Discussion: Comparing British and German industries 1900-1940

Thomas1195

Banned
Vickers or Armstrong Whitworth or Beardmores would be the British equivalent of Krupps

As we've discussed the British equivalent of Siemens was in fact Siemens the world leading undersea cable layer based in the U.K. Which wired the world. Controll of that network enabled the British to intercept diplomatic communications world wide.
About Krupp
https://books.google.com.vn/books?i...steel works in 1914 largest in europe&f=false

Well, Krupp Essen was the biggest steel concern in europe from 1870.


https://coffeecuphistory.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/prewar-years-germany/
Next, it was the largest artillery pieces manufacturer by 1914

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krupp
Finally, by 1887, it had totally 75000 employees, with 20000 in Essen

Some accounts also stated that Krupp industrial complex in Essen was like a city of its own. I doubt Vickers or A-W or Beardmore could reach that size.
 
Some accounts also stated that Krupp industrial complex in Essen was like a city of its own. I doubt Vickers or A-W or Beardmore could reach that size.


But since Britain had all three, did any one of them need to? Per Kennedy The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers Table 14 if anyone wants to check, the Germans in 1913 had just 85% of the British per capita level of industrialisation of 1900. Now that looks a bit rubbish until you consider that the Germans using the figures in Rise and Fall had actually increased their lever of industrialisation per head some 44% while the British managed an increase of just 13% in the period 1900-1913.

The point being that the picture of German and British industrial development even in isolated comparison with one another is far more nuanced than you seem to allow for. This is the point a great many people have tried to raise in this thread.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
But since Britain had all three, did any one of them need to? Per Kennedy The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers Table 14 if anyone wants to check, the Germans in 1913 had just 85% of the British per capita level of industrialisation of 1900. Now that looks a bit rubbish until you consider that the Germans using the figures in Rise and Fall had actually increased their lever of industrialisation per head some 44% while the British managed an increase of just 13% in the period 1900-1913.

The point being that the picture of German and British industrial development even in isolated comparison with one another is far more nuanced than you seem to allow for. This is the point a great many people have tried to raise in this thread.
The per capita would not matter much as Britain lagged in new tech and new industries (all authors I have read confirmed this, Pollard, Barnett, McCloskey, Chandler and so on). Meanwhile their old industries suffered from outdated machinery and practices, e.g. British coal industry lagged in mechanical coal cutting, or British textile stuck to mule spinning and power loom (these were major causes of the downfall of British textile postwar).
 

BooNZ

Banned
Read the whole passage please. British composition of patents were also mostly of old and lower tech sectors. Besides, Germany had more MAJOR inventions. This indicated that Britain were not at the forefront of the Second Industrial Revolution. In fact, Britaim had never been a pioneer in the second industrial revolution.

To clarify, the German industry needed to be protected by tariffs and subsidies, it never approached the Global market share achieved by British industry, it never achieved the level of profitability achieved by British industry and it never provided the German military with sufficient advantage to win a war. Again, what exactly did the German industry achieve for the German people?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
To clarify, the German industry needed to be protected by tariffs and subsidies, it never approached the Global market share achieved by British industry, it never achieved the level of profitability achieved by British industry and it never provided the German military with sufficient advantage to win a war. Again, what exactly did the German industry achieve for the German people?
Depends on which industries. In chemical, electrical and industrial machinery, Germany well exceeded Britain in global market shares.

Do you know why they had to protect their industries and agriculture? Germany emerged late, when most of profitable colonies had fallen into the hands of Britain and France. They were not in a position to outsource agriculture.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Vickers or Armstrong Whitworth or Beardmores would be the British equivalent of Krupps

As we've discussed the British equivalent of Siemens was in fact Siemens the world leading undersea cable layer based in the U.K. Which wired the world. Controll of that network enabled the British to intercept diplomatic communications world wide.
Besides, the presence of the three firms you mentioned in non armament industries was far less than Krupp
 
The per capita would not matter much as Britain lagged in new tech and new industries (all authors I have read confirmed this, Pollard, Barnett, McCloskey, Chandler and so on). Meanwhile their old industries suffered from outdated machinery and practices, e.g. British coal industry lagged in mechanical coal cutting, or British textile stuck to mule spinning and power loom (these were major causes of the downfall of British textile postwar).

Except the problem is that history suggests that clearly something the British did do, did matter as the British did not fall to the first puff of smoke in 1914 nor in 1939. Further but it was the difficulty of defeating Britain that seems to have been the driving force behind German strategic thinking. Look at the gamble of unlimited submarine warfare in 1917 even though it was known this would most likely bring the USA into the war and the gamble of invading the USSR in June 1941. The latter is interesting as invading the USSR was seen as the easy option compared to focusing all efforts in a campaign of attrition against the UK.

If we rather look at the proper purpose of industry which is to support a high standard of living in peacetime then again clearly the performance of British industry is none too shabby over the period indicated. Take this study by Broadberry and Burhop at the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods who studied real wage comparisons.

Interestingly in the introduction

Recently, a broad consensus has been reached regarding the comparative performance of the
British and German economies during the second half the nineteenth century and the first half of
the twentieth century, taking labour productivity as the measure (Broadberry, 2004; Broadberry
and Burhop, 2007; 2008; Ritschl, 2008; Fremdling etal., 2007).

So far you keep saying that there is a broad consensus


At the outset, Germany lagged behind in all three main economic sectors – agriculture, industry, and services –
but its industrial labour productivity converged towards British levels at the turn of the century and hovered around
British levels until World War II (Broadberry, 1997, 1998).

But if the authors are correct then the consensus diverges from yours of arguing that the British were hopelessly amateurish failures.

The conclusion the authors draw from their study is that German comparative wages twice managed to achieve 83% of the British level in each case just prior to a World War coming along and ruining everything. Does this mean German industry is considered rubbish in the period 1871-1938? No quite the opposite, it did well in helping the average German catch up a great deal on what was at the beginning of the period "Europe’s highest wage economy" however the study does suggest that despite real and apparent flaws overall British industry was doing well by the British people.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
Except the problem is that history suggests that clearly something the British did do, did matter as the British did not fall to the first puff of smoke in 1914 nor in 1939. Further but it was the difficulty of defeating Britain that seems to have been the driving force behind German strategic thinking. Look at the gamble of unlimited submarine warfare in 1917 even though it was known this would most likely bring the USA into the war and the gamble of invading the USSR in June 1941. The latter is interesting as invading the USSR was seen as the easy option compared to focusing all efforts in a campaign of attrition against the UK.

If we rather look at the proper purpose of industry which is to support a high standard of living in peacetime then again clearly the performance of British industry is none too shabby over the period indicated. Take this study by Broadberry and Burhop at the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods who studied real wage comparisons.

Interestingly in the introduction

Recently, a broad consensus has been reached regarding the comparative performance of the
British and German economies during the second half the nineteenth century and the first half of
the twentieth century, taking labour productivity as the measure (Broadberry, 2004; Broadberry
and Burhop, 2007; 2008; Ritschl, 2008; Fremdling etal., 2007).

So far you keep saying that there is a broad consensus


At the outset, Germany lagged behind in all three main economic sectors – agriculture, industry, and services –
but its industrial labour productivity converged towards British levels at the turn of the century and hovered around
British levels until World War II (Broadberry, 1997, 1998).

But if the authors are correct then the consensus diverges from yours of arguing that the British were hopelessly amateurish failures.

The conclusion the authors draw from their study is that German comparative wages twice managed to achieve 83% of the British level in each case just prior to a World War coming along and ruining everything. Does this mean German industry is considered rubbish in the period 1871-1938? No quite the opposite, it did well in helping the average German catch up a great deal on what was at the beginning of the period "Europe’s highest wage economy" however the study does suggest that despite real and apparent flaws overall British industry was doing well by the British people.

German industry (of course the wage was lower) was 20% (a substantial distance) more productive than Britain before ww1, but fell back after the war, and never surpassed UK again until 1970. However, German industry tended to focus on power projection purpose than making people better off during this period.

However, yes, Britain had always outperformed in service and agriculture during the period we are talking about. Overall productivity, Germany never surpassed UK until 1970.

Britain had to pay for these flaws during 1970s, as it became the sick man of Europe. These were the same flaws as before 1914, only combined with inefficient state ownership.
 

hipper

Banned
German industry (of course the wage was lower) was 20% (a substantial distance) more productive than Britain before ww1,.

but its industrial labour productivity converged towards British levels at the turn of the century and hovered around British levels until World War II (Broadberry, 1997, 1998).

there is a disconnect here, have you any evidence on industrial productivity?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
but its industrial labour productivity converged towards British levels at the turn of the century and hovered around British levels until World War II (Broadberry, 1997, 1998).

there is a disconnect here, have you any evidence on industrial productivity?
Well, that link had a figure about industrial productivity in appendix
 
a page number or a quote would be helpful

After careful perusal I think he is talking table 4b which compares three sectors (which can be found top of page 23 in document or page 25 via the PDF), this gives figures for German labour productivity for industry as a percentage of British labour productivity in industry of 127.7 in 1911, 92.3 in 1925, 97.1 in 1929, 99.1 in 1935 and lastly 96.9 in 1937.

Which rather suggests in the period covered by the OP of 1910-1940 the Germans did start with an impressive advantage which they blew and never recovered in the period under examination.

Just to avoid confusion I shall link to Broadberry and Burhop again in case someone is reading this post in isolation.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
After careful perusal I think he is talking table 4b which compares three sectors (which can be found top of page 23 in document or page 25 via the PDF), this gives figures for German labour productivity for industry as a percentage of British labour productivity in industry of 127.7 in 1911, 92.3 in 1925, 97.1 in 1929, 99.1 in 1935 and lastly 96.9 in 1937.

Which rather suggests in the period covered by the OP of 1910-1940 the Germans did start with an impressive advantage which they blew and never recovered in the period under examination.

Just to avoid confusion I shall link to Broadberry and Burhop again in case someone is reading this post in isolation.
Germany still had a significant lead in heavy industries, but this is addressed in another paper.
 
We keep telling you it is a complex and nuanced picture, is it not about time you put away the camera obscura and learned something?
People like him tend to ignore data and glaze over it if it disagrees with their pet project (see: Frisian Folly or Ascension Island Fiasco). I expect him to continue to do this cherry picking and poor picks of sources that he does not readily and directly give to us to double check until this thread closes or everyone (unlikely) just gets up and leaves.

To me, the matter that the Germans never quite got up to British productivity prior to the war (Being about 5/6s as much) as well as having the ability to draw upon resources from the rest of the world with ease to keep said industries going makes the UK the better industrial force, even if its tech and infrastructure wasn't as cutting edge (which in and of itself is also variable depending on where you look as evidenced by this thread and the arbitrary goal moving). The brits also played a lot smarter with agriculture, which in itself is its own industry.

Now I'm mostly just looking forward to snippets of neat information, like how the quality of coal dictated the power source for factories, which does genuinely add value to this thread as a resource for those interested in early 20th century industry.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
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
But monopolies only long term help you if they make a profit, if you can buy it cheaper than make it yourself then apart from short term war supply issues you probably should.
They are not going to produce tungsten more expensive when they hold the majority of the required material, wolfram, similar to Chinese rare earth. Well, unless their technological capability was inferior.
 
They are not going to produce tungsten more expensive when they hold the majority of the required material, wolfram, similar to Chinese rare earth. Well, unless their technological capability was inferior.
There are plenty of other ways for Germany to undercut them apart from better 'technological capability',
- Selling at less than true cost...
- Government subsidies and trade protection...
- Lower wages...
- Lower environmental standards or land costs...

None of these are real that good for Germany, but why should the customer GB care?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
There are plenty of other ways for Germany to undercut them apart from better 'technological capability',
- Selling at less than true cost...
- Government subsidies and trade protection...
- Lower wages...
- Lower environmental standards or land costs...

None of these are real that good for Germany, but why should the customer GB care?
Or they can force Germany to manufacture them in Britain if they want to get access to wolfram mines, like the Chinese did with foreign electronic firms regarding rare earth. Tungsten is a major input for high speed steel.
 
Top