Discussion: Comparing British and German industries 1900-1940

Thomas1195

Banned
No. This paragraph appears to be referring to semi-automatic machines - because it makes reference to them able to be operated without skilled labour, which implies unskilled labour. In contrast, an automatic machine tool either requires very skilled labour (to set it up) or no labour at all (during production runs). The American and German machine tool production pursued semi-automatic machine tools because they lacked British expert users. This meant they could produce simple consumer goods with cheaper more common labour, but Britain industry remained competitive due to the quality of its workforce.


You just cannot comprehend that national industries can evolve. I don't think anyone on this thread has sung the praises of British industry post WW2 (beyond scope of thread), but in the start of the 1970s, the Japanese automobiles were not perceived as much better. By the end of the 1970s anyone with an understanding of motor vehicles would recognize the Japanese had surpassed the British. By the end of the 1980s the quality of Japanese cars exceeded anything mass produced in Europe or the Americas. As an aside, it was the Japanese machine tool industry that ultimately crushed their British counterparts in the 1970s - something Germany and the US failed to do.
Both Japan and West Germany, actually. West Germany even surpassed the US in machine tool after that.
 
Did Britain do something terrible to you?
Yeah, they won two wars against dudes who wore awesome uniforms.

Seriously, when he tried to pull stuff from outside of the scope of the OP, he proved beyond the shadow of doubt that he is intellectually dishonest and that like the man behind the Frisian Folly, he cares more about winning for his pet cause than being objective.
 
Yeah, they won two wars against dudes who wore awesome uniforms.

Seriously, when he tried to pull stuff from outside of the scope of the OP, he proved beyond the shadow of doubt that he is intellectually dishonest and that like the man behind the Frisian Folly, he cares more about winning for his pet cause than being objective.

Like the confederacy they may have been bad but they did dress well :)

I guess I am just a little surprised to find that anyone could be anti-British given how angelic the country has always been.

I think I need to read the Frisian folly thread someday, I keep seeing references to it.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Yeah, they won two wars against dudes who wore awesome uniforms.

Seriously, when he tried to pull stuff from outside of the scope of the OP, he proved beyond the shadow of doubt that he is intellectually dishonest and that like the man behind the Frisian Folly, he cares more about winning for his pet cause than being objective.
Like the confederacy they may have been bad but they did dress well :)

I guess I am just a little surprised to find that anyone could be anti-British given how angelic the country has always been.

I think I need to read the Frisian folly thread someday, I keep seeing references to it.
Well, I am just talking about what actually happened. In fact, studies on British industries ended to give more negative conclusions than positive ones, and they all concluded that there was a British industrial decline both quantitatively and qualitatively, especially in new industries. Unlike Germany, they produced much fewer world beaters, as well as much fewer inventions. Do you noticed that they had failed every Industrial Revolution (2nd, 3rd, and I bet they will fail the 4th) except for the first one which they led?
 

hipper

Banned
Well, I am just talking about what actually happened. In fact, studies on British industries ended to give more negative conclusions than positive ones, and they all concluded that there was a British industrial decline both quantitatively and qualitatively, especially in new industries. Unlike Germany, they produced much fewer world beaters, as well as much fewer inventions. Do you noticed that they had failed every Industrial Revolution (2nd, 3rd, and I bet they will fail the 4th) except for the first one which they led?

the UK is at present the fifth largest economy in the world by GDP its not a sign of failure by any measure what criteria are you using


anyway back to machine tools it looks like American machine tools were more suited to semi skilled labor while UK machine tools required skills (however more general purpose)



upload_2016-12-28_13-3-14.png


Regards

Hipper
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-12-28_12-51-45.png
    upload_2016-12-28_12-51-45.png
    255.7 KB · Views: 93
Do you noticed that they had failed every Industrial Revolution (2nd, 3rd, and I bet they will fail the 4th) except for the first one which they led?

Erm no I have completely failed to notice that.

UK rank by population 21/233 countries via Wikipedia

UK rank by manufacturing output 6/166 countries (and EU) as measured by Nationmaster (note other means of measuring output are available)

The thing is that the British have done rather well despite their flaws (which a lot of us here have each individually studied many times more assiduously than you I suspect) and so despite rigging the contest it seems you are not getting the outcome you bet on.
 
Like the confederacy they may have been bad but they did dress well :)

I guess I am just a little surprised to find that anyone could be anti-British given how angelic the country has always been.

I think I need to read the Frisian folly thread someday, I keep seeing references to it.
It is legendarily bad, and our OP here uses every tactic that David Green in here uses. The only bright spot is he isn't accusing us of being in to a conspiracy to suppress the truth, and he hasn't had the misfortune to run into actual experts who virulently disagree with him and decisively prove him wrong.
Well, I am just talking about what actually happened. In fact, studies on British industries ended to give more negative conclusions than positive ones, and they all concluded that there was a British industrial decline both quantitatively and qualitatively, especially in new industries. Unlike Germany, they produced much fewer world beaters, as well as much fewer inventions. Do you noticed that they had failed every Industrial Revolution (2nd, 3rd, and I bet they will fail the 4th) except for the first one which they led?
Considering you somehow got that Germans were more productive than the British despite the book you (reluctantly) gave us stating the opposite gives poor light to your findings or the ability to interpolate them. Doubly so since you take cajoling to release these sources, implying that you are aware of this. Triply so since new doesn't always mean good. Quadruply so since farms. Yes, I will forever note that since that was a crippling flaw for Germany that makes not having the hippest dye or the most electrified factory a weak argument by comparison.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
the UK is at present the fifth largest economy in the world by GDP its not a sign of failure by any measure what criteria are you using


anyway back to machine tools it looks like American machine tools were more suited to semi skilled labor while UK machine tools required skills (however more general purpose)



View attachment 301293

Regards

Hipper
First, the total output of German machine tool was bigger than the UK, both total and output per capita (the data I have posted above: 800000 vs 379000). Next, German machine tools were equal if not superior in quality. Then, Germany also had bigger general machinery production, except for textile machinery, with equal or superior quality. But do general purposes means easier and less sophisticated tasks?

Regarding other sectors, overall, Germany also had stronger chemical industry (in 1913, they captured 40% of global export market), electrical industry (in 1913, 46% of world export market), electronic industry, and steel production (in 1913, 16 mil tons vs Britain's 8 mil) as well.

Going to Brexit thread and you can see that British economy is forecasted to fall to 7th place. Besides, UK economy is basically a house of cards, we can see a striking similarity between UK growth model and that of GIIPS.

Erm no I have completely failed to notice that.

UK rank by population 21/233 countries via Wikipedia

UK rank by manufacturing output 6/166 countries (and EU) as measured by Nationmaster (note other means of measuring output are available)

The thing is that the British have done rather well despite their flaws (which a lot of us here have each individually studied many times more assiduously than you I suspect) and so despite rigging the contest it seems you are not getting the outcome you bet on.

The third industrial revolution, which was about computerisation and automation, began in 1970s-1980s, when British industry was an all-round utter failure.

British manufacturing now rank 9th or 10th only, not 6th, it was also below South Korea, Italy, India and France, far below Germany. Actually, it has just reentered top 10 earlier this year. And it was only strong in few niches. Its manufacturing today is far below Germany in productivity, quality (e.g. people would use Bosch hairdryer or other German household electrical goods rather than inferior British ones) and quantity and in basically every sector except for defense sector. North-Western "core" Eurozone countries also produce manufacture goods of superior quality compared with British goods. Sorry, it is not a growth engine for Britain now. We can discuss more in Brexit thread.
 
Last edited:
... decisively prove him wrong.

I think when Thomas1195 abandoned discussion of the period 1910-1940 and the comparison between Britain and Germany for appeals to post 1960 and Japan this would normally count as having been proven decisively wrong. Just to nitpick what is actually a well thought and considered post.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I think when Thomas1195 abandoned discussion of the period 1910-1940 and the comparison between Britain and Germany for appeals to post 1960 and Japan this would normally count as having been proven decisively wrong. Just to nitpick what is actually a well thought and considered post.
Well, one guy brought Japan in this topic and I only mentioned Japan postwar only in my reply to him
 

hipper

Banned
First, the total output of German machine tool was bigger than the UK, both total and output per capita (the data I have posted above: 800000 vs 379000). Next, German machine tools were equal if not superior in quality. Then, Germany also had bigger general machinery production, except for textile machinery, with equal or superior quality. But do general purposes means easier and less sophisticated tasks?

Regarding other sectors, overall, Germany also had stronger chemical industry (in 1913, they captured 40% of global export market), electrical industry (in 1913, 46% of world export market), electronic industry, and steel production (in 1913, 16 mil tons vs Britain's 8 mil) as well.

Going to Brexit thread and you can see that British economy is forecasted to fall to 7th place. Besides, UK economy is basically a house of cards, we can see a striking similarity between UK growth model and that of GIIPS.



The third industrial revolution, which was about computerisation and automation, began in 1970s-1980s, when British industry was an all-round utter failure.

British manufacturing now rank 9th or 10th only, not 6th, it was also below South Korea, Italy, India and France, far below Germany. Actually, it has just reentered top 10 earlier this year. And it was only strong in few niches. Its manufacturing today is far below Germany in productivity, quality (e.g. people would use Bosch hairdryer or other German household electrical goods rather than inferior British ones) and quantity and in basically every sector except for defense sector. North-Western "core" Eurozone countries also produce manufacture goods of superior quality compared with British goods. Sorry, it is not a growth engine for Britain now. We can discuss more in Brexit thread.


i see you are just interested in some bizarre Anglophobe rant

may I ask why ?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
i see you are just interested in some bizarre Anglophobe rant

may I ask why ?
Well, what I've said were facts: electronic, electrical, chemical, steel and machinery, where Britain lagged behind Germany significantly in output, quality and technological level. Yeah, I have completely forgot to mention aircraft and automobile industries, where Britain was mostly stronger than German during this time frame.

Bonus: For current British economy, it is predicted to fall behind France and India to 7th rank next year.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Compared to an earlier reference that is almost unbelievable...



Edit: Upon further reading the British machine tool industry faded badly during the 1920s, in part because British manufacturers often sold/distributed cheaper American machines to fully fulfil orders. Traditionally this was not that unusual, but was greatly exacerbated by the war.
Oh, I think you should take a look at the machine tool output figure of Germany and Britain in 1940-1944 that I have posted above. (818000 vs 379000)
 
I think when Thomas1195 abandoned discussion of the period 1910-1940 and the comparison between Britain and Germany for appeals to post 1960 and Japan this would normally count as having been proven decisively wrong. Just to nitpick what is actually a well thought and considered post.
Well at the rate he's going, I can see what he's saying being decisively disproven by say an industrialist who studied the period or something to that effect. He is getting there.

And machine tools can't do much if you don't have the raw materials to make whatever that tool helps you make. Remember that whole refined wolfram obsession you had earlier OP, that desperate attempt to rubbish the British because they didn't do the job themselves and bought elsewhere? That same substance the germans had heavily restricted access to, which thus made sure their industry was crippled when they decided to commit to war (that you like avoiding because it stuffs you)? Because having the base components to use those fancy die presses is kind of important to actually have it be worth a hill of beans.

Not that it matters since British tools were mainly generalized ones for skilled labor and for their domestic market, while Germany made specced ones to account for unskilled labor and could export. Due to that worldwide soft power called money you seem to not get, the UK didn't need to cook their economy to death by overbuilding their own war machine and rely on pure looting to keep things going; they could just buy what they needed when they were given a bad hand.
 

hipper

Banned
With a little research we find out why German machine tools were so popular - they were cheaper knockoffs of American machine tools.

The editor of the American

Machinist reported about his journey to Germany: “In going through the shops of a


prominent German machine-tool builder who has been in the United States and got a


good many ideas therefrom, as well as bought a good line of the best standard machines


from which to copy or to vary, in the productions of his own line, I noticed that every


solitary American machine, whether from Providence, or New Haven, or Cincinnati, had


had the name chipped off and the place painted over.” 27 It was in this way that the


Germans concealed the American origin of the machine tools when showing their plants


to German clients, so that these customers would not realize that the company offered


simple copies of American machine tools. The changes implemented by the Germans were


negligible. Only the German cast iron, which was stronger than American, forced them to


slightly thicken up the frames. “But so far as the central idea and the means of carrying it


out [were] concerned, these tools [were] simply American out and out, ‘corrected for the


longitude of Germany as the astronomers would say?’ 28


Other companies were even less scrupulous. The American Machinist reported


regularly about such cases. For instance, a German machine tool dealer in Belgium had


sold horizontal boring machines claiming that they had been made by the Newark


Machine Tool Company in New Jersey. In fact, it had been made in Chemnitz (Saxony) “in


an exact imitation of the Newark machine?’ 29 Since German production costs had been


far below the American costs, this strategy promised a huge profit for the dealers and the


producer. In another case, a milling machine was being manufactured by a different


company in Chemnitz “in imitation of the Brown & Sharpe to the minutest details, and


even the cuts in the catalog describing i3t.0” Not only did the professional press observe


the similarities in Germany, but American machine tool producers, in reviewing and


meticulously analyzing product catalogs and advertisements found similarities as well. For


that purpose, Gray Company in Cincinnati, for example, had several scrapbooks to collect


German product illustrations. With the help of this monitoring they found their machines


being copied by several German companies.



TECHNOLOGY AND KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER IN


THE MACHINE TOOL INDUSTRY - THE UNITED


STATES AND GERMANY, 1870-1 930


Raif Richter


Department of History


Bielefeld University
 

Thomas1195

Banned
With a little research we find out why German machine tools were so popular - they were cheaper knockoffs of American machine tools.

The editor of the American

Machinist reported about his journey to Germany: “In going through the shops of a


prominent German machine-tool builder who has been in the United States and got a


good many ideas therefrom, as well as bought a good line of the best standard machines


from which to copy or to vary, in the productions of his own line, I noticed that every


solitary American machine, whether from Providence, or New Haven, or Cincinnati, had


had the name chipped off and the place painted over.” 27 It was in this way that the


Germans concealed the American origin of the machine tools when showing their plants


to German clients, so that these customers would not realize that the company offered


simple copies of American machine tools. The changes implemented by the Germans were


negligible. Only the German cast iron, which was stronger than American, forced them to


slightly thicken up the frames. “But so far as the central idea and the means of carrying it


out [were] concerned, these tools [were] simply American out and out, ‘corrected for the


longitude of Germany as the astronomers would say?’ 28


Other companies were even less scrupulous. The American Machinist reported


regularly about such cases. For instance, a German machine tool dealer in Belgium had


sold horizontal boring machines claiming that they had been made by the Newark


Machine Tool Company in New Jersey. In fact, it had been made in Chemnitz (Saxony) “in


an exact imitation of the Newark machine?’ 29 Since German production costs had been


far below the American costs, this strategy promised a huge profit for the dealers and the


producer. In another case, a milling machine was being manufactured by a different


company in Chemnitz “in imitation of the Brown & Sharpe to the minutest details, and


even the cuts in the catalog describing i3t.0” Not only did the professional press observe


the similarities in Germany, but American machine tool producers, in reviewing and


meticulously analyzing product catalogs and advertisements found similarities as well. For


that purpose, Gray Company in Cincinnati, for example, had several scrapbooks to collect


German product illustrations. With the help of this monitoring they found their machines


being copied by several German companies.



TECHNOLOGY AND KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER IN


THE MACHINE TOOL INDUSTRY - THE UNITED


STATES AND GERMANY, 1870-1 930


Raif Richter


Department of History


Bielefeld University
Well, it's not bad to do that, as it was driven by the motivation to modernize and develop their industry, and then develop and edit to account for specific German condition. Japan and Korea postwar also begged, borrowed and stole before developing their own products. The most energetic British producers also copied and learned from the US, which had driven global machine tool development since 1895, according to the Alfred Herbert book (although many British producers were too complacent to do so).
 
Top