Could an Imperial Germany that emerges victorious in WWI, economically outcompete the US, in both industrial and financial sectors?
What do you think?
Last edited:
Could a victorious Kaiserreich economically outcompete the US?
- Thread starter GlobalHumanism
- Start date
Could an Imperial Germany that emerges victorious in WWI, economically outcompete the US, in both industrial and financial sectors?
What do you think?
I'm assuming that map is not relevant.
So yeah, probably not. Definitely not in the long run.
Mostly I just want to say serious what the hell is that map? Did anyone seriously believe that would be the outcome of a German victory in any conflict ever?
So yeah, probably not. Definitely not in the long run.
Mostly I just want to say serious what the hell is that map? Did anyone seriously believe that would be the outcome of a German victory in any conflict ever?
If the Kaiserreich actually managed to establish a secure and permanent rule over all of the territory in that "Grande Allemagne" map? Yes. Realistically? No.
No. The US was already on pace to overtake the largest European economies even before WWI. As the only way for Germany to establish the power shown in that second map is for said war to occur it is highly likely the OTL factors which went into American economic domination are simply impossible to overcome.
TFSmith121
Banned
Just to put a few things into perspective:
These figures are from Bairoch via Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers:
Relative Shares of World Manufacturing Output - 1913:
US - 32 percent
GE - 14.8 percent
UK - 13.2 percent
RU - 8.2 percent
FR - 6.1 percent
AH - 4.4 percent
IT - 2.4 percent
Total Industrial Potential (UK in 1900 as 100) - 1913
US - 298.1
GE - 137.7
UK - 127.2
RU - 76.6
FR - 36.8
AH - 25.6
It - 13.6
The iron and steel production and energy consumption numbers all mirror the above; population, of course is what one would expect ... interesting figure not included is energy production, especially POL vis a vis coal - obviously, the US was head and shoulders above the rest of the world combined in 1913.
So, the long and the short of it is that the US was so far ahead of the European powers economically by the turn of the century that only a unified Europe could have realistically been a competitor - and we know the liklihood of a peacefully unified Europe in the Twentieth Century.
So ... no.
Best,
These figures are from Bairoch via Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers:
Relative Shares of World Manufacturing Output - 1913:
US - 32 percent
GE - 14.8 percent
UK - 13.2 percent
RU - 8.2 percent
FR - 6.1 percent
AH - 4.4 percent
IT - 2.4 percent
Total Industrial Potential (UK in 1900 as 100) - 1913
US - 298.1
GE - 137.7
UK - 127.2
RU - 76.6
FR - 36.8
AH - 25.6
It - 13.6
The iron and steel production and energy consumption numbers all mirror the above; population, of course is what one would expect ... interesting figure not included is energy production, especially POL vis a vis coal - obviously, the US was head and shoulders above the rest of the world combined in 1913.
So, the long and the short of it is that the US was so far ahead of the European powers economically by the turn of the century that only a unified Europe could have realistically been a competitor - and we know the liklihood of a peacefully unified Europe in the Twentieth Century.
So ... no.
Best,
Last edited:
Rhand
Banned
Let's assume this is the Kaiserreich in question, which is probably the best case scenario for Germoney.
Even then, the United States would have outpaced it, as it outpaced all of Europe. Not only does the US have immigration boosting its population, it doesn't depend on colonial lands far from the metropole for its raw materials.
Even then, the United States would have outpaced it, as it outpaced all of Europe. Not only does the US have immigration boosting its population, it doesn't depend on colonial lands far from the metropole for its raw materials.
TFSmith121
Banned
Already had, actually...
Already had, actually...
In 1900, the US share of world manufacturing output was 23.6 percent; the UK's was 18.5.
Total industrial potential (UK in 1900 = 100) was 127.8.
Energy consumption, metric tons of coal equivalent: US - 248/147 (1900/1890); UK 171/145;
Iron/steel (millions of tons): US 10.3/9.3 (1900/1890); UK 5/8; GE 6.3/4.1;
etc.
Best,
Already had, actually...
In 1900, the US share of world manufacturing output was 23.6 percent; the UK's was 18.5.
Total industrial potential (UK in 1900 = 100) was 127.8.
Energy consumption, metric tons of coal equivalent: US - 248/147 (1900/1890); UK 171/145;
Iron/steel (millions of tons): US 10.3/9.3 (1900/1890); UK 5/8; GE 6.3/4.1;
etc.
Best,
Riain
Banned
I voted for maybe because while the economy of the Kaiser Reich with satellites and partners won't be as big as the US' they certainly won't be going down the gurgler. The Kaiser Reich will continue development as a wealthy, advanced economy, one with problems for sure but all countries have problems that they tackle in their own ways. In certain areas the Kaiser Reich might lead the US, perhaps Electronics and Chemicals and later on a Nuclear industry and with Social Democracy the spread of wealth may be more even so per capita on average Germans may be richer than Americans.
But what is certain is that the Kaiser Reich isn't saddled with the bullshit economic ideology that killed the Soviet Union.
But what is certain is that the Kaiser Reich isn't saddled with the bullshit economic ideology that killed the Soviet Union.
TinyTartar
Banned
I don't think so. Keep in mind that they will still have extraordinary defense costs with new restive territory and an empire that will probably still not be on par with the British one resource wise but just as expensive to maintain defense wise. This tends to interfere with economic productivity with less room for subsidies.
TFSmith121
Banned
And such an empire is still deeply in the hole when it comes
And such an empire is still deeply in the hole when it comes to petroleum, astronomically so in comparison to the US and significantly so compared to the UK...
Best,
And such an empire is still deeply in the hole when it comes to petroleum, astronomically so in comparison to the US and significantly so compared to the UK...
Best,
Riain
Banned
Most developed economies have an oil shortage, of all the great powers in the Industrial Age only the US and Russia/Soviet Union have had lots of oil. This has not stopped the likes of Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Japan and even down the ranks Australia, The Netherlands and New Zealand from becoming prosperous and in their time and sphere quite powerful.
If petroleum becomes a real problem the Kaiser Reich could enact policies to ward off the worst effects like developing a reserve, fostering the Fischer Tropsch process, buying shares in major oil companies and developing a varied array of oil suppliers.
Let's assume this is the Kaiserreich in question, which is probably the best case scenario for Germoney.
Even then, the United States would have outpaced it, as it outpaced all of Europe. Not only does the US have immigration boosting its population, it doesn't depend on colonial lands far from the metropole for its raw materials.
What is this, a Kaiserreich for ants?
Delta Force
Banned
Most of them have large petroleum, natural gas, or coal reserves, or a country nearby that can supply them with one of those. France and Japan have no nearby countries with fossil fuel resources, but they extensively developed hydroelectric capacity early on and later switched to nuclear energy to displace fossil fuels for electricity consumption.
Germany itself has large coal reserves, and Poland and Ukraine have large reserves as well, so for electricity generation it would be in a good situation. Large amounts of uranium were also mined in Eastern Europe, but I'm not sure if that's because they were economically feasible to develop, or if the Soviets launched a crash program in the 1940s/1950s to develop all known uranium resources for their nuclear program.
Delta Force
Banned
Also, somewhat related to energy, Germany has access to coking coal. That can be more valuable than petroleum, and it is a strategic resource in its own right because it is used for steel production. There are alternative processes that can use other hydrocarbons such as natural gas, but given the premium coking coal commands it is likely the best option for steel.
To illustrate this, premium coking coal is selling for $85.50 per metric ton in the PRC right now, while Appalachian coal is only selling for $49.00 per short ton.
To illustrate this, premium coking coal is selling for $85.50 per metric ton in the PRC right now, while Appalachian coal is only selling for $49.00 per short ton.
How are they supposed to Mitteleuropa if they can't even fit inside Poland?
TFSmith121
Banned
Germany, even with a Mitteleuropa-level of
Here's the question: Could a victorious Kaiserreich economically outcompete the US?
The answer is no.
Germany, even with a Mitteleuropa-level of control of Central Europe etc, is stuck with coal as their prime hydrocarbon in an era of petroleum; that reality did not work out for them in 1939-45.
In 1937, even with the Depression still a factor, the relative war potential of the powers (Bairoch via Kennedy) lined up as follows:
US - 41.7 percent
GE - 14.4 percent
SU - 14 percent
UK - 10.2 percent
FR - 4.2 percent
JA - 3.5 percent
IT - 2.5 percent
RoW - 9.5 percent
The above had, obviously, real impact in terms of transoceanic warfare in the 1940s, as witness:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_DnRn9hyFU
The US and UK, as allies, put expeditionary forces into Europe that numbered in the multi-millions in 1943-45; the Germans managed to get about a platoon of spies and operators into the Western Hemisphere in 1939-45.
There was no contest.
Best,
Here's the question: Could a victorious Kaiserreich economically outcompete the US?
The answer is no.
Germany, even with a Mitteleuropa-level of control of Central Europe etc, is stuck with coal as their prime hydrocarbon in an era of petroleum; that reality did not work out for them in 1939-45.
In 1937, even with the Depression still a factor, the relative war potential of the powers (Bairoch via Kennedy) lined up as follows:
US - 41.7 percent
GE - 14.4 percent
SU - 14 percent
UK - 10.2 percent
FR - 4.2 percent
JA - 3.5 percent
IT - 2.5 percent
RoW - 9.5 percent
The above had, obviously, real impact in terms of transoceanic warfare in the 1940s, as witness:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_DnRn9hyFU
The US and UK, as allies, put expeditionary forces into Europe that numbered in the multi-millions in 1943-45; the Germans managed to get about a platoon of spies and operators into the Western Hemisphere in 1939-45.
There was no contest.
Best,
Last edited:
The difference with a victorious Kaiserreich and the US is that the Kaiserreich has conquered densely populated territories after the age of nationalism. Meaning the Kaiserreich is going to have to spend a significant chunk of its resources on just keeping the rest of Europe down. The US economy is integrated, its people are united by nationalistic enthusiasm, and its minorities, though horrifically treated, are too small (and in the case of African Americans, still oddly nationalistic) to cause economic disruption.