AH Challenge: 1966 - Germany is extremely powerful and flourishing

Valamyr

Banned
Hm I doubt we can go with a defeat in WW1. They need to win the war to have a shred of hope at achieving this. They'll need extra territory in the west and the east, and the booming birthrates of the pre-world war. Victory has to be swift, also, with the entente suing for peace at the LATEST after Jutland, preferably in 1915, to avoid bleeding Europe white and giving America too much of an edge in the future.

So lets have France collapse after 7 weeks. Lets say the Russian offensive is even more miserable, so that Germany doesnt have to move crucial army corps to the East, and smash right to Paris. France surrenders. The army moves east, and to preserve Imperial power, the Tsar makes sweeping concessions in the middle of 1915, allowing Germany to effectively take over the baltic states, poland, and most of Ukraine. Gains also several colonies of choice.

England, at that point, sues for peace as well. War reparations and economic provisions of the peace treaty allow Germany to become by far the heart of european economy. The will and the capacity to resist it are eroding. Basically only England still has some fight in, but no mroe allies. Gradually, England abandons its continental balance policy and aligns with Germany to protect her interests and markets.

Popular upheaval in Tsarist Russia in the early 20s is crushed by the German Army after the Tsar's fail to do so. Russia moves into the orbit of the Reich. Amongst all the military expenditures necessary for Germany to display the world-class power needed to rule Europe and half the world, left-wing parties continue to gain influence in Germany. They take power in 1926. A minor constitutional crisis ensues as they clash with the Kaiser, who makes modest concessions to appease them. They pattern of nibbling on the Kaiser's authority continues for two decades, until the monarch is tolerably weak. He never becomes a pure figurehead, though, retaining substantial influence over the constitution, foreign policy and important legislations.

1929-1931 brings the War of Havana. Four times the Reich clashed to obtained colonies in America, and four times they had to back down before the Monroe Doctrine. On June 1st, 1929, a huge german Navy set sail from Calais to turn the tide. Germany, supported by local groups, proclaims a protectorate over Havana. The war is bloody and fought largely at sea, and end up as a German victory as the Monroe Doctrine is broken by force. The defeat on american soil brings about major political and economic upheaval in the USA, creating many years of incertitude as various attempts are made at ending isolation and building a world-class military power, admist social reforms. Poor implementation has the side effect of nearly bankrupting the country, and shifting much economic might from New York to Frankfurt.

Massive natality in Germany allows colonisation of much of western poland and some border regions in France. Meanwhile, the crown of Austria-Hungary collapses in 1936. Germany is swift to pick up the pieces, integrating Austria, along with Bohemia, Tyrol and Slovakia to the Reich. Hungary is swiftly invaded for it's role in the collapse of the Habsburg dynasty. It is reduced in size, and a puppet regime is installed. Friendly governments also appear in Croatia (Which includes most of Serbia) and Romania. To the south of that line, of course, lies one of the major German allies, the Ottoman Empire.

1939 - Maréchal Pétain takes power in France after a powerful communist revolt rocked the country. To consolidate the government in a country still in ruins, he takes a step back to the heir of the imperial dynasty. The 4th Empire is proclaimed at Versailles, but it does little to restore national pride as Germany continues to own large swaths of the country. Without a hope at military salvation, France continues to cooperate.

1940 - America stirs trouble again, threatening invasion as German influence becomes too strong in Mexico. Japan aligns itself with the US, hungry for German pacific colonies and wishing to crush it's asian trade, main cause of the strength of the Nationalist government in China. Germany has made substantial progress in science, however, and shows a firm technological edge in the early days of the conflict. Mexico is rapidly overrun, however, but the US Navy fails to even approach Havana. Britain this time leans much more in favor of Germany, and war entry is not entirely excluded.

1941 - Rockets launched from German Greenland and Havana hits New York and Philadelphia, though with horrible accuracy. A german landing in Florida fails. US. British forces clash in the Western Prairies. US invades Canada, Japan attacks German colonies, Hong Kong, Singapore.

1942 - Through sheer combined might and distance/logistic advantages, and tho lacking in military tech, the Pacific alliance makes serious gains in Asia and North America, threating to push the Europeans back to Europe.

1943 - V3s filled with poison gas falls on major American and Japanese cities. The latter are launched from Siberia, prompting Japanese invasion of Russia, and spreading their forces too thin. Pacific alliance fights on, seeing this as a last ditch effort to save a losing war. Primitive rocketry appears on Pacific side.

1944 - As they seem poised to finally crush European Havana, nuclear bombs falls on Washington DC, New York, Kyoto. Pacific Alliance sues for peace. Germany and England pushes their advantage with a fury. Canada annexes a large swath of Northern USA, and Mexico takes California, Tejas. The Japanese Empire is broken and made into a puppet state. Hawaii becomes British, and the American fleet is destroyed. Germany becomes the first economic and military power on Earth.

Now we just need to keep the status quo 20 years. :)
 
Valamyr,

Methinks that the US will begin building up its fleet and army if it sees that the Brits and their great navy are aligning with Imperial Germany, which has an equally good (if smaller) force. Plus, the US is much closer to Cuba than Germany and its various allies and satellites are.

I think in that scenario, the Germans will get whipped and you might have a Cold War between an Anglo-German power-bloc in Europe and a US-Japan power-bloc in the Pacific. The Old World vs. the New World (though Japan is technically part of the Old World).
 
I just thought, a lost war could clean the germans of exaggurated nationalism. Without this nationalism they would not start another war, which they will lose and cannot be the leading nation of the world. Wars cannot create wealth, only for a short time and only for the winner. Dealing, trading and exchange of anything can do it, I think. Thats why I wanted the germans to loose a short WW1
 
All of these extreme measures are a complete waste. Just look at Germany's position in the 20th Century and you know these ideas are not needed.

Summer 1914: The early warning that Great Britain is bound to support France shocks the Kaiser and causes him to cancel his blank check support of Austria. Instead mediation is encouraged, to no avail.

Autumn 1914: The world is astonished when Austria is defeated by Serbia in the invasion, then beaten back. Germany manages to set up a European conference to resolve the issue peacefully. (Germany has recognized what a liability Austria is, vis a vis so many other Central and Eastern European nations and is considering options).

February 1915: The conference ends awarding most of Bosnia-Herzegovina to Serbia, and also border adjustments in the favor of Italy. Tiny Serbian concessions to Bulgaria and Greece(@ one-third of Macedonia). German standing with these nations greatly improved.

1915-1920: Germany economy booming, fastest growing in the world, and becoming the most advanced scientifically. Decision by German government to have friendly relations with more nations, rather than be bound to a very few, and thereby share any enemies also. Recognition that Germany can't hope to beat Great Britain in a naval war(plus British buddy, Japan) causes reduction of building plan, emphasis on more modern craft. German military slightly smaller but more innovative. First to deploy armored units(tanks? barrels? :D ). Relations with England improve dramatically.

Lacking impetus of WWI, US economy grows more slowly, enormous inflow of currency never took place.

1922: New German attitude pays off. Portugal to sell off her colonies, Germany receives @half of Angola and Mozambique, Portuguese Guinea.

1926: Similar purchase as Germany and UK acquire Dutch East Indies, to block Japanese expansion.

1927: Collapse of Russia into revolution, lasting through 1932, with isolated incidents through the decade. Germany offers support to ethnic resistance(Poland, Finland, Ukraine) as more radical elements take the lead in the Russian Civil War.

1929: Minor American market correction, lacking influence due to failiure of Woodrow Wilson to make his economic reforms last. Effectively a recession inside the US and a glitch elsewhere. German Army intervenes in Russian Civil War, ultimately decisive in establishing Menshevik regime(more moderate wing of the socialist movement taking the lead in the war). Newly independent border states of Poland, Lithuania, Ukrainia, Finland become allies and major trading partners of Germany. Japan seizes border regions in Far East with quiet encouragement of London, Berlin. France deeply upset but unable to act, as German vow to annex no land, and invitation for observation force to confirm, neutralizes Great Britain. Growing frustration will lead to a collapse of the Third Republic in 1936.

More?
 
Not quite, Blue (and a heads-up Grimm)

"Hmm, well, if you disregard the wars, you'll have a very different US, especially if Britain is still Ruler of the Waves... see fx Redbeard's post. Britain with her Empire would be hugely beneficial to the British economy and she would most likely be preoccupied with suppling the various part of it with manufactored goods, while the Germans produce for Europe (incl. beaten Russia) and the Tollverein it has become. The US however focuses on its domestic markeds and thus dosn't grow economically as in OTL. "


By 1914 the US economy was more than twice the size of the British economy and pulling away. Dwarfed it in industrial production. The torch passed probably sometime around 1880 and certainly before the turn of the century, an era where Britain was still ruler of the waves and had her empire and the US was focused on those domestic markets. German data aren't as good as British at the time but the gap would be larger in GDP, if not industry. The US was bigger than Britain and Germany combined at the start of WWI in both categories.

As for Redbeard's post, a *sustained* Anglo-American naval war in 1922, without an earlier POD, would have ended in Britain being routed.
 
two things that maybe should be considered are that 1) without WWI as we know it the US avoids the anti-german hysteria that took place and 2) maybe more immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe into the states.
 
Yossarian, 'Guinea' in West Africa, not 'Guyana' of the three north of Brazil. Sorry if I didn't spell it correctly.

So by the 1940s we have Russia badly weakened by all the breakaway movements, although a Menshevik government is much more likely to recover rapidly and improve things.

The US has never achieved the dominance it had in OTL, nor is the wealth and industry what it is(no world wars). It is, however, definitely on of the top three powers.

Japan grabbed much of Siberia and is now in a serious bind as Russia recovers. Should we have Japan badly beaten, and forced to undergo reforms similar to post-WWII or will the need to hold what they have do that before such a defeat can happen?

Do all the colonies gain independence? Given the economic disaster that Germany's were, I could easily see a major effort to improve conditions in them around 1940, followed by Great Britain. Now some colonies might have a vested interest in staying, at least until the latest plans are finished.

What happens to France? They can't win alone and now they have no hope of allies.

And all those nice scientists(Einstein, Bohr, Szilard, Fermi, etc) who never had to leave their homes...heh heh heh...
 
Possibility One: How the war is won

Different Zabern affair. Military prestige of the prussian army somehow reduced, butterflies to a different approach on how the war is waged. IMHO, the economical and scientific implications were not very well considered by the military leadership.
I recall vaguely that they originally thought they could substitude Salpeter with some other salt and realized only after the beginning of the war that they have a serious problem. So we get a political war cabinet instead of a purely military one, looking for a real political victory instead of thinking in purely military terms and fever dreams about what one can think of annexing.


Politically, the establishment is comprised of the catholic Zentrum party, the a conservative and a right-wing liberal block, (like OTL DNVP and DVP)
with a split in the social democrats along the pro- and anti- war line.

When Germany undergoes a political reformation after the -victorious- war,

the constitution is moderately reformed, leaves power at state level, maybe deepens the social system a bit, but the functionality of army and bureaucracy are not remains.
 

Redbeard

Banned
DMS said:
"Hmm, well, if you disregard the wars, you'll have a very different US, especially if Britain is still Ruler of the Waves... see fx Redbeard's post. Britain with her Empire would be hugely beneficial to the British economy and she would most likely be preoccupied with suppling the various part of it with manufactored goods, while the Germans produce for Europe (incl. beaten Russia) and the Tollverein it has become. The US however focuses on its domestic markeds and thus dosn't grow economically as in OTL. "


By 1914 the US economy was more than twice the size of the British economy and pulling away. Dwarfed it in industrial production. The torch passed probably sometime around 1880 and certainly before the turn of the century, an era where Britain was still ruler of the waves and had her empire and the US was focused on those domestic markets. German data aren't as good as British at the time but the gap would be larger in GDP, if not industry. The US was bigger than Britain and Germany combined at the start of WWI in both categories.

As for Redbeard's post, a *sustained* Anglo-American naval war in 1922, without an earlier POD, would have ended in Britain being routed.

I think you seriously underestimate the power of the British Empire in the interwar years, and simply comparing GDP's is not sufficient. In 19th century the Russian GDP also consistently was on the size of British, but Russia had only a small fraction of GB's capacity to project power. To a degree USA before WWII was in a similar situation - a giant - stuck firmly on his own continent.

There is a general tendency to consider the British as exhausted after WWI as after WWI - not much could be as wrong. In OTL WWI meant mainly a mental change, much meaning a loss of unchallenged confidence in (technological) progress and strengthing general rejection of warfare as a plotical instrument. But the British Empire was still an economical and industrial giant with first of all a formidable advantage in naval technology and leadership, as well as a huge and well balanced fleet already in service.

In my TL above, the British have even been spared the years of bloodshead in the trenches and a lot of expenses too. But I guess a realistic TL would involve a Jutland type of battle and a bloody nose - otherwise they might just stay in the fight.

If we assume that USA still starts her huge naval building programme in 1910's, she will certainly in numbers have an impressive navy, but in quality it will be tremendously inferior! First, the USN squadron that joined the Grand Fleet in 1917-18 found out that the USN gunnery was way behind British, but learned a lot. A USN squadron joining the GF is unlikely in this scenario. But even if we somehow assume the USN achieveing its 1918 level, the OTL USN in the 1920's had very serious problems with what navies were all about before WWII: gunnery - they simply couldn't hit! Most serious with the 14"/50 gun (Tennesse and Idaho classes) which had a hit rate half of that of other USN ships, and they weren't impressive then. All in all that is troublesome when you are up against the RN armed with the very and relaibele accurate 13,5" and 15" guns. BTW the USN didn't get a reliable AP shell for its heavy guns until late 30's.

The big number of ships on the slips or completing in 1922 were all of obsolescent design compared to the contemporary British (G3/N3). But much worse was that it was a very unbalanced fleet not capable of undertaking high seas operations against a major opponent. As a battle line cruising in front of some important strategic point at home a 1920's USN would indeed be impressive, but would still be overwhelmed by a 1920's RN. If trying to sortie to more distant waters (like defending Panama or PI) it will be seriously handicapped by inferior scouting capacity - i.e. going blind into battle.

After the first disastrous encounters the Americans will certainly learn and put all effort into building new and much better ships, and improving the problems in the old surviving ships. But still time is needed to build fleets, years, and they are up against a British Empire not just watching passively, but able to build upon the great design and building competence from the 1910's. It is difficult today to imagine the British superiority of the British at sea in early 20th century, but more than half of all seagoing ships afloat in the world were built on British yards!

One interesting aspect of this TL would be how the FAA develops. In 1918 the FAA by a far margin was the worlds leading naval air force, and actually planned to do a Taranto/PH on the HSF in 1919. In OTL it was more or less forgotten after WWI, but with major war on the high seas it would be more than natural to let the FAA potential of deep recon and strike develop, and as a way to achieve superior striking force with inferior numbers (Fisher's true object).

By the end of the 1920's the USA might, with her collosal resources, have been able to have outbuild both her losses and the RN, but I just can't see plausible ways to have her routed a British Empire practically unscratched in WWI.

Next we'll have to look into what they're fighting for. The British would not be in doubt, they "defend the Empire!". That would be far more accepted way to die than in the mud of the Flanders. But what are the Americans fighting for? Well I'm sure you could find some "long-haired" economical theories about US interests, but that's hardly something to die for. And why should an Mississippi farmer boy die for liberating the Africans from British mastership? And are there any British soldiers in USA? No, but American soldiers are dying in Canada fighting people up there not happy with the US invasion.

So if pointing to someone being routed it would be the Americans, by simply not seeing the point about this war. An early US withdrawal from the war might actually be the best solution for the Americans, as they then have a chance to continue using their resources on something more productive than huge fleets.

A prolonged war will probably also mean the British economy breaking it's back - like after WWII - and eventually leading to the dissolution of the Empire. But it is the great paradox of 20th century British history, that they while defending the Empire did not hesitate gambling and loosing that same Empire. In that context you might say that the main PoD in this TL it is not the Germans who bleed themselves pale in dismembering the British Empire, but the Americans.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
DMS said:
By 1914 the US economy was more than twice the size of the British economy and pulling away. (...) The US was bigger than Britain and Germany combined at the start of WWI in both categories..
I haven't been able to dig up any statistics, so bear with my pro-British bias, please! :) First of all, I believe that people tend to vastly underestimate the British Empire pre-WWI - It was bloody big and powerfull! Second, people tend to view things form the present, so the development we have in OTL is seen as inevitable, even in a radical different ATL!
Without WWI as we know it, especielly if it was as suggested by Redbeard, the two European Empires (British and German) would have their own very big and protected markets, so the US would have to fuel its own growth, expand domestically, that is! The huge flow of money in and out of the US would not happen, not as in OTL, at least - London was the economic center of the world. Besides that, the US would need the British oil sooner or later, even with a reduced industrial growth...
Technology is important too, and at the time the Brits and Germans were, AFAIK, way ahead of the US, and that would probably not change unless the US gets into WWI and WWII...

DMS said:
As for Redbeard's post, a *sustained* Anglo-American naval war in 1922, without an earlier POD, would have ended in Britain being routed.
Hmm, yes, and no! The rapidly expanding US fleet would not happen wihtout a valid reason. If US focuses on its domestic markets and its own affaires, then the fleet would by way smaller. Whatever fleet there was would most likely be based on battleships as OTL, while the Brits actually develop carriers and what not as in OTL - they need to project power, the US does not!
Officers and naval tradition is important in this scenario. In OTL the Japanese kicked to US around for quite some time, which only goes to show that an aggressive navy could teach the US a lesson or two!
Politics play a vital role too. A more isolationistic US would be reluctant to fight a prolonged war with the Brits over nothing, unless ther Brits either burned Washington DC (again) or bombed the Pearl...

In an ATL without participation in the Wars, the US might not win out, I'd say...

Interesting discussion and thread btw!

Best regards!

- Bluenote.
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
Mr.Bluenote said:
I haven't been able to dig up any statistics, so bear with my pro-British bias, please! :) First of all, I believe that people tend to vastly underestimate the British Empire pre-WWI - It was bloody big and powerfull! Second, people tend to view things form the present, so the development we have in OTL is seen as inevitable, even in a radical different ATL!
Without WWI as we know it, especielly if it was as suggested by Redbeard, the two European Empires (British and German) would have their own very big and protected markets, so the US would have to fuel its own growth, expand domestically, that is! The huge flow of money in and out of the US would not happen, not as in OTL, at least - London was the economic center of the world. Besides that, the US would need the British oil sooner or later, even with a reduced industrial growth...
Technology is important too, and at the time the Brits and Germans were, AFAIK, way ahead of the US, and that would probably not change unless the US gets into WWI and WWII...


Hmm, yes, and no! The rapidly expanding US fleet would not happen wihtout a valid reason. If US focuses on its domestic markets and its own affaires, then the fleet would by way smaller. Whatever fleet there was would most likely be based on battleships as OTL, while the Brits actually develop carriers and what not as in OTL - they need to project power, the US does not!
Officers and naval tradition is important in this scenario. In OTL the Japanese kicked to US around for quite some time, which only goes to show that an aggressive navy could teach the US a lesson or two!
Politics play a vital role too. A more isolationistic US would be reluctant to fight a prolonged war with the Brits over nothing, unless ther Brits either burned Washington DC (again) or bombed the Pearl...

In an ATL without participation in the Wars, the US might not win out, I'd say...

Interesting discussion and thread btw!

Best regards!

- Bluenote.

Very interesting post :) I agree with something you said, wow, haha

It was the First World War that stripped London of its title of the unquestioned financial centre of the world, that put Britain in hock to the Americans and which gave the US economy a huge boost in terms of orders, manufacturing and loans

Now, one might argue that this is inevitable in a war even without US involvement, but its not inevitable WITHOUT a war.

One of the results of US involvement in the war was a great boost to industrialisation, e.g. moderate automobile companies such as Lincoln tooled up for aeropart production and expanded massively. Without the war Ford would probably not have bothered buying Lincoln, as an extra thought

Don't forget that in WW2 Britain still had marketable military technological assets, eg radar and jets, which they DID bargain with the Americans over. Britain remained ahead in some areas to that war. It was really WW2 which built on the financial and economic success of WW1 to turn it into a military and industrial hegemony. Even so, Britain produced the Harrier, built Concorde with France whilst the US cancelled its SST. It was not until the 1970s-1980s perhaps that the final legacy of prior British hegemony disappeared

Grey Wolf
 
Grey Wolf said:
Very interesting post :) I agree with something you said, wow, haha
It's truly very troublesome for me as well! :D Nah, I think that as long as we keep present day politics out of it, we're pretty much in agreement on most issues...

Good post btw!

If we're to have a superpower-like Germany in 1966, I do believe that we're going to have some kind of WWI - France and especially Russia has to be beaten somehow, so that Germany establishes supremacy over the Continent.

Regards and all!

- Mr.B.
 
Clarifying for Redbeard, Blue, etc.

My GDP remark was *only* a response to the original post about German having the "most powerful" economy by 1966, pointing out that will be quite difficult. Depending on the definition of "powerful economy," one can imagine country A's trade and investment influence on the world overcoming, say, country B's 30 percent advantage in raw size. As the gap in GDP gets larger, this becomes more difficult to imagine.

Again, the US passed Britain (much less Germany) in both GDP and industrial production decades before the OTL WWI, while it was still confined to North America and the sun never sank on the Empire. By 1914, the US was ahead of Britain in GDP per capita (subject to some methodological issues), so you get the idea of the different size of the two economies. Grimm, it was bigger than Britain and Germany combined *before the first World War.*

As for an Anglo-American naval war, that's why I said "sustained," of course. Nothing short of ASB is going to close the huge gap in productive capacity between the US and Britain in 1922 for a long naval war to have any other outcome than a clear US victory.

Redbeard, I understand your point about Britain in 1918 not being the same as Britain in 1945 but consider also that a war in 1922 predates the effect of the Great Depression on the US. In 1940 US GDP in current dollars is still below where it was in 1929. Yet, starting a year later, the US is able to outproduce Britain to the extent that, despite much heavier American naval losses by tonnage, Task Force 58 is larger than the entire British fleet within 2.5 years of Pearl Harbor. I certainly haven't offered motivation for the US to fight a long war and can't think of one without a POD which would take us even farther off-track in this thread. But the larger and longer the war is starting in 1922, the less chance the British have.
 
Last edited:
DMS said:
Again, the US passed Britain (much less Germany) in both GDP and industrial production decades before the OTL WWI, while it was still confined to North America and the sun never sank on the Empire. By 1914, the US was ahead of Britain in GDP per capita (...) As for an Anglo-American naval war, that's why I said "sustained," of course. Nothing short of ASB is going to close the huge gap in productive capacity between the US and Britain in 1922 for a long naval war to have any other outcome than a clear US victory. (...) In 1940 US GDP in current dollars is still below where it was in 1929.

Damn, you made me read alot of stuff, DMS! ;) You, my god man, have made some mistakes...

At the beginning of the 20th Century the United States of America and Germany had developed their own industries. The United Kingdom's comparative economic advantage had lessened, not eclipsed by any means. The losses and destruction of World War I, the depression in its aftermath during the 1930s, and decades of relatively slow growth eroded, not ended, the United Kingdom's preeminent international position of the previous century.

The GDP pr Capita in 1900 for Britain is 4593$, while it’s only 4096$ for the US. The US is actually only fourth. Now, mind you, this is for Britain only. Add to this the rest of the Empire; Australia, New Zealand and what not…

Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp_per_cap_in_190

By 1914 Britain was no longer the dominant economic power in Europe. It still had the world's largest shipbuilding industry, but in other areas such as coal, iron, chemicals and light engineering, Britain was out-performed by Germany.

Source: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWinBritain.htm

In 1914 the Royal Navy was by far the most powerful navy in the world. The British government took the view that the Royal Navy had to be larger than the world's two next largest navies put together.

Source: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWnavy.htm

The United States Navy, with its 300 warships, was the world's third largest by 1914.

Source: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWusaN.htm

The British Empire, which in the early decades of the 20th century covered nearly 30 million square kilometress with a population of 400-500 million people - roughly a quarter of the world's population. By comparison the United States of America had a population of some 100 million by 1914. The British Empire was described with some truth as "the empire on which the sun never sets". It reached its height in the 1930s and 40s.

Sorce: http://united-states.asinah.net/american-encyclopedia/wikipedia/b/br/british_empire.html

Regarding the claim that the US economy in 1940 had not caught up with the pre-crash level, well, that's not quite true either, apparently! I found some interesting reading on EH.net - where you btw can look at the economies of both Britain and the US in the mentioned periode. Alexander Field, an economic historian, concludes that the most rapid innovation in American history occurred not in the booming 1990s, or even in the roaring twenties, but in the period between the Wall Street crash of 1929 and the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 (you know, during the Great Depression), so...

Source: http://www.johnkay.com/trends/318

Now, some of this is open for discussion, I know, but the British Empire was, as claimed in an earlier post, extremely powerfull in the early 20th century and not to be underestimated!

Hmm, perhaps, I should go and dig up some data on Germany as well?!

Best regards!

- B.
 
Blue

I don't believe I've made a mistake in this thread. In any case, your post does not show that I have.


"At the beginning of the 20th Century the United States of America and Germany had developed their own industries. The United Kingdom's comparative economic advantage had lessened, not eclipsed by any means. The losses and destruction of World War I, the depression in its aftermath during the 1930s, and decades of relatively slow growth eroded, not ended, the United Kingdom's preeminent international position of the previous century."

The phrase 'preeminent international position' makes this a subjective evaluation. Even 'comparative economic advantage' is too vague to come fully to grips with. Britain was still dominant in world trade in the early part of the 20th century but a good part of that was its greater need to trade as compared to Germany and, much more so, the US. I find it hard to believe anyone is really arguing for Britain's preeminence just before it is routed, to use my favorite word, at the outset of WWII. But these claims could both be considered accurate to a point through much of the 1930's. They have very little to do with any of my posts, however.


"The GDP pr Capita in 1900 for Britain is 4593$, while it’s only 4096$ for the US. The US is actually only fourth. Now, mind you, this is for Britain only."

Yes, and by 1914 the US had passed Britain, as I said.


"By 1914 Britain was no longer the dominant economic power in Europe. It still had the world's largest shipbuilding industry, but in other areas such as coal, iron, chemicals and light engineering, Britain was out-performed by Germany."

Yes, and a non-European power was larger than Britain and Germany combined.


"In 1914 the Royal Navy was by far the most powerful navy in the world. The British government took the view that the Royal Navy had to be larger than the world's two next largest navies put together."

Absolutely, although by 1922, the proposed starting date for our splendid little war, the Washington Conference suggests the only reasonable position is numerical equality for Britain and the US. Even so, as Redbeard points out, Britain retained a significant qualitative superiority due to basing, combat experience, and technical advantages. The first two years or so of an Anglo-American naval war starting in the early to mid-1920's would not go well for the US. After that . . .


"The British Empire, which in the early decades of the 20th century covered nearly 30 million square kilometress with a population of 400-500 million people - roughly a quarter of the world's population. By comparison the United States of America had a population of some 100 million by 1914. The British Empire was described with some truth as "the empire on which the sun never sets". It reached its height in the 1930s and 40s."

How many of those citizens could be called on to serve the empire in a time of war? How productive would the average, umm, resident of the empire be in his or her contribution to the war?

The British empire may have reached its peak in terms of geographic extent in the 1930's and 1940's -- you can't seriously be suggesting that it reached the peak of its power at that time. If you are, we should probably stop.


"Regarding the claim that the US economy in 1940 had not caught up with the pre-crash level, well, that's not quite true either, apparently! I found some interesting reading on EH.net - where you btw can look at the economies of both Britain and the US in the mentioned periode. Alexander Field, an economic historian, concludes that the most rapid innovation in American history occurred not in the booming 1990s, or even in the roaring twenties, but in the period between the Wall Street crash of 1929 and the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 (you know, during the Great Depression), so..."

Mr. Field can claim anything he likes about innovation -- as I said in my post official US GDP in current dollars was lower in 1940 than in 1929.


In general, I'm a little puzzled by your reply. You've obvious put some good work into it but it doesn't seem to directly engage anything I've said.
 
DMS said:
In general, I'm a little puzzled by your reply. You've obvious put some good work into it but it doesn't seem to directly engage anything I've said.
Hmm, well, mostly I'm arguing that in an ATL, which will be way different than OTL, diverging around 1914, not '22, with no participation in WWI by the US, things could very well unfold differently. Looking at my little quotes, nothing is pointing to the fact that the USA necessarily would rise as it did. You seem to view the ATL related to this thread through present day glasses, so to speak. Basically what I'm saying is, that by 1914, there's no reason to think that the Empire would not continue to dominate both trade, maritime matters and industry for a looong time... With its colossal Empire, Britain had all the customers, workers, soldiers and resources they could ever want!

When the two navies clash in Redbeards 1922-scenario, why would the US in this ATL have build a navy like the one in OTL? Without participation in the short rather unbloody WWI US and international politics would be way different, but the Brits would, as said earlier, still need to project power and protect trade, so they will strenghten their navy immensely (the Germans are still around, remember)! Hence by 1922, and even with a sustained fight, the Brits could, and I'm not saying they necessarily would, take on the US in an naval war and win!

Regarding the GDP btw I couldn't find data for the rest of the British Empire in 1914, so I used the 1900 numbers (which was easily accessable :) ), and it's quite clear that the Empire's economy is huge compared to the US.

DMS said:
Mr. Field can claim anything he likes about innovation -- as I said in my post official US GDP in current dollars was lower in 1940 than in 1929.
Noooo... The nominal GDP of the US in 1929 was 103,6$ and it was 126,7$ in 1941. And if you read the article it's fairly obvious that Field believed that the US economy grew quite a lot in that periode. Source: http://www.eh.net/hmit/gdp/gdp_answer.php

Anyway, this is a bit of a sidetrack, DMS, but it's always nice to learn somthing new! :)

Best regards!

- B.
 
Last edited:
Top