Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
Example: A large army is a cost, not an achievement in my opinion
.
It's a cost if you cannot use it. Large armies are instruments of strategy. If you wish to the strategically relevant, you need a large army - and Navy.
Being part of a powerful nation or a well-armed nation has yet to be proved to be a positive factor in average quality of life. In fact, both can very well be considered to be detrimental to material consumption and in some examples even to security and health.
All of which is why I defer to Strategic history and not social history, but Strategic history does encompass cost. Having a big/capable Army and being able to fund it, is a requirement of being strategically relevant.
Besides, Wilf; the Germans and Japanese did not benefit from rebuilding from scratch at all. That's a myth.
It's not a myth. Yes both Germany and Japan were industrially capable nations prior to 1939, but there was massive benefits to zeroing the economy and having the vast majority of the infrastructure rebuilt. Yes, it did take a lot of hard work and privation, but at the material level it also had substantial benefits. Just look at the differences in power plants between German and the UK in the 1960's.
Worth the cost in the human life? Not in my opinion. As I said, it wasn't part of a plan.