It would certainly help if he moved the goalposts back to their original positions and toned down his constant disparagement of Britain. Hopefully the thread will go back to its original parameters, that is, the comparison of British and German industries within a specified time period.
Discussion: Comparing British and German industries 1900-1940
- Thread starter Thomas1195
- Start date
It would certainly help if he moved the goalposts back to their original positions and toned down his constant disparagement of Britain. Hopefully the thread will go back to its original parameters, that is, the comparison of British and German industries within a specified time period.
Eh, I'd reread the OP there mate:
He was always like this, even from the start of the thread. On top of that, he will always be pushing this dishonesty for his pet cause above all, be it here or his other two threads he created to avoid his blatant Wehraboo obsession. I know this because he closely matches in attitude, posting style, and many other things as @david green, the architect behind the Frisian Folly. It's why I mostly let others take the torch for the most part, since I am fully aware of exactly how this goes.
Probably not, since he's able to host good points in his other threads, is more willing to provide sources, and has yet to really do something as hilarious as accusing us of all being in on a conspiracy.
He's monofocused just like he was though, since his posts are circling the exact same theme though.
Thomas1195
Banned
Well, so, then could you directly counter each of the argument I pledged in post 1? This is what I really want to see since the beginning of this thread.
For example, I said: ''German electrical industry was superior'', and I provided the German share of world export market, as well as the fact that Siemens and AEG being 2 of 4 biggest electrical firms in the world as evidence; or ''German steel industry was stronger'' with steel output in 1913 and 1938 as backup figures.
Nope. Because you will never accept that your basic stance of Germany being extremely superior is at best flawed and at worst dishonest. What you really want is to hammer home that the Germans were just plain the best unequivocally , and damn those niggling issues that go against this narrative. This true desire has been evident for the past thirty pages and I see no need of seriously throwing effort into a black hole like that. I am purely aware of what this type of thinking is, because you are performing most of the same pitfalls as this fella.
Thomas1195
Banned
Well if Germany did not become technologically and industrially superior to Britain during 1900-1913, then Britain might be very likely to stay isolation. Look at 1870s-1880s, when the Triple Alliance was formed, but Britain did not really take it seriously, and did not bother to undermine it.
Thomas1195
Banned
Well, I mean that Britain could produce HE shells, but lacked the tools, the expertise and the skills to mass produce them. They had to buy specialist American machines to make good of their technical deficiencies. For magnetos, things were even worse, as Britain could not produce them until 1916-1917.
Germany be like: our problems were food and raw materials. We really did not have much problem with technical and engineering stuff (I mean ww1).
This is Britain
Still united
And we're never going to believe the fallacies given by the likes of you
Because our sources are cited
And every one of your arguments is judged shortsighted
Your praise of Krupp is a lot of hot noise
With sheds and shopkeepers, we don't need your fancy toys
Lightbulbs instead of coal and steam?
Get yourself caught in our radio beams
Try to survive on that autarky
Since the Corn Laws we found that a malarkey
Tommies go rolling on I.C.Es
Maybe you've just got a thing for ponies?
You won't be able to stand up to the Royal Navy
So go suck on that ersatz gravy
India, Ireland, Canada and Australia
What's the Kaiser to do against Britannia?
Still united
And we're never going to believe the fallacies given by the likes of you
Because our sources are cited
And every one of your arguments is judged shortsighted
Your praise of Krupp is a lot of hot noise
With sheds and shopkeepers, we don't need your fancy toys
Lightbulbs instead of coal and steam?
Get yourself caught in our radio beams
Try to survive on that autarky
Since the Corn Laws we found that a malarkey
Tommies go rolling on I.C.Es
Maybe you've just got a thing for ponies?
You won't be able to stand up to the Royal Navy
So go suck on that ersatz gravy
India, Ireland, Canada and Australia
What's the Kaiser to do against Britannia?
Thomas1195
Banned
And Britain was still reliant on American machines to mass produce HE shells (Britain struggled to produce them at large quantity for months), well, and magnetos (Britain could not produce their own until 1916-1917).
Well, what if convoys were never introduced?
Given that convoys were used at least as early as the 18th century I think that they were likely at some point. They are less efficient, but they do work.
It has been mentioned earlier in this thread (you have have forgotten it happened, because they were posts that didn't mention machine tools) that Germany had a policy of heavy subsidies towards the junker class of landowners to keep peasant farmers working on their land, to hell with modern agricultural techniques or simply having the balls to admit that shit land is shit and the labour and capital is better spent elsewhere. This policy has a striking resemblance to the Corn Laws in Britain that demonstrated themselves to be relics of mercantilism that set up the country for a humanitarian disaster in the form of the Irish Famine. Getting rid of these laws helped spur the growth of the urban industrial and service economy that made Britain much more flexible in terms of its manpower compared to Germany during the First World War, as well as being more productive in peacetime. The Corn Laws were repealed in 1846, Germany had no good reason to commit to farming subsidies like it did, in 1871 they had decades of data following the repeal of such laws in a contemporary country that at the time was kicking their arses in GDP-per-capita. It is this obsession with chasing 'self-sufficiency' that I'm mocking, when all it did was attach a ball and chain to Germany's economy while at peace and while at war did absolutely nothing in terms of securing Germany's food supply, which led to mass famine and the German aristocracy coming within a hairs breadth of being roasted and eaten by extremely pissed off poor people flying the Red Flag.
And why do you need to ask what would happen if Britain didn't use convoys? You seem pretty convinced that the British were patently imbecilic, what is the need for blue-sky thinking about how the British could've done worse! Isn't real life good enough? What if Churchill in 1940 gave Hitler the keys to the Royal Navy?
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
Not really an answer, Thomas. A nation dependent upon mercantile trade in peace, and on overseas supplies in war, should be expected to come up with the solutions eventually.
A counter-argument of similar standing would be what would happen if Germany assigned all its Army corps to the Western Front in 1914. The answer is self-evident in both cases, and pretty worthless in adding to our sum of knowledge.
IMHO Britain, having benefited greatly from leading the First Industrial Revolution, then suffered the consequences of the second, it being difficult to update on an industrial scale without dislocating the whole nation in peacetime. You need to consider the following questions instead of just stating that Germany was great in / Britain was lousy in producing chocolate fireguards: -
- At what time should Britain have looked to replace first generation industries - for example, when could Britain have looked at replacing the existing rail lines with their physical limitation (still with us today)?
- What is the opportunity cost to the nation of doing so, assuming we do not have the materials & workforce available to maintain existing industrial output until the new sites are on line? Example - if Britain decided to create its own Krupps in Sheffield in 1906, what state would the Royal Navy have been in by 1914?
- Cash - Can Britain afford to upgrade substantial parts of its industrial landscape without losing some of the social benefits that came onstream particularly in the 1900s?
- Should a trading nation eschew the possibility of purchasing cheaper / better / more available goods - be they machine tools or wheat - in order to look to create the same domestically (if possible) at a greater cost (both financial & opportunity)?
And suggest you check why the German navy was so slow moving from reciprocating engines to turbines; sometimes even a British shed could outdo the Kaiser's best.
Thomas1195
Banned
No you guys, the convoy system was only introduced when Jellicoe was removed. The Admiralty resisted this system quite a lot.
And Germany had no colonies or dominions to outsource farming, unlike someone because most colonies were no longer free for it, except for some African lands, when it emerged. If it outsource farming like Britain, it would not last over 3 years in a great war. It also had no position to build a navy as big as the RN to secure American imports.
Besides, they should have build a sizable optics, magneto and ball bearing production, not necessarily self-sufficient but large enough to increase output quickly when the war broke out, instead of importing the majority from Germany and then struggled mightily to build them from nil.
And Germany had no colonies or dominions to outsource farming, unlike someone because most colonies were no longer free for it, except for some African lands, when it emerged. If it outsource farming like Britain, it would not last over 3 years in a great war. It also had no position to build a navy as big as the RN to secure American imports.
Yes, the money should be better spent on systemic electrification of streets, factories and railways, or national motorway building rather than being invested in Chile or Argentina.
You would produce far greater output while using the same number of workers, while reducing production costs compared to dozen of small firms with the same number of employees. Also, it is easier to apply new tech like electric furnace in a larger steel mill. I mean you have 20000 steel workers, you group them in one complex instead of splitting them in 40 sheds, which would be inefficient.
Well, around 1890s-1900s. For example, they should have developed their own synthetic dye industry as the market and the material (coal) were readily available, then diversify into fields like pharmaceutical.
Besides, they should have build a sizable optics, magneto and ball bearing production, not necessarily self-sufficient but large enough to increase output quickly when the war broke out, instead of importing the majority from Germany and then struggled mightily to build them from nil.
Last edited:
Germany still failed to feed itself despite the subsidies, so the strategic benefits of the subsidies are nonexistant. If they understood that if a hypothetical war with a certain set of conditions (fighting Britain, France and Russia) would lead to their inevitable defeat if fought long-term, then surely the impetus was on them to make sure they did not enter that sort of war? Planning to fight France (+Britain) while also requiring themselves to fight Russia at the same time takes away any excuse they could have that they were unfairly blockaded, choosing to contribute to the escalation in 1914 knowing they will only be able to source food for a fraction of their population is a naked sign of incompetence and inability to plan ahead.
The napoleonic era especially and many wars before saw the regular use of convoys. It is simply nonsense to claim the first use was in WW1.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy
Thomas1195
Banned
Now, this belongs to diplomacy aspect, well, where post-Bismarck Germany was "legendary"
Thomas1195
Banned
No one could argue against these four statements.
IOTL, before ww1, Britain could only produce simple types of drugs that sold in retail shops like cough syrup, they could not produced advanced medicines used by professional doctors like aspirin or salvarsan.