Discussion: Comparing British and German industries 1900-1940

Britain's domination of the First Industrial Revolution meant it had lots of "invisible earnings" like shipping, insurance, London as a financial hub (trading gold for other currencies, etc), which it very successfully used to finance itself during WW1 (and the Napoleonic Wars, incidentally). The wealth from the FIR didn't flow away like rain on a metal roof (thinking of Spain and New World gold here), but was a vital weapon that didn't show up in miles of railroad track, or how many guns produced. What good is a being a leader in chemicals, if your enemy can buy all they want from the other leader in chemicals (USA! USA!)? And yes, they were almost broke by 1917, but Germany was in a worse position, and the UK also financed her allies to keep them in the war.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Britain's domination of the First Industrial Revolution meant it had lots of "invisible earnings" like shipping, insurance, London as a financial hub (trading gold for other currencies, etc), which it very successfully used to finance itself during WW1 (and the Napoleonic Wars, incidentally). The wealth from the FIR didn't flow away like rain on a metal roof (thinking of Spain and New World gold here), but was a vital weapon that didn't show up in miles of railroad track, or how many guns produced. What good is a being a leader in chemicals, if your enemy can buy all they want from the other leader in chemicals (USA! USA!)? And yes, they were almost broke by 1917, but Germany was in a worse position, and the UK also financed her allies to keep them in the war.
If Britain had an industrial base as modern as Germany, they would not be so heavily indebted after world war 1 and virtually bankrupt after world war 2, because they would be more self-sufficient. In ww2, lend lease could have been delayed, if their industry was stronger and more modern.

For example, the quantity of machine tool imported could be reduced if they had a large and advanced machinery industry like Germany. Even if the German were not blockade, they would import materials instead of machinery because they never lacked machine tool.

Besides, before World War 1, if their factories were bigger and more modern, were electrified and were equipped with advanced machine tool and assembly lines instead of using outdated steam-powered machinery from Victorian Dark Age, they could have produced even more armaments for the same amount of money spent, and the shell crisis might even butterfly away because of fewer shell defects (quality improved). They wouldn't have to place orders of millions of rifles to US manufacturers if their capacity was strong enough to produce all of them at home.

A strong precision industry = not having to import binoculars from Germany through Switzerland in 1915.

A bigger, more modern steel industry means less steel had to be imported.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
hmm so the British built a big navy in peace time, kept building it in wartime and built a big army in the middle of a war,

While the Germans built a big army in peacetime and a smaller navy but. were not able to continue expanding their navy in war.

From that you conclude that Germany had a superior industrial capacity?

It sounds like the capacity for the British to build a big army in WW1 was the decisive factor,
Bigger industrial capacity was normally demonstrated by the share of world manufacturing and steel production.

If Britain had an industrial base as modern as Germany, they would not be so heavily indebted after world war 1 and virtually bankrupt after world war 2, because they would be more self-sufficient.

For example, the quantity of machine tool imported could be reduced if they had a large and advanced machinery industry like Germany. Even if the German were not blockade, they would import materials instead of machinery because they never lacked machine tool.

Besides, before World War 1, if their factories were bigger and more modern, were electrified and were equipped with advanced machine tool and assembly lines instead of using outdated steam-powered machinery from Victorian Dark Age, they could have produced even more armaments for the same amount of money spent, and the shell crisis might even butterfly away because of fewer shell defects (quality improved). They wouldn't have to place orders of millions of rifles to US manufacturers if their capacity was strong enough to produce all of them at home.

A strong precision industry = not having to import binoculars from Germany through Switzerland in 1915.

A bigger, more modern steel industry means less steel had to be imported.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
My original aim is also to compare the industry of both countries in peace time (1910-1914 or 1919-1939), not just war industries. In this aspect, I think I can safely conclude that German new, high-tech industries were superior in terms of both technology and organization., and their factories were more modern and better equipped, especially during 1910-1914.
 
If Britain had an industrial base as modern as Germany, they would not be so heavily indebted after world war 1 and virtually bankrupt after world war 2, because they would be more self-sufficient. In ww2, lend lease could have been delayed, if their industry was stronger and more modern.

For example, the quantity of machine tool imported could be reduced if they had a large and advanced machinery industry like Germany. Even if the German were not blockade, they would import materials instead of machinery because they never lacked machine tool.

Besides, before World War 1, if their factories were bigger and more modern, were electrified and were equipped with advanced machine tool and assembly lines instead of using outdated steam-powered machinery from Victorian Dark Age, they could have produced even more armaments for the same amount of money spent, and the shell crisis might even butterfly away because of fewer shell defects (quality improved). They wouldn't have to place orders of millions of rifles to US manufacturers if their capacity was strong enough to produce all of them at home.

A strong precision industry = not having to import binoculars from Germany through Switzerland in 1915.

A bigger, more modern steel industry means less steel had to be imported.


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)
 
A strong precision industry = not having to import binoculars from Germany through Switzerland in 1915.

But what's stronger?

Importing Binoculars or not importing food?

This just reminds me about people who want industries that make stuff preferably with a hammer or lathe as if white collar industries that think don't really count...
 

Thomas1195

Banned
But what's stronger?

Importing Binoculars or not importing food?

This just reminds me about people who want industries that make stuff preferably with a hammer or lathe as if white collar industries that think don't really count...
Because it was an era when national power was judged by manufacturing and industrial production rather than services.
Talking about today's era would be different.
 
My original aim is also to compare the industry of both countries in peace time (1910-1914 or 1919-1939), not just war industries. In this aspect, I think I can safely conclude that German new, high-tech industries were superior in terms of both technology and organization., and their factories were more modern and better equipped, especially during 1910-1914.

1910-1914, you *might* be right with such a blanket statement. 1919-1939, very much wrong. The same time Germany was building fighters, UK was building the Spitfire. naval construction, Germany built a few subs, some cruisers, and 3 armored cruisers plus the "Ugly Sisters," who needed a refit to be useful in the Atlantic. Britain built subs, cruisers, 2 battleships in the 1920's, carriers, and was close to completion of more ships in 1939. naval front, Germany lost big. Britain had trouble with some plane designs, as did Germany, but had success, and built 4 engine bombers, which Germany never got right, or built massive fleets of. So, aviation's a tie, with a clear British lead if count engines and not just airframes. Britain had the only fully mechanized army at the start of WW2, and its tanks were better than Germany's. If Germany didn't get lucky on the French High Command screwing up, we'd remember the war of 1940 like all the wars in the Middle East fought by themselves: largely ignored.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
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.


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)

Adopting labour-saving, more capital intensive methods would reduce US import, while still able to conscript men for war.

UK, unlike Germany, also had to import finished goods.

Shell crisis was about the land one (actually, German Empire did not have such problem on Eastern Front, just on Western Front).

While hyperinflation ruined investment and savings in Germany, the decision to return to gold standard also had disastrous impact on British industry.
 
Adopting labour-saving, more capital intensive methods would reduce US import, while still able to conscript men for war.

UK, unlike Germany, also had to import finished goods.

Shell crisis was about the land one (actually, German Empire did not have such problem on Eastern Front, just on Western Front).

While hyperinflation ruined investment and savings in Germany, the decision to return to gold standard also had disastrous impact on British industry.

(1) Which, since the UK had "invisible earnings" coming in as well as exports, matters not a whit, as gold is used to buy stuff, not sit in a vault. (2) Considering they lost on the Western Front, and were unable to knock France out at Verdun, rather important. (3) yes, it was, but it was the difference between breaking a limb and having it amputated (Germany was neutered).
 

Thomas1195

Banned
1910-1914, you *might* be right with such a blanket statement. 1919-1939, very much wrong. The same time Germany was building fighters, UK was building the Spitfire. naval construction, Germany built a few subs, some cruisers, and 3 armored cruisers. Britain built subs, cruisers, 2 battleships in the 1920's, carriers, and was close to completion of more ships in 1939. naval front, Germany lost big. Britain had trouble with some plane designs, as did Germany, but had success, and built 4 engine bombers, which Germany never got right, or built massive fleets of. So, aviation's a tie, with a clear British lead if count engines and not just airframes. Britain had the only fully mechanized army at the start of WW2, and its tanks were better than Germany's. If Germany didn't get lucky on the French High Command screwing up, we'd remember the war of 1940 like all the wars in the Middle East fought by themselves: largely ignored.

1910-1914: Could you point out something wrong, especially in new, high-tech industries?

1919-1939, Germany was crippled by war reparation, hyperinflation and occupation of Ruhr (and actually grew between 1924-1929 thanks to American loans); but Britain was also crippled when returning to gold standard and only recover after abandoning it in 1933. That's macroeconomics.

In microeconomics, there is also a question of ''how you make a product'', in this aspect, British firms were nowhere near German (except during ww2 when Germany moved to slave labour model). In both periods pre ww1 and interwar, Germany had better factory machinery and equipment, better plant, better processes and techniques; and better organization (until Nazi).
 
Last edited:
1910-1914: How could it be wrong, especially in new industries?

1919-1939, Germany was crippled by war reparation, hyperinflation and occupation of Ruhr (and actually grew between 1924-1929 thanks to American loans); but Britain was also crippled when returning to gold standard and only recover after abandoning it in 1933

Because you are claiming that Germany was "light-years" ahead of Britain, when it wasn't. France made lots of cars 1900-1914, and prob outproduced the US some years; like all new tech fields, it took time for consolidation. Think the tech scene late 1990s; Yahoo! Ask Jeeves, host of others, and everyone worried AOL will dominate it all, unless Microsoft did. Was Google even incorporated by then? Same type of thing back then, lots of small companies until one makes it big, and they consolidate. And again, Germany went thru worse than the UK 1919-1934. The gold standard was nowhere close enough in term of damage.

Your edit is true, but economics also points out a more inefficient entity may still be competitive with lower wages. Per capita, Americans are far more efficient than Chinese workers, but China has lower wages. Replying to the post below, Germany was ahead (@Thande might know how many scientific papers were published in Germany during this time, a good indicator of national expertise), but Britain still had an industry, and could make up the difference via DuPont or Dow Chemicals.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
Because you are claiming that Germany was "light-years" ahead of Britain, when it wasn't. France made lots of cars 1900-1914, and prob outproduced the US some years; like all new tech fields, it took time for consolidation. Think the tech scene late 1990s; Yahoo! Ask Jeeves, host of others, and everyone worried AOL will dominate it all, unless Microsoft did. Was Google even incorporated by then? Same type of thing back then, lots of small companies until one makes it big, and they consolidate. And again, Germany went thru worse than the UK 1919-1934. The gold standard was nowhere close enough in term of damage.
I forgot to tell you had corrected it into just far ahead in post 5.

You cannot denied that before 1914 most British factories was small, outdated, using steam-powered machinery and equipment dated back from Victorian Dark Age. For German factories, the reverse was the case, with lots of factories electrified and equipped with modern electric-powered machines.

Britain had no equivalent of Krupp, BASF, Siemens. Their plants were no match for Krupp Essen complex
 
Last edited:
I forgot to tell you had corrected it into just far ahead in post 5.

You cannot denied that before 1914 most British factories was outdated, using steam-powered machinery and equipment dated back from Victorian Dark Age. For German factories, the reverse was the case, with lots of factories electrified and equipped with modern electric-powered machines.

Yes, I can. You have not cited anything, nor have I read anything about this on my own. Please provide book title(s) and author(s). I graduated in economics, so rather enjoy reading about the "dismal science." Victoria was, what, 1830-1905? Which part are we talking about? Never heard of a dark age. And a local (to me) steel mill closed a few years ago, too costly to meet emissions. They shipped it to China. Lower costs, not as stringent emissions. Should China have bought the latest steel mill, rather than a late 1980's one? Economics is not chemistry, where hydrogen and oxygen make water, and only. It's more of a road map, and where you want to go partly determines the route, but you can take several different routes. If you have low costs, obsolescent machines can still work. Yes, Britain was sliding, but was still in the game. And what happens in the 1920's when Britain builds new factories, making Germany have the older ones?
 
You dismiss textiles and food as if they dont count. British Tommies were well fed, well clothed were warm and had dry feet (most of the time). No one died of starvation military or civil. How many Germans had good boots and uniforms, during Operation Michael in 1918 German soldiers spent plenty of time taking the boots and coats off Tommies and raiding supply dumps for food and booze that had been captured instead of advancing.

Motor industry, Britain had nearly 5 times as many vehicles as Germany, France had several more times as many. Germany produced how many tanks compared to the 5,000 or so (not sure of the exact number) built by the British and French.

Farm machinery. Many British farms particulary in the main arable areas of the East Midlands and East Anglia were mechanised against how many virtually subsistence farmers in Germany.

Chemical, Yes Germany had a lead in 1914 but Britain had a massive lead 4 years later.

Railways. British railway companies and rolling stock manufacturers were able to replace all the French and Belgian rolling stock lost in 1914 within a year.

Electrical. Britain had electrically operated factories before anyone else but coal and coal gas was cheap and because of the wide spread of coalfields (I doubt any factory was much more than 50 or 60 miles from a coalfield) and dense rail network easily available why would you use anything else until a National Grid was in place. Paris was so advanced in its use of home grown French electrical equipment it was known as Cité d'Electricité.

Then there are small items like

Typewriters. Germany was short of typewriters, Britain well all they were short of was typists.

Soap. Britain made the majority of the worlds soap. How many Germans even saw soap after 1914. Soap might not seem important but a good bath and a shave improves morale and sets a man up for the day.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Yes, I can. You have not cited anything, nor have I read anything about this on my own. Please provide book title(s) and author(s). I graduated in economics, so rather enjoy reading about the "dismal science." Victoria was, what, 1830-1905? Which part are we talking about? Never heard of a dark age. And a local (to me) steel mill closed a few years ago, too costly to meet emissions. They shipped it to China. Lower costs, not as stringent emissions. Should China have bought the latest steel mill, rather than a late 1980's one? Economics is not chemistry, where hydrogen and oxygen make water, and only. It's more of a road map, and where you want to go partly determines the route, but you can take several different routes. If you have low costs, obsolescent machines can still work. Yes, Britain was sliding, but was still in the game. And what happens in the 1920's when Britain builds new factories, making Germany have the older ones?

New technology was about high-powered, labour-saving machine tool for mass production, which means that using new tech would boost productivity and quality to offset labour cost. The classic case was Ford. When labout cost rise (it will rise, even in china now), you either have to adopt new tech, new methods to survive or to let the industry die. Besides, usually, newer, higher tech, higher value industries will replace the old ones. In case of britain in since 1870, they neither modernized existing industries nor successfully developed new ones. Lots of sources have concluded that.

Stick to low cost approach like the UK in 1914 instead of modernizing then you could not improve your technological frontier to raise your potential output.

And many British industries in 1970s-80s died due to failure to modernize. For example, shipbuilding. Even today japan and some european countries still have sizeable commercial shipbuilding.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Also regarding sectoral comparison, Germany outperformed in almost all high tech industries (machinery, electrical, chemical, precision engineering) before ww1.

Since 1919, britain did better in aircraft and motor.
 
In case of britain in since 1870, they neither modernized existing industries nor successfully developed new ones. Lots of sources have concluded that.

I havent read a lot about the period but how is that even physically possible. That would mean that Britain in 1914 still using cast iron instead of Steel, Oil lamps and wooden sailing merchant ships. It would also mean no electricity, no telephones, no stainless Steel, no aeroplanes, Bicycles or motor vehicles.

In this period Britain was being caught up in manufacturing by many countries, it had a 50 year head start so thats not surprising. Britains economy even at its height wasnt reliant on manufacturing a massive part of the Victorian economy was from trade importing and exporting goods from the Empire into Europe.

Take away the Cotton industry which was a big earner, (there was a saying Britains bread hangs from Lancashires thread and Manchester known as Cottonoplois probably had a bigger economy than many European countries in the 1870s) and the next biggest earner was Coal exports. Britains economy in 1914 had changed to making the majority of its money from finance, insurance and service industries.

Germany might have exported more electrification equipment for factories and transport but the Lions share of the money to buy that equipment came from the City of London.
 
I think there could be a lot in this idea/question about who is best industrially, but the question is so complex that might defy a decent answer.

For example I think that British factories by the 20th century were suing steam powered, belt drive machinery and Germans were making much more use of newer/better electrical machinery. However IIUC the coal in Britain is predominantly high quality black coal whereas in Germany a high proportion of coal is shitty brown coal, so Britain using high quality coal to directly drive machinery mightn't be so bad and this certainly isn't an option for Germany with its shitty brown coal. Indeed this shitty brown coals best use as fuel for electrical power might have been the driver behind the development of the advanced German electrical industry in the early 20th century.

While on coal IIUC brown coal has a lot more stuff in it that can be used as the basis for a chemical industry than black coal. So Germany had the raw materials for a chemical industry in abundance whereas Britain has the raw materials to make a lot of heat.

The devil may be in the details such as this, which makes it hard to tease out. Perhaps the question is who made the best use of resources at hand under the pressures of war? Britain did well at importing things and using credit, but economic and strategic necessity might have made that crucial whereas it wasn't to Germany. Mmmmm.o_O
 
Top