AHC/WI: Britain won world war 1 without becoming heavily indebted

BooNZ

Banned
Well, IOTL by late 1917, the US had to keep the Entente afloat by unsecured loans. It seems that we will need a POD even before 1900 to make Britain and its European allies winning the war on its own even in economic and financial aspects.
Probably not.

If Joseph Gallieni had not declined the position of commander and chief of the French army in 1911, the opening year of the war would have been very different. Instead of following the cult of the offensive, Gallieni respected the use of fortifications, artillery and air reconnaissance. Gallieni also advocated the use of drab coloured uniforms and before the war he warned Joffre the Germans would come west of the Meuse in strength.

Given the above, it is likely hundreds of thousands of French casualties would have been avoided in the opening year of the war, the Germans might have struggled to advance beyond Belgium and northern France might have remained in French hands. With the German Western offensive stalled, moderately competent Entente diplomacy should have kept the Ottomans (and ultimately Bulgaria) Neutral.

What if Britain had a stronger industrial base and thus was more self-sufficient and less dependent on American supply?
Cheap and specialized imported American machine tools proved effective at simple repetitive tasks like making munitions, so British machine tools could focus on more demanding tasks. With respect of oil and food, those could have been sourced through either Empire or British global business interests, but the shortage of available shipping meant those more commonly came from the closer source (i.e. North America).
Well, of course they would use, but they could keep an eye on their reserves and ability to pay in hard currency/assets instead of spending frantically. They could reduce imports in rifles, small arm ammo, explosives, steel or machine tool and limit import goods to just oil and food, if their industrial base was stronger so that it could produce a surplus in these goods without having to reduce output in other things like tanks or planes. Just ask one question, why should they import steel if their output was 14-16 mil tons (IOTL British steel output was only 8 mil) while they only consume say, 12 mil tons? A similar question could be applied to rifles and ammo.
You are suggesting Britain should have continually maintained a vast capacity beyond their peacetime needs in all areas, which in the real world equates to gross mismanagement. If you have excess capacity you either have idle plant or create market glut in goods produced.

With respect of rifles and ammunition, Britain was a naval power with a small professional army. While continental powers such as Germany, France and Russia had developed vast conscript armies over decades, Britain had to build the same from scratch very quickly. A similar issue faced the USA in 1917. In 1914 Britain was superbly equipped to fight a decisive naval engagement, but was not equipped to fight an ongoing continental war - the phrase 'fish out of water' comes to mind.
 

hipper

Banned
Well, of course they would use, but they could keep an eye on their reserves and ability to pay in hard currency/assets instead of spending frantically. They could reduce imports in rifles, small arm ammo, explosives, steel or machine tool and limit import goods to just oil and food, if their industrial base was stronger so that it could produce a surplus in these goods without having to reduce output in other things like tanks or planes. Just ask one question, why should they import steel if their output was 14-16 mil tons (IOTL British steel output was only 8 mil) while they only consume say, 12 mil tons? A similar question could be applied to rifles and ammo.

In a total war you expand the industrial production of war materials to the maximum extent possible. After that decisions to maximise producton of one set of goods requires a system of priorities. Maintaining a reserve of production Is wasteful.

Regards
 
Well, of course they would use, but they could keep an eye on their reserves and ability to pay in hard currency/assets instead of spending frantically. They could reduce imports in rifles, small arm ammo, explosives, steel or machine tool and limit import goods to just oil and food, if their industrial base was stronger so that it could produce a surplus in these goods without having to reduce output in other things like tanks or planes. Just ask one question, why should they import steel if their output was 14-16 mil tons (IOTL British steel output was only 8 mil) while they only consume say, 12 mil tons? A similar question could be applied to rifles and ammo.
You can always use more in wartime everybody had massive shortages going from peace to total war in hundreds of types of equipment she is bound to be able to use everything at least at first, even then if GB cant use the extra rifles and shells she will find willing allies to use them for her.
More GB production and money really doesn't mean less US sales it just means worse news for the German and CPs, the only real way to get out of WWI without being heavily indebted is to have the fire power and equipment to win earlier.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
You are suggesting Britain should have continually maintained a vast capacity beyond their peacetime needs in all areas, which in the real world equates to gross mismanagement. If you have excess capacity you either have idle plant or create market glut in goods produced.

You could also increase industrial capacity by qualitatively improving your plants and facilities in various sectors, by measures like electrification (electric power only accounted for 20-25% of factory energy usage in UK), or replacing outdated machinery with new ones (such as introducing pneumatic or electric tools in shipyards), or mechanization of industries which were still dominated by craft-based methods (such as adopting mechanical coal cutting in coal industry), or by 1913-1914 you can install assembly lines (for example having a POD of a director of Enfield Armoury reading news about Ford). It's not necessarily about building new plants.
 

BooNZ

Banned
You could also increase industrial capacity by qualitatively improving your plants and facilities in various sectors, by measures like electrification (electric power only accounted for 20-25% of factory energy usage in UK), or replacing outdated machinery with new ones (such as introducing pneumatic or electric tools in shipyards), or mechanization of industries which were still dominated by craft-based methods (such as adopting mechanical coal cutting in coal industry), or by 1913-1914 you can install assembly lines (for example having a POD of a director of Enfield Armoury reading news about Ford). It's not necessarily about building new plants.

In relation to assembly lines:

In the
automotive industry, its success was dominating, and quickly spread worldwide. Ford France and Ford Britain in 1911, Ford Denmark 1923, Ford Germany 1925; in 1919, Vulcan (Southport, Lancashire) was the first native European manufacturer to adopt it.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
In relation to assembly lines:

In the
automotive industry, its success was dominating, and quickly spread worldwide. Ford France and Ford Britain in 1911, Ford Denmark 1923, Ford Germany 1925; in 1919, Vulcan (Southport, Lancashire) was the first native European manufacturer to adopt it.
I mean an earlier introduction of assembly lines before the war, and not just in auto industry but also armament sectors. In other words, having tanks and military trucks produced on assembly lines.

The next thing to do is mechanizing all industries that are still dominated by obsolete craft-based methods, for example, optical industry, or coal industry, or among smaller machine tool firms. A more far-sighted government would also mechanize shipbuilding, such as introducing electrical and pneumatic tools in shipyards.

Adopting American System of Manufacture in large scale in various industries including watches, clocks, locks and small arms, or even optics. If 100% of small arm production in UK was mechanized before the war, this massive increase in rifle production during the war compared to OTL.
 

BooNZ

Banned
I mean installing assembly lines before the war, and not just in auto industry but also armament sectors. For example, having tanks and military trucks produced on assembly lines.
Except tanks had not been invented prior to WW1 and most militaries were heavy reliant on horse and rail even before WW2. Further, Britain maintained a professional army of only around 200,000 and before the war did not contemplate building a massive continental army.

Mechanizing all industries that are still dominated by obsolete craft-based methods, for example, optical industry, or coal industry, or among smaller machine tool firms. A more far-sighted gov would also mechanize shipbuilding, such as introducing electrical and pneumatic tools in shipyards.
In Britain industry was largely in private ownership, so the "vision" of government was irrelevant. The private sector would be driven by the interests of shareholders and ongoing profits relating thereto. The fact Britain maintained the largest share of global trade in manufactured goods, while maintaining higher profit margins with minimal government intervention highlights that Britain's industry was extremely effective in the decades prior to the war.

Adopting American System of Manufacture in large scale in various industries including watches, clocks, locks and small arms, or even optics. This practice was perfect in precision industries and would result in massive increase in rifle production in the war compared to OTL.
OTL the Russians attempted to use American "expertise" to produce rifles...

American pattern makers and machinists could not produce patterns or jigs the duplicated the Russian originals or in fact duplicated each other. It came as quite a shock to the Russians that neither Westinghouse nor Remington employed sufficient or sufficiently skilled tradesmen to undertake construction of the machine tools and equipment required for production. Remington and Westinghouse even lacked sufficient semi-skilled and unskilled workers for the job. Perhaps most surprising of all to the Russian officers was the lack of managerial talent at both the administrative and factory floor level where inefficient manufacturing processes themselves created tremendous wastage...
...
In early October 1916, Zaliubovskii visited the Westinghouse plants supposedly dedicated to the manufacture of Russian rifles. He was horrified. The new arrival discovered that Westinghouse's engineers and managers did not know how to structure the manufacturing operations for rifle production and were unwilling to alter their production system to meet the demands imposed by the Russian techniques of production. Zaliubovskii immediately assigned General Fedorov to Westinghouse. Although hindered by his lack a of adequate English, General Fedorov under the supervision of General Khrabrov, threw himself into improving Westinghouse's virtually non-existent production of Russian rifles.

Fedorov's task became easier when, fearing not only the loss of these vast orders, but bankruptcy itself, Remington and Westinghouse relented, not only by allowing Russian engineers and technicians onto the factory floor, but by permitting them to restructure production and deal with the labour force directly. Fedorov decided all technical issues on the spot and issued technical instructions to the factory floor supervisors on the best and quickest method of manufacturing the rifles.
...
...Colonel S.Gruev arrived from Russia in May 1917 to help Fedorov. According to Gruev when he arrived at Westinghouse shortly afterwards the company was still only producing 50 rifles per month. By August, however, ten months after Fedorov's arrival at Springfield, the crisis was over. Westinghouse was manufacturing 5000 rifles per day, close to the projected maximum production for the company.


Challenging Traditional views of Russian History: edited by S. Wheatcroft

Suffice to say, the OTL decision of the British to limit American 'expertise' to the manufacture of munitions was clearly the better option.
 
If it was any other country Britain could palm them off with a colony or two and let the US government sort out paying the bankers. Unfortunately I don't think the US would want Fiji or Jamaica. Maybe British Honduras or British Guiana could tempt them? (I know they'd refuse)
 

Thomas1195

Banned
In Britain industry was largely in private ownership, so the "vision" of government was irrelevant. The private sector would be driven by the interests of shareholders and ongoing profits relating thereto. The fact Britain maintained the largest share of global trade in manufactured goods, while maintaining higher profit margins with minimal government intervention highlights that Britain's industry was extremely effective in the decades prior to the war.
Actually, royal dockyards still existed before ww1.

Besides, you have to admit that many industries in Britain was still dominated by obsolete craft-based methods before ww1. Besides, the majority of British factories still used steam power. Thereby, many of them were ill-prepared for raising output immediately when being converted to military production. This was also a major cause that led to skyrocketing import from the US. If large-scale mechanization and electrification of industries took place before the war, British industries would have been in a much better position to ramp up output in a short period.

Regarding assembly line, if some native British producers and managers actually had experience with installing and operating assembly lines, then it would not be difficult for them to realize that it would be a perfect approach for producing tanks, military trucks, as they were the most similar to car production.

Someone can say that building new industries cost money, but if it could lead to global monopoly, then the return would far exceed to cost. For example, Britain imported most of tungsten from Germany for producing high-speed steel, a key war material, but wolfram, the material to make tungsten, was mostly from the Empire. They have wasted a monopoly chance. Similar case with synthetic dye (khaki dye for Army), where Britain had both the invention and material, but could not capitalize to achieve world monopoly like the way they crushed Flemish wool textile trade in 15th century.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, a victory over the Turks in 1915 would drive Balkan countries into Allies camp. Meanwhile, the pro-conscription faction would lose the debate, thus avoiding bankruptcy because British industry now would no longer have to service a big British land forces, while still retaining more of their industrial workers in factories.
 
At the risk of conducting vile dark necromancy, if I've read this thread correctly, the goal is have the entente victorious in the Great War but without as much British expenditure and war weariness (I think itself a significant factor in British decline after the war). I've been looking for some way to do this. So very interesting reading.

The traditional British approach to European wars was to avoid the main lad fighting, instead bankroll the second largest land power to do the fighting, while they used their naval power to concentrate on the peripheries and maintain a blockade. Basically a maritime strategy.

In the Great War the British did adopt this strategy but along with it, tried to fight the land war as well. It was trying to maintain both a land and maritime strategy that cost the British so much.

So a POD. In 1914 after the race to the sea, the British decide to stick to what they know and focus on the maritime strategy. Of course loud howls from the French mean they can't entirely ignore the western front but far less resources are sent there. Instead the immediate focus is on opening up a supply line to the Russians. So with greater resources and little better management, Gallipoli is successful.

Naturally without the historical British contribution, 1915 on the western front does not go well for the entente. Likely by the middle of the year the French are screaming for more troops. However in the Balkans, things are going much better. Bulgaria is hesitant, the Ottomans are tottering and Russia is all set for many shells and bullets.

Despite the bad year in 1915, the French haven't folded yet. The British do respond to the French and up their contribution but still below historical levels. Again things don't go well for the entente in France in 1916. Verdun probably falls. But the French still manage to cling on but the British are forced to commit yet more to prop them up.

But on the other hand, the Ottomans are out, Russia is in much better shape and the Hapsburgs are in trouble. Both from the Italians and the British coming up through the Balkans. By the end of 1916, Germany is having to expend significant resources of it's own to face the Russians and prop up the Hapsburgs. Along with this, the British naval blockade and their own mismanagement is starting to bite Germany at home.

The critical year is now 1917. Can the western front hold long enough for the British maritime strategy to win the war? And what is required to achieve that if it is possible?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Despite the bad year in 1915, the French haven't folded yet. The British do respond to the French and up their contribution but still below historical levels. Again things don't go well for the entente in France in 1916. Verdun probably falls. But the French still manage to cling on but the British are forced to commit yet more to prop them up.
Tell the French to keep their men by reducing suicidal offensives.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_World_War_I

Note that Allies spent $147 billion, with Britain even ran out of money by 1916 and had to rely on the US since then. Meanwhile, Germany basically bankrolled the whole CP, but spent only $45 billion, and was still able sustain their war effort during the whole war.

Now, what if Britain spent much more efficiently, so that they did not run out of money until 1918?
 
Top