaneously since that would be inviable now, so there is no enticing prospect of a short war for the Entente, Balkan inception scenario or not.

 

[Nivek]

peaceful France's

That was training it for a war against Germany,if Germany did spend at France level... France is fucked and they know it

 

[eumarthan]

France would probably extend their fortifications and buff it with a secondary fall back line. Paris would probably be a capital in name as most of the government would probably move to Bordeaux as Paris would likely be captured by the Germans. The British would have the Royal Army be expanded to compete with the Germans which may cut into the Navies budget

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

I'm not sure if they'd be able to win in 1914 (if such a conflict isn't removed entirely, which is possible). However, they would certainly not have to divert troops to the eastern front in 1914.

 

[Monk78]

Germany needed a second Bismarck in early 1900s

 

[Mitchell Hundred]

It was definitely culturally militaristic from the top down. Not sure defense spending as a proportion of GDP can capture that.

 

[Lascaris]

Wilhelm Voigt aka hauptman von Kopenick would like a word with you over imperial Germany not being militaristic.

 

[Normal for Norfolk]

The British would have the Royal Army be expanded to compete with the Germans which may cut into the Navies budget

Sorry no Royal Army since the Civil War.

 

[NoMommsen]

I have to admit ... I can't really decide on a choice that would happen. IMHO each of them could happen.

However ... somewhat would depend on when the German Realm manages to increase its military strenght over what period of time as an early begin might cause a whole swarm of butterflies to flap truly changing many events of history; firts comming to my mind:

Fashodo-conflict​

both Morocco-crises​

Russo-japanese war​

and with them ofc the whole picture of alliances causing further changes on

Balkan-wars​

itaslo-ottoman war​

Buit the later the 'switch' the more probable a Great War similar to OTL - at last its comming into being.

 

[Orcbuster]

Imperial germany was absolutely militaristic. The officer (junker) class essentially ran the country, much more so than its fellow neighbours which is why it gained the reputation, not because of the numbers you present.

 

[RedSword12]

Wilhelm Voigt aka hauptman von Kopenick would like a word with you over imperial Germany not being militaristic.

Was that just because you watched Kraut's recent video, which presented Voigt's heist in an extremely misleading fashion?
He is thoroughly unreliable as a history youtuber, known to use outdated scholarship badly and to outright lie under pretense of correcting common falsehoods.

 

[Jacarí]

It was definitely culturally militaristic from the top down. Not sure defense spending as a proportion of GDP can capture that.

SO, if Germany is militaristic in spite of spending less than others in its military... then how do you characterize the countries that spent more than Germany? Or that had 85% of its men spend 2 and even three years in uniform?

Remember, people like talking and applying labels for different purposes... and often reality doesnt support those "arguments".

In short, dont buy all the things the Athenians wrote about the Spartans...

 

[Jacarí]

Wilhelm Voigt aka hauptman von Kopenick would like a word with you over imperial Germany not being militaristic.

I would suggest you do what I learned to do years ago every time I read something about war for the first time... wonder if you are reading propaganda.

 

[Jacarí]

It was definitely culturally militaristic from the top down. Not sure defense spending as a proportion of GDP can capture that.

It can. It does.

Because it is a fact instead of just an impression or reputation.

If you dont like the money angle, think about what does putting 85% of your men through military service every year says about a culture.

 

[Jacarí]

Imperial germany was absolutely militaristic. The officer (junker) class essentially ran the country, much more so than its fellow neighbours which is why it gained the reputation, not because of the numbers you present.

But, when confronted with the need to increase the size of the army or dilute its monarchic trustworthiness... they chose the latter, so turns out they were more monarchists than militaristic, werent they?

Otherwise they would have simply kept pace with the ever increasing entente armies instead of falling behind like they did.

 

[Jacarí]

I have to admit ... I can't really decide on a choice that would happen. IMHO each of them could happen.

However ... somewhat would depend on when the German Realm manages to increase its military strenght over what period of time as an early begin might cause a whole swarm of butterflies to flap truly changing many events of history; firts comming to my mind:

Fashodo-conflict​

both Morocco-crises​

Russo-japanese war​

and with them ofc the whole picture of alliances causing further changes on

Balkan-wars​

itaslo-ottoman war​

Buit the later the 'switch' the more probable a Great War similar to OTL - at last its comming into being.

I think Germany could have afforded a policy of having an "army second to none", meaning at least matching the largest one in Europe, so keeping pace with the RUssians.

Now, that doesnt mean that Germany is going to go around invading everybody since there was nothing to gain from that, but it would have certainly had an effect on history.

 

[Lascaris]

Was that just because you watched Kraut's recent video, which presented Voigt's heist in an extremely misleading fashion?
He is thoroughly unreliable as a history youtuber, known to use outdated scholarship badly and to outright lie under pretense of correcting common falsehoods.

Who? People seriously use YouTube videos to learn history? Hell I must be getting old.

SO, if Germany is militaristic in spite of spending less than others in its military... then how do you characterize the countries that spent more than Germany? Or that had 85% of its men spend 2 and even three years in uniform?

Smaller economies that need to keep up with the military spending of an aggressive power? And a country with a significantly smaller population that needs to keep up with a larger hostile power? Today Ukraine is spending 37% of its GDP on the military compared to 5.9s to learn % for Russia. Does that mean Ukraine is aggressively militaristic or that it has to fend off a country with 11 times its GDP?

Remember, people like talking and applying labels for different purposes... and often reality doesnt support those "arguments".

In short, dont buy all the things the Athenians wrote about the Spartans...

The Spartans were free to wrin3 their point of view. Oh wait their fanboys did exactly that.

I would suggest you do what I learned to do years ago every time I read something about war for the first time... wonder if you are reading propaganda.

I would suggest that "what if these good/invincible/all too militarily capable Germans win" tends to be one of the two most usual childhood diseases of new alternate history fans. That said there are certain simple things to consider. Would Voigt pull his little escapade in Germany? Would he be able to pull the same in say France? That the size of the German army was kept stable at 769,000 is proof of lack of militarism or the reverse as the militaristic Prussian elite wanted to ensure its hold on the army lest such horrible persons like middle class non junkers got commissions? Who was threatening who with war in the war scares and diplomatic crises in 1871-1914? Who then went and in added everyone else in 1914?

 

[Maniakes]

A more militaristic Germany would feel fewer constraints about using its military and said military's leaders would have more domestic clout and would be more incentivized to justify their budget and status by encouraging bellicose diplomatic stances. And Austria is going to have a bolder foreign policy, too, if they are more confident in the German army as a stronger shield.

The only way this doesn't make war more likely is if Germany is so militaristic that they decisively overmatch all plausible combinations of opposing powers, so everyone passively accepts German hegemony without a shot being fired. I consider this unlikely in the extreme. Up to a point, France and Russia would continue to raise their armament efforts to match Germany's. They'd run out of headroom before Germany, true, but Britain still has a lot of headroom to be more militarized (especially in terms of land forces), and a more aggressive and heavily armed Germany would be more threatening to Britain and thus Britain would be more likely to upgrade its diplomatic understandings with France and Russia into a formal alliance, and more inclined to prepare for war against Germany.

 

[jlckansas]

UK doesn't try to match the German army but with greater expenditure on the RN. They know the first line of defense of the UK is the Fleet and that overseas the Army units on land don't have a serious opponent unless you count Russia in Central Asia and France in West Africa. the reason Russia's expenditures are so high leading up to WW1 is that they were reequipping the military after the Russo Japanese war and modernizing it.

 

[Orcbuster]

But, when confronted with the need to increase the size of the army or dilute its monarchic trustworthiness... they chose the latter, so turns out they were more monarchists than militaristic, werent they?

Otherwise they would have simply kept pace with the ever increasing entente armies instead of falling behind like they did.

Again you are fundamentally misunderstanding why they were considered militaristic which I assure you was wholly justified. I suggest you do some more thorough reading on the political system in germany at the time and especially about bismarck before you make polls based on false premises.