What made Germany an industrial power?

[Unconsensual]

So did Russia, but Russia is a distant fourth in this period.

Well which period? And with what efficiency? Since Stalin did yeild impressive results. Mind you Russia was missing the infrastructure, institutions, proximity to England, educated workforce, and the well developed internal markets.

 

[Tyr]

Germany was quite like modern China in many ways.
Strict, militarist government which pushed industrialisation for its own means and limited political freedom....but allowed a huge degree of freedom in other areas to its people.
Russia just wasn't too big on freedom overall.

Germany also had pretty good and long historic links with the UK. A lot of Britain's early industry was created by Germans, there's long been a lot of cultural exchange between the two.

Also of course the stuff said about infrastructure, urbanisation, etc.....

 

[Elfwine]

Well which period? And with what efficiency? Since Stalin did yeild impressive results. Mind you Russia was missing the infrastructure, institutions, proximity to England, educated workforce, and the well developed internal markets.

The period of Imperial Germany, so 1880-ish (if you want me to hunt down statistics, I'd start with about that year) to 1913/1914.

And that's my point - simply having the state throw money at industry isn't going to develop industry without the other stuff.

 

[Unconsensual]

The period of Imperial Germany, so 1880-ish (if you want me to hunt down statistics, I'd start with about that year) to 1913/1914.

And that's my point - simply having the state throw money at industry isn't going to develop industry without the other stuff.

But it does help does it not? How could infant American industries undercut mature British industry without tariffs? It's not a killer point, but it does help.

 

[Elfwine]

But it does help does it not? How could infant American industries undercut mature British industry without tariffs? It's not a killer point, but it does help.

Tariffs and direct government investment are not the same thing.

And I agree it does help - I just dispute that it was "a good part".

Also, and this is off topic but it came to mind: American steam locomotives seem to have been more popular than British designs (much cheaper - tariffs aside even) - in the early US.

Once American locomotive manufacturing was up and running, that is.

Just a random tidbit.

 

[Aelita]

The period of Imperial Germany, so 1880-ish (if you want me to hunt down statistics, I'd start with about that year) to 1913/1914.

And that's my point - simply having the state throw money at industry isn't going to develop industry without the other stuff.

Tsarist Russia was developing, and quite rapidly too. That was the major cause of social instability in the country prior to WWI.

 

[Elfwine]

Tsarist Russia was developing, and quite rapidly too. That was the major cause of social instability in the country prior to WWI.

But its "rapid development" pales by comparison to Germany, Great Britain, and the United States.

Steel production figures (or pig iron in 1890) below. From The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

1890

United States: 9.3 million tons
Britain: 8 million
France: 1.9 million
Austria-Hungary: 0.97 million
Russia: 0.95 million
Japan: 0.002
Italy: 0.01

1900

United States: 10.3 million tons
Britain: 5 million
Germany: 6.3 million
France: 1.5 million
Austria-Hungary: 1.1 million
Russia: 2.2 million
Japan: No data(?)
Italy: 0.11 million

1910

United States: 26.5 million tons
Britain: 7.7 million
Germany: 13.6 million
France: 3.4 million
Austria-Hungary: 2.1 million
Russia: 3.5 million
Japan: 0.16
Italy: 0.77

1913

United States: 31 million
Great Britain: 7.7 million
Germany: 17.6 million
France: 4.6 million
Austria-Hungary: 2.6 million
Russia: 4.8 million
Japan: 0.25 million
Italy: 0.93 million

 

[Aelita]

Which is why it was fourth place, not last.

But its "rapid development' pales by comparison to Germany, Great Britain, and the United States.

If you look at the growth rates, not really. They simply got a later start, and started from a lower base.

 

[Elfwine]

If you look at the growth rates, not really. They simply got a later start, and started from a lower base.

Okay, let's take steel production between 1900 and 1913 (I'd use between 1890 and 1913, but 1890 figures are pig iron).

US growth: 10.3 million to 31.8 million = production has more than tripled.
Great Britain: 5 million to 7.7 million = production has gone up a bit more than half again as much.
Germany: 6.3 million to 17.6 million = nearly tripled.
Russia: 2.2 million to 4.8 million = A little more than doubled.

And just because I'm an Austrophile, let's throw in Austria-Hungary:

1.1 million to 2.6 million = Slightly faster than Russia.

We can pick other things, but given steel's relevance to industrial and military power, I think steel is fair.

Total industrial potential (UK in 1900 as arbitrarily 100) has gone from 24.5 in 1880 to 76.6 in 1913.

Germany has gone from 27.4 to 137.7.

Great Britain has gone from 100 to 127.2.

The United States has gone from 127.8 to 298.1.

And finally:
Austria-Hungary has gone from 14 to 40.7.

So overall, Russia has gone from 5th to 4th - but it is considerably behind #3 and #2, let alone #1.

Despite that it started with almost comparable to Germany in 1880 in absolute terms (per capita figures are dreadfully depressing)

World manufacturing has gone from 7.6% (1880) to 8.2% (1913) - Germany has gone from 8.5% to 14.8%.

The US has gone from 14.7% to 32%.

Britain has lost ground (22.9% to 13.6%), Austria-Hungary has remained stable (4.4%).

 

[Shaby]

Tsarist Russia was developing, and quite rapidly too. That was the major cause of social instability in the country prior to WWI.

The chief problem for the Russians was the lack of a strong middle class, people who are absolutely indispensable for development of industry. Without this precondition, nothing state could do or stimulate will bring enduring results.

 

[Thande]

A factor I think briefly mentioned above, but deserves to be expanded on, is the fact that the idea of industrial mechanisation has been 'a thing' in Germany for possibly longer than anywhere else, even Britain. Mining has always been a major German industry and the use of machines (such as water pumps to pump out flooded mines) to make it easier and more profitable started as early as the 17th century. For a while there was a semi-ideological conflict between what was the best means to power such mining machines: the English favoured steam engines, while the Germans favoured perpetual motion machines. (Well, we know who won that one ). The point I'm trying to make is that Germans were always more psychologically prepared for the idea of industrialisation than, say, the French, who had more of a cultural/political argument (and still do to some extent) about whether a traditional rural lifestyle is part of the fabric of the nation and is threatened by industrialisation.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The chief problem for the Russians was the lack of a strong middle class, people who are absolutely indispensable for development of industry. Without this precondition, nothing state could do or stimulate will bring enduring results.

Which resulted from the wide dispersion of urban centers and lack of major trade between them. Western Europe had lots of trade routes by sea, river, and land, because their urban areas were so close together. Western/Central Europe's compactness gave it a massive advantage when it came to the transmission of ideas, trade, and competition, all of which fosters education and the build up of wealth.

Germany had some of the advantages of Western and Eastern Europe together (trade and proximity to Western ideas/higher population and high qualit natural resources like coal), which over time worked together to give Germany a strong position in Europe, but geographic (lack of major access to sea trade routes) and political problems (HRE) prevented her really from peaking earlier.

 

[Mutzi]

Could you explain to me the evolution of Germany's education system?

One of the main factors in Germanys education system was, that most of the little states built their own universities. 1789 of 142 universities in Europe 34 were in the HRR (without Austria). First Halle and later Berlin were important steps on the way to the modern university. The "Humboldtsche Universität", combining research and education was the model for the most of the rest.
The most talented could find a way into university by being sponsored by princes woh needed educated man to govern their little territories.
When in the 19th century the focus shifted to physics, chemistry, mathematics, their was already an educated elite and the infrastructure in place. For a some time Germany pretty much dominated in science.

 

[Elfwine]

Which resulted from the wide dispersion of urban centers and lack of major trade between them. Western Europe had lots of trade routes by sea, river, and land, because their urban areas were so close together. Western/Central Europe's compactness gave it a massive advantage when it came to the transmission of ideas, trade, and competition, all of which fosters education and the build up of wealth.

Germany had some of the advantages of Western and Eastern Europe together (trade and proximity to Western ideas/higher population and high qualit natural resources like coal), which over time worked together to give Germany a strong position in Europe, but geographic (lack of major access to sea trade routes) and political problems (HRE) prevented her really from peaking earlier.

That seems to have been made worse by all sorts of policies - not even intentionally, just as a consequence of the tsars putting immediate power ahead of nurturing development and otherwise trying to squeeze the most out of the state for its immediate needs/wants.

Not unique to Russia, but Russia had less escape that, and longer periods of that, than say France.

 

[Thande]

The most talented could find a way into university by being sponsored by princes woh needed educated man to govern their little territories.
When in the 19th century the focus shifted to physics, chemistry, mathematics, their was already an educated elite and the infrastructure in place. For a some time Germany pretty much dominated in science.

As I understand it, this was because German universities experienced Napoleonic institutions without being torn down altogether, and thus in the 19th century embraced Wissenschaft (a technophilic, science-focused approach) while still having all the resources and organisation they used to have. By contrast in the UK for instance, the 19th century represented a conflict between the big old universities (Oxford and Cambridge in England, Trinity College in Dublin, St Andrews in Scotland, etc.) being reluctant to embrace science and technology and still emphasising classics, divinity, philosophy, English, etc., which prompted the technophiles to found the new 'redbrick' universities without any of the image and resources of the old universities. Germany had the best of both worlds in this sense.

 

[historyfool]

Most reasons for Germany´s industrial development (geography, society, history, education system) have already been named. At least for the chemical industry another factor was important as well in the 19th century. Unlike under for example British law not the final (chemical) product was patented, but the chemical process. That meant that a patent did not create a monopoly on a product. Instead the competitors (and logically you as well) looked for new, possibly cheaper ways to produce the same thing.

 

[JimTheB]

Industrial espionage? If you're in the Duesseldorf area, a must-see is the the Cromford Textilfabrik (the first factory in Germany?) museum - it's brill. Note that even the name was nicked from the Derbyshire mill town!

http://www.foureyesup.com/museums/textilfabrik-cromford-ratingen-germany/

 

[Mutzi]

As I understand it, this was because German universities experienced Napoleonic institutions without being torn down altogether, and thus in the 19th century embraced Wissenschaft (a technophilic, science-focused approach) while still having all the resources and organisation they used to have. By contrast in the UK for instance, the 19th century represented a conflict between the big old universities (Oxford and Cambridge in England, Trinity College in Dublin, St Andrews in Scotland, etc.) being reluctant to embrace science and technology and still emphasising classics, divinity, philosophy, English, etc., which prompted the technophiles to found the new 'redbrick' universities without any of the image and resources of the old universities. Germany had the best of both worlds in this sense.

This fits pretty well. The Humboldt model was part of the prussian reforms after their defeat by Napoleon. Science and classics enjoyed the same privileges and didn't need to fight. The division occured later between the theoretically interested universities and the applied focus of the "Fachhochschulen". Later a huge mass of engineers of all kinds emerged there, who took over in being the ones who brougt the sciences into the economy.

 

[Grand Prince Paul II.]

But its "rapid development" pales by comparison to Germany, Great Britain, and the United States.

Compared to USA and Imperial Germany, the new industrial giants of the late 19th and early 20th century, yes, but not to Great Britain, the old industrial power.

If you look at the growth rates, not really. They simply got a later start, and started from a lower base.

Exactly, Russia needed more time for a nation-wide industrial take-off.

 

[Elfwine]

Compared to USA and Imperial Germany, the new industrial giants of the late 19th and early 20th century, yes, but not to Great Britain, the old industrial power.

Great Britain didn't need to grow massively to be a mighty industrial power (it already was one in 1880), Russia did. Russia is producing not quite twice much steel as Austria-Hungary, and only twice the amount of total manufacturing. It's ahead of France, but not nearly as much as the giants are ahead of it.

Total indsturial potential for Russia is a bit over half of Britain in 1913 (vs. about a third in 1880) - but Germany has gone from a little more than Russia or France to a little ahead of Britain.

Favorable growth compared to France or Italy is not overwhelming here.

Incidentally, I would add fairly efficient agriculture to Germany's reasons - supporting a big population and one not tied down in the agricultural sector.