No, I've never had a thread reach this length. It might be due to the overuse of commas, but you've parsed that sentence incorrectly.rub it in![]()
German debts were all domestic, which means the government can butterfly them away if they want. In fact, the hyperinflation had cleared most of their debts. Britain, however, had a big foreign debt, which could not be eliminated by tricks, unless they dare to say I dont pay. Germany's problem was just mainly financial and monetary, while Britain suffered from various structural weaknesses and an outdated industrial base that have long lasted until today.Sorry, but you are mistaken. Bolding mine.
(1) Sorry, which nation was heavily indebted after WW1, and virtually bankrupt after WW2? You forget the same description applies FAR more to Germany than UK. Germany was ruined by WW1; that great industrial base, and an economy run by generals, meant that horses were used for the army, not farms, and the Haber process was used for weapons, not fertilizer, resulting in mass hunger, directly contributing to the Kiel Mutiny and other ones, and the German High Command panicking and asking for an armistice to bring troops home to quell it.
(2) They imported materials since they lacked them, and paid for them by exporting finished good, which means a fraction of the total machine tools available has to turn around and make goods for exports to pay for the next cycle of finished goods. If Germany has twice as many tools, but has to spend 2/3 of them on making exports, then they are not that far ahead of the UK, and may even be behind the UK since the UK will buy on the open market.
(3) Even the US in the 2003 invasion of Iraq underestimated how many munitions would be used; all nations had a shell crisis. The British one was actually 2; the land one, which everyone had, and the naval one. The naval one was partly due to the British designing the the shells to detonate very shortly after impact (they emphasized how many fires the Japanese set during Tsushima), an engineering decision, made worse by the mass mobilization resulting in new people making shells and not catching mistakes (as I remember it, a British monitor had to be scuttle when a boiler combusted newspaper wadded into the neaby bulkhead (not supposed to have paper as filling) and starting a fire). The shells were resolved by 1918. And at Jutland, it was the Germans who fled, not the British.
(4) I'm sure the A-H empire and Russia, and Germany as well (since they did, actually; used long distance subs a few times to beat the blockade) would have gladly done the same, if it was possible. Mobilization meant the farmers and factory workers are now riflemen, so production falls. And while the US was great at the little stuff, even they had to buy heavier weapons from the French. Everyone heard of Lend-Lease, but there was also Reverse Lend-Lease: the British had some very nice kit the US wanted. Take a British leader from 1916 to today, and ask them British made or American made weapons, and they'll post that meme of the Mexican girl "Why not both?" British dominance of the sea coupled with strong financial reserves meant they could could do both. Germany could not.
(5) That was a decision in WW2; I doubt they imported more over peacetime levels during WW1. WW2, shipping had to be conserved, and steel is denser than iron ore, meaning per ton of shipping, it's more efficient to get steel over iron ore. Even with Europe at her feet, Germany had trouble "importing" (since was importing, but not paying for) steel from France, due to food shortages (French farms were more mechanized, so confiscating trucks and fuel restrictions meant frex, milk spoiled at farms) since coal mining is hard labor back then (need almost 3,000 calories type of work), coupled by worn down rail cars and rail tracks in Germany, directly related to the issues I raised in the other thread of how German infrastructure was run down from 1914 to 1946. Read "Wages of Destruction" Tooze will mention how many German train cars had red slips (meaning urgent work was needed), but could not be fixed due to already having a shortage of railroad cars.
Finally, you have never addressed how 1914-1919 ruined the German economy; how the Treaty of Versailles forced Germany to hand over lucrative patents like aspirin; how the hyperinflation ruined investment and savings; or how Germany suddenly cancelled its own rearmament in 1934 and 1938 to make goods for export, due to a lack of currency. I'll add another one: how could Britain beat Germany in the "battle of the wavelengths" (or something like that- long distance guidance systems/ radar) if the Germans were "light-years ahead?" (BTW, light-years ahead means to me when Europeans kill 10,000 natives to a few dozen lost, due to the massive tech gap. Germany NEVER had that sort of lead over Britain)
German debts were all domestic, which means the government can butterfly them away if they want. In fact, the hyperinflation had cleared most of their debts. Britain, however, had a big foreign debt, which could not be eliminated by tricks, unless they dare to say I dont pay. Germany's problem was just mainly financial and monetary, while Britain suffered from various structural weaknesses and an outdated industrial base that have long lasted until today.
Btw, you can search for the Pattern Enfield 1914 to get more info about Britain's lack of capacity.
And I never heard about shortage of factory machinery in Germany in both wars, especially ww1. Besides, Germany did not have to build some industries from scratch like optics, ball bearings, dye or magneto (all cost money) because they already had them.
Germany after WW1 had a very large foreign debt payable in Gold, it borrowed from America to repay this, payment of the debt was enforced by foreign troops on its soil. Its foreign parents had been seized and were in use by its competitors.efforts to butterfly away German Debt resulted in hyperinflation which destroyed the german economy.
Britain was repaying its debt untill the meltdown in the American economy lead to the United States asking its debtors to suspend Debt payments. I presume this was to enable American banks to restructure.
America found great difficulty in getting its debtors to resume payments, the UK refused to pay on the grounds that it's Debtors had stopped paying debts owed the U.K.
Thus the depression.
britains Structually weak economy out produced Germany in critical war winning goods in two world wars artillery shells and aircraft, come to mind. And in WW2 that was with the resources of Europe at its disposal.
Here's Hipper
I did not remember that Germany obtained foreign loans to finance their war effort.
As I said, Germany in ww2 suffered from nazi inefficient management. In ww1, they were blockaded from UK, but managed to hold on for 5 years and even won the eastern front.
After all, in ww2, UK contribution was lower than US and Soviet.
And since when UK (not british empire) produced more shells. And in ww1 UK had to import special machine tool for processing shell fuses, which required lots of precision (which they could not produce), from the US.
German steel before ww1 was great, for example Krupp pioneered nickel steel armour for battleshipsThe case of thr P14 is more complicated thab you might think and its mostly because of logistics rather than industrial capacity.
The P14 was developped from the P13, which was designed as a replacement for the SMLE with a different calibre. This new cartridge, the .276 rimless, was meant to replace the .303 and the P13 was designed around it. However, the Great War broke out by the time the P13 was ready to be adopted. The British simply could not adopt a new replacement cartridge for their main service rifle at the outbreak of a new war. It would be a logistical nightmare to field two different, non-interchangeable cartridges and service rifles at the same time. They decided to adapt the P13 to use the .303 instead, thus creating the P14. However, because of the massive amount of attrition (both men in material) meant that Britisg industries had to keep pumping out SMLEs as quickly as they can; retooling the arms factory from SMLEs to P14s would be expensive and time-consuming and thus be impractical as it would get in the way of SMLE production that was dearly needed at the front. Thus, in order to keep up with the demand of rifles for the front, the British government wisely decided to contract US companies, whom were more than happy to retool for such a lucrative deal while they didn't have any ongoing contracts with the US government. It ended up being sort of a waste since there were many issues with the US-made guns, but they instead saw use as sniper rifles instead of a service rifle alongside the SMLE.
If anything, the P14 episode is a great example of how good British industry was. From what I can figure out, Great Britain came out of their rifle-shortage quicker than the other participants, especially Germany.
I want to also add that WW1 Germany suffered from its own brand of mismanagement as the Army began to control the government more and more.
From what I read as well, the quality of German steel in the Second World War, despite their reputation, was rather poor as well. Even compared to Soviet steel it was inferior when German tank armour was tested. Quite far from the notorious Krupp steel of German pre-dreadnoughts.
You are right, German steel quality deterioration had nothing to do with production process. It's about lack of materials.A shortage of alloying metals (chromium, manganese, molybdenum, etc.) hampered the quality of German steel during WW2.
Because WALLIED warships severely restricted imports, German steel mills could not produce the same quality as pre-war.
Nazi Germany even had hassles importing iron ore from Sweden.
The British had no problrm catching up with the Germans almost immediately. Krupp armour did become standard for a while, after all.German steel before ww1 was great, for example Krupp pioneered nickel steel armour for battleships
Well, some industries only on demand during wars. But there were lots of sectors that also create peacetime demand that were neglected by british, such as electricity and electrical and electronic goods like light bulbs, telephone, radio or vacuum cleaner. In these electrical sectors, Britain had become a technological colony of german and american corporates (i did not invent the word tech colony). Or synthetic dye, you know, the british had a dominant textile and clothing sector, they should have dominate in synthetic dye, which they have invented and pioneered. I personally do not really believe that the central electric board would be implemented without the impact of the war.The British had no problrm catching up with the Germans almost immediately. Krupp armour did become standard for a while, after all.
Plus, from that last post, you really do seem to hate the British by mocking them for a supposedly-belated second industrial revolution. Do you want to know why that could have been the case? They never needed to invest further into SIR-type industries while they already led the world in the industry they needed until the War created the demand for ...
Don't forget the new Leg before wicket law introduced in the 1930s.
And does Bodyline count as a weapons system?![]()
The case of thr P14 is more complicated thab you might think and its mostly because of logistics rather than industrial capacity.
Well, some industries only on demand during wars. But there were lots of sectors that also create peacetime demand that were neglected by british, such as electricity and electrical and electronic goods like light bulbs, telephone, radio or vacuum cleaner. In these electrical sectors, Britain had become a technological colony of german and american corporates (i did not invent the word tech colony). Or synthetic dye, you know, the british had a dominant textile and clothing sector, they should have dominate in synthetic dye, which they have invented and pioneered. I personally do not really believe that the central electric board would be implemented without the impact of the war.
Btw, in ww1, german steel had no problem with its quality.
I did not remember that Germany obtained foreign loans to finance their war effort.
As I said, Germany in ww2 suffered from nazi inefficient management. In ww1, they were blockaded from UK, but managed to hold on for 5 years and even won the eastern front.
After all, in ww2, UK contribution was lower than US and Soviet.
And since when UK (not british empire) produced more shells. And in ww1 UK had to import special machine tool for processing shell fuses, which required lots of precision (which they could not produce), from the US.
Well, during ww1, American machine tool, although not so huge like in ww2, were imported for higher precision tasks that British machines couldn't undertake. Besides, many of American machines were automatic or semi automatic, this trait alone could prove the superiority of American machines.The Majotity of machine tools used in the U.K. In both world wars were produced in the U.K. American marine tool orders were used to help increase production of war goods quickly
Wou see this as a weakness in the British economy but it sounds like efficent use of capital to me
As previously explained to you (repeatedly), American machine tools were cheap and specialized, ideally suited to the production of munitions, but were generally not used for more complex jobs by the British. Can you please define "automatic" and "semi automatic" and provide a reference for when those were introduced by the American or German industries? Automatic American machine tools would have been truly amazing in 1914, since it appears they only started to be introduced in the 1950s!http://blog.modernmechanix.com/an-automatic-machine-tool/Well, during ww1, American machine tool, although not so huge like in ww2, were imported for higher precision tasks that British machines couldn't undertake. Besides, many of American machines were automatic or semi automatic, this trait alone could prove the superiority of American machines.
You also failed to see a fact that during World War 1, British government had to SPEND lots of money to build new factories for producing magnetos for motor vehicles, ball bearings, optical instruments, synthetic dye, or to build new electricity plants. All were built from scratch; all cost money. If these industries were well established in Britain before the war, the money could have been used for more useful tasks such as building more escorts and merchant ships, or building more tanks and planes. For example, a strong prewar magneto production would have allowed Britain to ramp up tank, truck and plane production earlier.
I think you may have confused/conflated threads with the [redundant] Britain not going bankrupt thread...Or the money saved could be kept for spending on keeping up with the second naval arm race initiated by USN and IJN in 1916.
Actually, some historians assessed that Britain basically carried out her own Second Industrial Revolution during ww1 (which the US and Germany had done several decades ago)