British industrial sanity options between 1906-1914

Thomas1195

Banned
Title says it all.

What should have been done during the pre-ww1 period from 1906 to 1914 to make British industry ramp up more efficiently during the early phase of the war?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I think the first thing to do must be to reassess the state of the British army, with a greater emphasis from equipment. Now, at least three problems would arise.

First, 90% of synthetic dye (khaki dye for British Army) was imported from Germany.

Second, 60% of optical instruments were imported from Jena.

Third, the majority of acetone used to manufacture cordites were also imported from Germany or the US.

Another problems:
- The majority of British magnetos and ball-bearings were imported from Germany.

- British electricity industry were extremely inefficient as each region use a different electricity standard, which constrained the constructiom of superpower stations and the mass production of electrical equipment. Besides, the number of manufacturers that used electric power were still lower than those in Germany an the US.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
Now, the government must intervene to build up these industries from the war. During this 9-year period, these industries should be able to accumulate experience and develop new processes, so that they would be able to operate more efficiently from the early phase of the war.

Next, more industrial and technical colleges should be formed in the Industrial North. Specialist and professional R&D operations must be formed, since these new industries would require systemic scientific R&D, not the inadequate and outdated Jame Watt style (which still ruled in Britain before ww1) like during the First Industrial Revolution.

Then, the state must standardize electricity standards based on those adopted by NESCo in the North East of England. The state must also support the improvement of transport, roads and communication.

This would require other ministers. If I were PM, I would appoint John Brunner, chairman of Brunner Mond as President of the Board of Trade. I would also appoint Richard Haldane as both War Secretary and Vice-President of the Board of Education (to work on educational reform).

Finally, have several British directors visiting American factories, especially those of state-owned interests like Royal Small Arm Factory. This might allow them to gain knowledge of assembly line earlier than IOTL, especially when Ford opened a plant in Machester in 1913-1914, thus lead to earlier adoption of assembly line in munition factories and later, tank factories. Assembly lines would enable British factories to accelerate output growth in a shorter span.
 
I think the first thing to do must be to reassess the state of the British army, with a greater emphasis from equipment. Now, at least three problems would arise.

First, 90% of synthetic dye (khaki dye for British Army) was imported from Germany.
[Not much that can be done about this in the specified time period IMHO
as this means getting the synthetic dye industry moving from a standing start.
Maybe some expansion of local industry, but mostly looking for alternative sources,
still largely dependent on imports at least at first]


Second, 60% of optical instruments were imported from Jena.
[Where does the other 40% come from? There might be more of a basis for expanding the industry]

Third, the majority of acetone used to manufacture cordites were also imported from Germany or the US.
[How much of a majority? Again more of a basis for expansion, but not enough to butterfly away the Shell Crisis
entirely]



Another problems:
- The majority of British magnetos and ball-bearings were imported from Germany.
[Again some room for expansion, but I suspect you'd had to look for alternative supply
in order to prevent initial shortages]


- British electricity industry were extremely inefficient as each region use a different electricity standard, which constrained the constructiom of superpower stations and the mass production of electrical equipment. Besides, the number of manufacturers that used electric power were still lower than those in Germany an the US.
[Standardise first, then expand, then modernise]

Now, the government must intervene to build up these industries from the war. During this 9-year period, these industries should be able to accumulate experience and develop new processes, so that they would be able to operate more efficiently from the early phase of the war. [And depend less on US industrial and financial aid, with smaller war debts]

Next, more industrial and technical colleges should be formed in the Industrial North [Maybe as part of educational/social reforms?].
Specialist and professional R&D operations must be formed, since these new industries would require systemic scientific R&D, not the inadequate and outdated Jame Watt style (which still ruled in Britain before ww1) like during the First Industrial Revolution. [Ditto]

Then, the state must standardized electricity standards based on those adopted by NESCo in the North East of England.
The state must also support the improvement of transport, roads and communication.
[This, I think, is where military development starts to change as a well as supply,
Earlier move to oil propulsion in the Navy?
Official adoption of the Hornsby gun tractor in 1910?
Earier/quicker tank development as a result?
]

This would require other ministers. If I were PM, I would appoint John Brunner, chairman of Brunner Mond as President of the Board of Trade. I would also appoint Richard Haldane as both War Secretary and Vice-President of the Board of Education.

Maybe work with the Dominions to expand their respective industrial bases?
 
Now, the government must intervene to build up these industries from the war. During this 9-year period, these industries should be able to accumulate experience and develop new processes, so that they would be able to operate more efficiently from the early phase of the war.
And there you have the first, huge, problem. Political will and ideology.

Next, more industrial and technical colleges should be formed in the Industrial North. Specialist and professional R&D operations must be formed, since these new industries would require systemic scientific R&D, not the inadequate and outdated Jame Watt style (which still ruled in Britain before ww1) like during the First Industrial Revolution.
Again, hugely unlikely given the beliefs of the era. Technical education was fine but the move to systematic scientific research was outside most people's zone. There just wasn't the interest in science and technology in the universities.
For example, in 1892 the University of Cambridge graduated exactly one student in physics (the brilliant C. T. R. Wilson, I picked up this fact in researching a timeline revolving around him)

Then, the state must standardize electricity standards based on those adopted by NESCo in the North East of England. The state must also support the improvement of transport, roads and communication.
This means huge state intervention, political anathema at the time.

Finally, have several British directors visiting American factories, especially those of state-owned interests like Royal Small Arm Factory. This might allow them to gain knowledge of assembly line earlier than IOTL, especially when Ford opened a plant in Machester in 1913-1914, thus lead to earlier adoption of assembly line in munition factories and later, tank factories. Assembly lines would enable British factories to accelerate output growth in a shorter span.
This kind of improvement also requires huge capital input.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Maybe work with the Dominions to expand their respective industrial bases?
Optical instruments: 60% from Germany, 30% from France.

For magneto, ball bearing or acetone, I could not find exact figures.

Britain was able ramp up output in just over 3 years IOTL. Now we would have 6-10 years.

And there you have the first, huge, problem. Political will and ideology.


Again, hugely unlikely given the beliefs of the era. Technical education was fine but the move to systematic scientific research was outside most people's zone. There just wasn't the interest in science and technology in the universities.
For example, in 1892 the University of Cambridge graduated exactly one student in physics (the brilliant C. T. R. Wilson, I picked up this fact in researching a timeline revolving around him)


This means huge state intervention, political anathema at the time.


This kind of improvement also requires huge capital input.
Have the National Efficiency movement inside the Liberal Party greater and more successful. Have Asquith, at that time at the National Efficiency wing, becoming Leader of the Liberal Party from 1898.

Next, Haldane and Rosebery was instrumental in founding the Imperial College. Thus, appointing Haldane in a senior position in the Board of Education in addition to the Secretary for War would be a game-changing move. Meanwhile, the President of the Board of Trade should be an industrialist rather than Lloyd George. John Brunner, chairman of Brunner Mond and a Radical, would be the best choice.

That's why I begin with state-owned armament factories.
 
Maybe the switchover to a scientific R&D approach can be billed as part of the education reforms and gneral support for the sciences.
 
Have the National Efficiency movement inside the Liberal Party greater and more successful. Have Asquith, at that time at the National Efficiency wing, becoming Leader of the Liberal Party from 1898.

Next, Haldane and Rosebery was instrumental in founding the Imperial College. Thus, appointing Haldane in a senior position in the Board of Education in addition to the Secretary for War would be a game-changing move. Meanwhile, the President of the Board of Trade should be an industrialist rather than Lloyd George. John Brunner, chairman of Brunner Mond and a Radical, would be the best choice.

That's why I begin with state-owned armament factories.
It's a huge, society changing, alteration in policy. One that would take decades to implement. The NE movement started in ~1899, far too late to make the changes necessary in time for WW1.
 
It's a huge, society changing, alteration in policy. One that would take decades to implement. The NE movement started in ~1899, far too late to make the changes necessary in time for WW1.

I suspect some if not most of the changes proposed within the time frame won't make much difference to World War I.
They might have an impact on recovery etc during the interwar years though.
 
I suspect some if not most of the changes proposed within the time frame won't make much difference to World War I.
They might have an impact on recovery etc during the interwar years though.
Very possible, especially if pursued with wartime zeal, funding and ruthless application of government power. Maybe the UK goes Technocrat in the '20s, especially if they lose WW1, and things get weird.
 
Firstly, can I say that I know they are in vogue, but I really detest this trend for "sanity" titled threads. People in the past weren't stupid or close-minded or opposed to change any more than they are today, and I think its unfair to imply that the decisions they made in the past lacked sanity just because we have the benefit of 20:20 hindsight today.

It's a huge, society changing, alteration in policy. One that would take decades to implement. The NE movement started in ~1899, far too late to make the changes necessary in time for WW1.

Yes. This. A million times this. I know I've said this before in threads that touch on this subject, usually those started by the OP here, and I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record. But Edwardian Britain was both a hotbed of radical ideas AND one of intense social, political, economic, and fiscal conservatism. Changes like these would be dramatic and difficult - just look at the OTL opposition to the People's Budget. You can't just restructure the Liberal Party (and what happens to the non National Efficiency supporting wing of the party? Do they just vanish?) and hope for the best. You need to take the social and political context into account.

In order to answer the OP's question, you need to look at why Britain OTL was seemingly content buying these goods from overseas. It isn't simply a lack of national zeal or inadequate technical expertise in the UK, but also to do with the costs and contours of the Free Market economy of Britain at the time. You need to remove the cost-effective and easy nature of buying, say, all your optical equipment from Germany and that is fundamentally related to the free market. A state-owned armaments industry is a rational proposal in hindsight, but wasn't really that realistic in the context of an Edwardian Britain deeply sceptical of state involvement in the economy.

Moreover, if there was change it would have to take place in Britain itself. The idea that the UK at the time would invest in building up industry in the colonies is dubious - not only would the investment be harder, requiring better infrastructure than already existed in the UK itself, but many of the colonies lacked a technically-educated mass population base for such industrial productions. OR were only just beginning to build it up in significant numbers.

In many ways the R&D you are looking for was not just lacking in the UK, but was in no way industry standard throughout the world. You're asking for a seismic change without providing any idea of why it might happen beyond government policy. Just reforming education and churning out more technically trained young men doesn't guarantee a transformation in British Industry at the time because it doesn't change economies and work cultures. In the railways, for example, like in many industries young men were hired and internally trained and there was great suspicion of men who came in from outside. Changing that culture would be much harder - it persisted in many cases into the 1950s and 1960s OTL.

As I've said before, just chopping and changing a Liberal line-up on the Front Bench won't help (and that's assuming they stay in power whilst pushing through all this radical policy, which is a big IF). The problems you identify in Britain are socially and culturally rooted in the period and much harder to change.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Yes. This. A million times this. I know I've said this before in threads that touch on this subject, usually those started by the OP here, and I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record. But Edwardian Britain was both a hotbed of radical ideas AND one of intense social, political, economic, and fiscal conservatism. Changes like these would be dramatic and difficult - just look at the OTL opposition to the People's Budget. You can't just restructure the Liberal Party (and what happens to the non National Efficiency supporting wing of the party? Do they just vanish?) and hope for the best. You need to take the social and political context into account.

In order to answer the OP's question, you need to look at why Britain OTL was seemingly content buying these goods from overseas. It isn't simply a lack of national zeal or inadequate technical expertise in the UK, but also to do with the costs and contours of the Free Market economy of Britain at the time. You need to remove the cost-effective and easy nature of buying, say, all your optical equipment from Germany and that is fundamentally related to the free market. A state-owned armaments industry is a rational proposal in hindsight, but wasn't really that realistic in the context of an Edwardian Britain deeply sceptical of state involvement in the economy.
Well, this would require PODs well before 1900. Have British policymakers abandon Adam Smith and go for Friedrich List. Or butterfly away the repeal of Corn Laws so that Britain would still stay protectionist. Or, have Chamberlain never split from the Liberals, which means Liberals (including Chamberlain) dominate British politics at least to the end of the century.

After the Boer War the National Efficiency wing eventually won the struggle IOTL, there weren't many Gladstonians left, like John Morley. The reason why NE movement became less successful because it was led by Rosebery instead of Joe Chamberlain or even Asquith/Haldane.

IOTL, Britain had a significant state-owned armament sector, like Royal Small Arm Factory or Enfield Armoury. Have the directors somehow visit a Ford assembly line would help greatly.

Fisher in 1908 predicted that the war with Germany would happen in 1914, based on the construction of Kiel Canal. Having the Cabinet take this more seriously would help. Simultaneously, if the Cabinet was able to predict a long war early, this would encourage them to at least reexamine the state of British industries and army.
 
Well, this would require PODs well before 1900. Have British policymakers abandon Adam Smith and go for Friedrich List. Or butterfly away the repeal of Corn Laws so that Britain would still stay protectionist. Or, have Chamberlain never split from the Liberals, which means Liberals (including Chamberlain) dominate British politics at least to the end of the century.

The problem is that any of these PODs shakes things up far too much for you still to have the situation in 1906 that you refer to in your first post. A Britain that abandons free trade would have dramatic effects on world economics and politics. Likewise, Chamberlain not splitting from the Liberals may mean that the Liberals aren't in power by 1906 - if he still pursued his tariff reform agenda he would have split the Liberals badly and probably done as well in the polls as OTL.

After the Boer War the National Efficiency wing eventually won the struggle IOTL, there weren't many Gladstonians left, like John Morley. The reason why NE movement became less successful because it was led by Rosebery instead of Joe Chamberlain or even Asquith/Haldane.

I don't think Rosebery's leadership was the only reason why National Efficiency didn't achieve more, although I agree it didn't help. You also have to remember that National Efficiency was by no means just a Liberal Party ideology. In many ways it was a social movement co-opted by the Liberals.


IOTL, Britain had a significant state-owned armament sector, like Royal Small Arm Factory or Enfield Armoury. Have the directors somehow visit a Ford assembly line would help greatly.

Fisher in 1908 predicted that the war with Germany would happen in 1914, based on the construction of Kiel Canal. Having the Cabinet take this more seriously would help. Simultaneously, if the Cabinet was able to predict a long war early, this would encourage them to at least reexamine the state of British industries and army.

Again, I don't disagree, but this cuts to the heart of the bit of my argument you didn't quote. Changing Government policy is not enough. The problems are deep rooted in British society. I mean, say for example the Enfield Directors go to the Ford plant in Detroit; that doesn't mean that they would have any particular incentive to adopt the system. OTL they almost certainly knew about assembly lines via the Trade Press and didn't adopt such schemes as far as I know. It wasn't about a lack of awareness - as I tried to explain above, the problems are more deep rooted in ideas of education, class, and how men are recruited and trained in British industry. For every firm like Rowntree's that were interested in American management styles there were other industrialists who were quite happy with the way they were running their businesses - many of them were Liberal MPs.

I'm not denying that Liberal policy could have changed, I'm just trying to say that I think you might be overestimating how much reach Government intervention has in the Edwardian period. Before the impact of the First World War the idea of what Government should, and could, do in relation to industry was much more limited.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The problem is that any of these PODs shakes things up far too much for you still to have the situation in 1906 that you refer to in your first post. A Britain that abandons free trade would have dramatic effects on world economics and politics. Likewise, Chamberlain not splitting from the Liberals may mean that the Liberals aren't in power by 1906 - if he still pursued his tariff reform agenda he would have split the Liberals badly and probably done as well in the polls as OTL.
Well, first, if Chamberlain never broke away, the Tories would not be going to win elections during the last 2 decades of the 19th century. While Liberal would move away from Laissez Faire well before 1900.

It wasn't about a lack of awareness - as I tried to explain above, the problems are more deep rooted in ideas of education, class, and how men are recruited and trained in British industry. For every firm like Rowntree's that were interested in American management styles there were other industrialists who were quite happy with the way they were running their businesses - many of them were Liberal MPs.
In fact, early assembly lines used semi-automatic machinery so that unskilled labour could be used, but they would require more high level engineers. The state can open more new technical colleges to train new engineers, and then hire them into the state-owned munition factories. I think the likes of Vickers, Armstrong-Whitworth or Alfred Herbert would follow soon.
 
In fact, early assembly lines used semi-automatic machinery so that unskilled labour could be used, but they would require more high level engineers. The state can open more new technical colleges to train new engineers, and then hire them into the state-owned munition factories. I think the likes of Vickers, Armstrong-Whitworth or Alfred Herbert would follow soon.

I think maybe yes, but there isn't a guarantee that companies would follow suit. And not much the Government can do if they don't.

Well, first, if Chamberlain never broke away, the Tories would not be going to win elections during the last 2 decades of the 19th century. While Liberal would move away from Laissez Faire well before 1900.

Afraid I completely disagree with this. Yes, if the Liberals don't split in 1885-1886 then they probably cling to power into the early 1890s, but Salsbury's ascendency was due to much more than just the Liberal split. He restructured and modernised the Tory Party in this period into a formidable machine. Furthermore, if Chamberlain does continue to move towards Tariff Reform in this timeline, you WILL see a split in the Liberals over the issue of Trade. Free Trade was fundamental to the identity of a large number of Liberal voters and MPs and, even if somehow Chamberlain had managed to take the majority of these two groups with him, Tariff Reform was drubbed in the polls OTL by the wider electorate who didn't want it. So I don't see how you can claim the Liberals will continue in power for 20-30 years, especially if they risk a dangerous and bitter split by moving towards a position that was not actually that popular with voters.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Afraid I completely disagree with this. Yes, if the Liberals don't split in 1885-1886 then they probably cling to power into the early 1890s, but Salsbury's ascendency was due to much more than just the Liberal split. He restructured and modernised the Tory Party in this period into a formidable machine. Furthermore, if Chamberlain does continue to move towards Tariff Reform in this timeline, you WILL see a split in the Liberals over the issue of Trade. Free Trade was fundamental to the identity of a large number of Liberal voters and MPs and, even if somehow Chamberlain had managed to take the majority of these two groups with him, Tariff Reform was drubbed in the polls OTL by the wider electorate who didn't want it. So I don't see how you can claim the Liberals will continue in power for 20-30 years, especially if they risk a dangerous and bitter split by moving towards a position that was not actually that popular with voters.
The split would be less significant because there were very few or even no protectionists among Liberal rank, unlike Tories. Even the working people and the trade unions (later Labour IOTL), Chamberlain's major supporters if he stayed, were also free traders. Also, IOTL, Chamberlain shifted to the right significantly after the Home Rule split, and eventually moved closer to TR. There is no guarantee that he would move to Tariff Reform without the split in 1885.

Well, about Salisbury, he would not win anything if the Liberals continued to bring forward things like Radical Programme or Newcastle Programme. Worse (for Tories), with Chamberlain, there is a chance that they might even absorb the likes of Keir Hardie or Ramsay MacDonald (before going Socialist, they were among the Radical ranks before 1885).



Another POD: have Asquith become PM in 1906. IOTL, in 1909, Asquith introduced Development and Road Scheme to invest things like in road building, agriculture or scientific research and other things that private businesses would not do, both for national development and for reducing unemployment when trade slumps, but it was not large as British economy was booming between 1910-1914. However, there was a significant slump between 1906-1908, which means the Scheme would face a real world test. Now, what if the public works prove its effectiveness? The Cabinet might be determined to expand the scope and scale of the Scheme (but of course, it would not be like £100m per annum like Keynesian programme in 1924 or 1929).
 
Well, first, if Chamberlain never broke away, the Tories would not be going to win elections during the last 2 decades of the 19th century. While Liberal would move away from Laissez Faire well before 1900

The split would be less significant because there were very few or even no protectionists among Liberal rank, unlike Tories. Even the working people and the trade unions (later Labour IOTL), Chamberlain's major supporters if he stayed, were also free traders. Also, IOTL, Chamberlain shifted to the right significantly after the Home Rule split, and eventually moved closer to TR. There is no guarantee that he would move to Tariff Reform without the split in 1885.

Well, yes. If Chamberlain stayed a Free Trade Liberal in this period then there would be no split and the Party would be more powerful. But I thought you were arguing before that the advantage of Chamberlain staying was that he would take the whole Party away from Laissez Faire. Which would be electoral suicide.


Well, about Salisbury, he would not win anything if the Liberals continued to bring forward things like Radical Programme or Newcastle Programme. Worse (for Tories), with Chamberlain, there is a chance that they might even absorb the likes of Keir Hardie or Ramsay MacDonald (before going Socialist, they were among the Radical ranks before 1885).

I think some of this is wishful thinking. Why do radical programmes necessarily edge out the Tories in these elections? You've got to remember that the UK was a limited franchise in this period and that many voters were not interested in radical solutions to problems. Furthermore, whilst they might absorb early Labour MPs like they kept John Burns and his ilk OTL, there will still be the pressures in the TUC and the socialist movement that will jar with the less radical elements of the Liberal Party. I still think the emergence of a Trade Union supporting Labour Party is the most likely outcome in this period - there will be only so far a radical Liberal leader can accomodate their desires without alienating moderates in the Party or in the electorate.

But, more than anything, I think you are massively underestimating the Tories. Salisbury helped create the modern Conservative Party as an electoral force. The Primrose League, which supported his campaigns, was a well-oiled local association organisation that had more members than the Trade Union movement at points in this period. Furthermore, in the elections in this period a significant number of Tories ran in seats where they were unopposed. Your POD hasn't changed that weakness in the Liberal Party's funding and geographical reach, meaning that however well they do there are always going to seats they can't afford to compete in (a whopping 163 in the 1900 election).

I'm not trying to say you are wrong, but just that your analysis needs nuance. Whilst, as you claim, the changes to the Liberal Party you envisage would have had dramatic consequences, I don't think you can make blanket claims about how they would have kept the Tories out of power for thirty odd years or effectively neutered the rise of the Labour Party wholesale. You need to put any PODs in the wider context of what isn't changed ITTL.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Your POD hasn't changed that weakness in the Liberal Party's funding
Well, in 1885, Chamberlain led a whooping number of industrialists like himself away. Without the split, most of them would stay. Before 1885, Liberal Party was clearly the party of industrialists.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Right in 1914, the earlier formation of the Ministry of Munition would help. IOTL, it was not created until the Shell Crisis. Also, keep Richard Haldane in government at all cost. Kitchener as War Secretary was not efficient in managing war industries.

I think a R&D board that involves co-operation in research and development between the Admiralty and shipyards and armament firms could have been formed well before the war.
 
Top