AH Challenge: 1966 - Germany is extremely powerful and flourishing

[Faeelin]

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.

Err, what? The fact that several hundred thousand Americans are not dead has made us poorer?

You could argue that the other nations of the world are *richer*, and thus that the US is poorer comparatively, but I don't see why we'd be actually poorer.

I'm also wondering what enormous inflow of capital people are talking about that was caused by WW1. The US *loaned* money. That is not an inflow.

 

[DMS]

Blue, would you please stop doing that

"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!"

Then why would it have lost WWI without US help?


"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!"

Gaps of 2:1 and rising in industrial production can't be overcome in a long naval war. You are free to think differently, of course.


"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."

Even in 1900 and using your +$500 pc figure for Britain alone, the British economy is much smaller than the US, since it's population is half the size. By 1914, the US economy is more than twice as large. In dollar values, the contribution of rest the empire is small -- though this may certainly be misleading since most assets are off-market. Of course, including the empire would lower Britain's pc income a great deal, making it appear much poorer.


"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"

That's 1941 and I cited 1940 (twice). I don't appreciate your repeatedly mis-stating my claims. For 1929 on, use the Survey of Current Business. An on-line series is given at:

http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls

Pre-1929, the authoritative source is Historical Statistics of the US, but that isn't available on-line without payment. EH has a calculator which isn't primary data but which is handy:

http://www.eh.net/hmit/gdp/

I think you are referring to that in your link, but your address is not quite right.

 

[Redbeard]

"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!"

Then why would it have lost WWI without US help?


"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!"

Gaps of 2:1 and rising in industrial production can't be overcome in a long naval war. You are free to think differently, of course.


"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."

Even in 1900 and using your +$500 pc figure for Britain alone, the British economy is much smaller than the US, since it's population is half the size. By 1914, the US economy is more than twice as large. In dollar values, the contribution of rest the empire is small -- though this may certainly be misleading since most assets are off-market. Of course, including the empire would lower Britain's pc income a great deal, making it appear much poorer.


"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"

That's 1941 and I cited 1940 (twice). I don't appreciate your repeatedly mis-stating my claims. For 1929 on, use the Survey of Current Business. An on-line series is given at:

http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls

Pre-1929, the authoritative source is Historical Statistics of the US, but that isn't available on-line without payment. EH has a calculator which isn't primary data but which is handy:

http://www.eh.net/hmit/gdp/

I think you are referring to that in your link, but your address is not quite right.

Why do you think that?

US troops did not join the fighting in anything near significant numbers until the summer of 1918, and by that time the German spring offensive had long since been beaten back, by British and French troops. The US force making a big contribution to the allied autumn offensive of 1918 had practically all heavy equipment supplied from GB or France, but without hundredthousands of fresh US troops it would probably not have been possible to have the Germans collapse in 1918. In that way you could say that the US contribution was a bigger German defeat and thus the basis of Versailles and what that lead too.

And one more time - simply comparing GDP doesn't say very much. It's not of much use to be the worlds biggest producer of automobiles, kitchen stoves and cigars, and generally paying the biggest wages, when you are in a naval war against the absolutely biggest guy in ship construction and design, naval base network, ships in service and general experience. Over time the automobile, stove and cigar producers may of course be talked into producing something relevant for the naval war, but in general you will have to count on a relatively large part of the economy to be reserved for keeping up relatively high standards of living - especially if you're not fighting for survival, but rather vague goals.

In other words the Americans will be restricted by a naval bottleneck. By 1922 the American naval capacity had been expanded tremendously, but still the highest number of capital ships initiated in a single fiscal year was AFAIK six (FY 1918 and 1919) which the British had no trouble in challenging with 12 in 1909. The parallel British programme of a huge number of cruisers must not be overseen + the British in early 20th century having the absolutely biggest merchant navy. A glance into the facsimilie 1924 Janes (published a few years ago) will give an idea of the scope. 19 British yards are given as warship builders and with capital ship capable slips well over 30. One yard alone (Swan Hunter) is noted for an anual shipbuilding capacity of 150.000 tons. In addition to the 19 warship builders some 100+ shipbuilders are listed. A similar look into the US entry counts 13 capital ship capable slips by 1924 which compares to the 12 capital ships on the slips in 1922 in seven yards (6 SoDak and 6 Lexington).

More limiting than the number of slips would however be the availability of skilled labour, but here GB will be much ahead, especially if the trenches hasn't taken their toll.

Financially a war against USA in this TL might start out quite beneficially for the British, as they can start by cancelling all debts to USA. Financing the rest can no sweat be done by cancelling the drastic tax reductions carried through after WWI ( a small fraction of which could have paid the G3 programme). If it has the British give up reintroducing the gold standard, it might even be very beneficial in the long term too. I'm actually beginning to doubt if this war will break British economy at all.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Mr.Bluenote]

As always Redbeard made some excellent points! Good post, Steffen!

Please pay attention to the part about shipbuilding, DMS - as I myself mentioned UK alone had by far the largest shipbuiling industry and navy in 1914, where Redbeard's PoD is located! Unless the US goes completely paranoid in the ATL, that's not about to change...

Why do you think that without the insane bloodshed in Flanders the US would still surpass the Empire? British money, gold and what not stay in Europa and is most likely invested in the Empire. Without their own participation in the War, why would the US build a huge navy? Remember, this is an ATL, not a replay of OTL. A short, rather clean WWI would have a tremendous impact on history. Germany and the Empire would most likely end up as giants, or in the case of the Empire stay a giant… The US would still be a big boy, I’m not saying anything else, but it would probably be isolationistic and more preoccupied with its own business.

Of course, including the empire would lower Britain's pc income a great deal, making it appear much poorer.

Yes, the per capita income would make the Empire seem poor (Lots of Indian and Africans will do that to you), but we're talking production and the ability to produce, GDP, right?! Canada, Australian, South Africa and New Zealand should add nicely the the Empire's production facilities...
In this regard it's important to remember that we are still talking about an Alternate time line here, where the Empire do not become depedent on supplies form the US...

In 1940 US GDP in current dollars is still below where it was in 1929.

Ah, sorry about the 1941-thingie! Pearl and WW2 must have stuck in my brain - no need to get fussy, DMS! Let's see...

1929:
Real GDP (billions of 2000 dollars): $865.20
Real GDP per Capita (2000 dollars): $7,105

1940:
Real GDP (billions of 2000 dollars):$1,034
Real GDP per Capita (2000 dollars):$7,826

Source: http://www.eh.net/hmit/gdp/

Do we look at the Quarterly GDP in billions of current dollars we see that the number for 1929 is $237,2, while it is $ 265,2 in 1940...

Annual GDP in billions of current dollars for 1929 is $103,6, but is slightly lower annually for the year 1940, $101,4. The figure rises sharply in 1941, though…

Source: http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls

Generally speaking I think it's safe to say that the US economy in 1940 had reached and surpassed the 1929 level.

Well, I think it's time to move on... Thanks for the debate!

Best reagds!

- B.

 

[wkwillis]

No causus belli for war in 1914 and the Belgians keep on their rapid militarisation program, increasing the size of their army to the point where the Germans decide not to try to invade. No war and Germany continues to surpass Britain and France industrially. America keeps importing East Europeans and growing faster than Germany from a higher base. Japan keeps industrializing and growing faster than America, but from a lower base. So does Russia. They were doing very well in 1914.
That's why Germany went to war. They were afraid of the Russians, not the French.

 

[Mr.Bluenote]

No causus belli for war in 1914 (...)

Yes, I thought of that one too, Willis, but as I see it the Germans need to establish some sort of control, preferably economic, over the Continent, otherwise they'll run out of steam. It was close to happening around 1914. AFAIK they could no longer afford their massive naval build-up amongst other things. Niall Fergusson (Spl?) and some other historians wrote a AH-book some years ago, where they dedicated some space for a WI Germany Won WWI. I cant' remember the details, but there apparently there was some talk of a Tollverein (a proto-EU?!), which might give to Germans room to expand their economy enough to gain superpower status in 1966.

And as you yourself states, the Russians had to be dealt with, so a war it is, I'm afraid!

There is a rather interesting piece of WI speculation on: http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/wwi.htm

Best regards!

- B.

 

[Valamyr]

I dont think the germans were running out of steam at all. Their productivity, industrial and trade levels, their population; it was all booming at super-speed. The only thing that made time play against Germany was that France and Russia were really building up at that time, and fast. Its militarily that Germany might have looked like the underdog by 1917.

Anyhow, Britain's position wasnt firmly entrenched in the entente. I bet its highly likely that if Germany's naval program slows down a bit, while France and Russia (the two "traditional enemies") peak militarily, Britain will switch sides to the Central Powers. Continental balance and all that.

 

[Mr.Bluenote]

I dont think the germans were running out of steam at all. Their productivity, industrial and trade levels, their population; it was all booming at super-speed. The only thing that made time play against Germany was that France and Russia were really building up at that time, and fast. Its militarily that Germany might have looked like the underdog by 1917.

Oh, you might have misunderstod me - the massive investment in the armed forces, especially the navy did strain the German economy quite a lot. Germany's economy as such was booming, quite right. They build-up their merchant fleet immensely, trade level rose (I think I read soemwhere that the British and the Germans were each others greatest traidng partners - is that true?), steel procuction was extremely high etc etc, but the arms raise was hurting the Germans. Investments that could have been used on further expansion, reinvestment in industry, education etc etc was poured into the armed forces, again the navy got more than its share! I'm pretty certain there was a lot of trouble regarding the various budgets in the periode - I'll go look for furhter sources if needed be, but have a look at this:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWbethmann.htm

Anyhow, Britain's position wasnt firmly entrenched in the entente. I bet its highly likely that if Germany's naval program slows down a bit, while France and Russia (the two "traditional enemies") peak militarily, Britain will switch sides to the Central Powers. Continental balance and all that.

Oh, the British Navy (Fisher at least) didn't take the build-up that seriously - he made a rather good "so rest safely in your beds speech". Much of the hysteria was fueled by the politicians in the general election of january 1910. Even Churchill complained of Bonar Law's Conservatives attacks on Germany only to gain votes. "The attitude of the Conservative party with regard to the navy has been a disgrace (...) it was a policy of trying to raise a panic without reason, a policy of trying to raise ill-will between two great nations without cause!" The quote is from Fuller's Decisive Battles of the Western World btw.
All things considered I'm fairly certain that the Brits would leave the continental powers to squabble amongst themselves, had not the cabinet gone bonkers at the outbreak of the war in 1914. There's some pretty good ATL's in Crowley's first What If-book!

Anyway, I think it's safe to say, that the Germans needed the war to gain true dominance on the Continent! No dominance, no superpower status in 1966...

Best regards!

- B.