As was noted in a prior blog entry:
"A naval arms race in east Asia? An expensive proposition for any nation and a 'mirror-image' of what occurred in Europe in that period prior to the Great War?"
From an Internet web site and as partially copied:
"Militarism as a cause of World War I"
"The German army officer Alfred Vagts described militarism as the 'domination of the military man over the civilian, an undue preponderance of military demands, an emphasis on military considerations'. In the decades prior to 1914 militarism was a defining force in several European nations. Governments and aristocracies were strongly influenced, if not dominated, by their military personnel and considerations. Generals and admirals often acted as de facto government ministers, advising political leaders, influencing domestic policy and demanding increases in defence spending. Militarism fathered a dangerous child, the arms race, that pushed European nations to equip, expand and modernise their military forces. Militarism also shaped public opinion, with the press hailing military leaders as heroes or national leaders. Militarism alone did not start World War I – that first required a political crisis – but it inflamed nationalism and fed a culture of expectation about military strength. Even worse, militarism created an environment where war was considered the best or only response to political and diplomatic problems."
That naval arms race between Germany and Britain seen as a CONTRIBUTING FACTOR BUT ONLY ONE FACTOR AMONG MANY AS A "CAUSE" OF THE GREAT WAR [WW1].
We leave it to the historians to decide what percentage of the whole was the naval arms race.
THAT MILITARY MAN SEEN AS CLEAN AND PURE TO BE TRUSTED MORE SO THAN THE AVERAGE-EVERYDAY POLITICIAN. WHEN THE GENERAL OR ADMIRAL SPEAKS, YOU SHOULD LISTEN! SUCH WAS THE PERCEPTION AT THE TIME.