Discussion: Comparing British and German industries 1900-1940

Thomas1195

Banned
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.

The problem was that they did not do themselves in high-tech new industries (especially did not carry out R&D themselves), which distorted their technological progress, causing them to decline during 1910-1940 and declined even faster postwar, when others (even Soviet) grew rapidly. Developments in chemical, electrical, electronic, metallurgy and machine tool sectors had a big spillover impact on other industries as they provide better production techniques and better means of production, the evidence for this was even bigger postwar, outside this time frame. For example, installing new, semi-automatic and electric-powered machine tools in a car assembly line would increase production speed; or adopting welding equipment in ship and tank building; or factory electrification (sorry you cannot import electricity back then, and Britain also lagged behind in this department); or new metallurgy process like electric arc furnace; mechanization of craft-based industries. German profit gains from exporting these new products before ww1 was terribly high, far from cooking their economy to death like Nazi. Falling to develop these sectors and to modernize their whole industries using new inventions from the new industries I mentioned was a major cause of the rapid British decline postwar.

Failure to change the practice you mentioned (building machines requiring operatives) also contributed to the rapid decline of the British machine tool industry postwar, when others gradually moved to semi-automatic and eventually automatic machines. This is called lagged effect.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
The raw material problem was because Germany emerged too late, when most of profitable, resource rich colonies had fallen into the hand of Britain or France, while Britain had controlled the sea. Besides, the geographical position also deterred their colonial expansion.
 
Please edit your posts rather than multipost...
The raw material problem was because Germany emerged too late, when most of profitable, resource rich colonies had fallen into the hand of Britain or France, while Britain had controlled the sea. Besides, the geographical position also deterred their colonial expansion.
Maa, that's just a weak excuse considering how fundamental resources are to an industry. If you don't have the gubbins, or you know you might lose those gubbins due to bad ideas, you probably need to plan around that. Germans never could. The UK never cared due to that nice empire; makes industry real easy to play with.
The problem was that they did not do themselves in high-tech new industries (especially did not carry out R&D themselves), which distorted their technological progress, causing them to decline during 1910-1940 and declined even faster postwar, when others (even Soviet) grew rapidly.
I see statements with no teeth, all fluff but no crunch in this non-supported opinion. Also some bitterness as well.
Developments in chemical, electrical, electronic, metallurgy and machine tool sectors had a big spillover impact on other industries as they provide better production techniques and better means of production, the evidence for this was even bigger postwar, outside this time frame.
So what you're saying is you have no case in the base scope that you established. Roight then, thread's closed. Out with ya lot.
For example, installing new, semi-automatic and electric-powered machine tools in a car assembly line would increase production speed; or adopting welding equipment in ship and tank building; or factory electrification (sorry you cannot import electricity back then, and Britain also lagged behind in this department);
All outside of the scope that you set for this thread, meaning that you are changing the goal posts since being honest ranks second to winning an argument with a bunch of history buffs. Besides, we already pointed out the weaknesses in said time frame with this approach, and how the latter matters not a jot when you have nice anthracite to cook in a boiler back in that timeframe of the Victorian-Edwardian era of WWI rather than that brown rubbish that soots it all up.
or mechanization of craft-based industries. German profit gains from exporting these new products before ww1 was terribly high, far from cooking their economy to death like Nazi.
They only needed to loot from their allies and from Russia to stitch their collapsing carcass together and still couldn't swing it.
Falling to develop these sectors and to modernize their whole industries using new inventions from the new industries I mentioned was a major cause of the rapid British decline postwar.
More like "I just spent all my reserves fighting two violent and painful wars that essentially made me unable to hold onto my empire. Thanks Hans, you mucked it up for me", rather than anything else.
Failure to change the practice you mentioned (building machines requiring operatives) also contributed to the rapid decline of the British machine tool industry postwar, when others gradually moved to semi-automatic and eventually automatic machines. This is called lagged effect.
More like "Hey, I can pay this highschool stooge to crank out this thing using my spec. machine rather than pay this craftsman extra to make this thing good. Not that any of what I or you said in this section matters since this is again outside of the very scope you set ;) .
 

Thomas1195

Banned
More like "I just spent all my reserves fighting two violent and painful wars that essentially made me unable to hold onto my empire. Thanks Hans, you mucked it up for me", rather than anything else
Well, a typical excuse. Britain suffered much less casualties and damages compared to Europe, Soviet and Japan. But this is out of the time frame.

All outside of the scope that you set for this thread, meaning that you are changing the goal posts since being honest ranks second to winning an argument with a bunch of history buffs. Besides, we already pointed out the weaknesses in said time frame with this approach, and how the latter matters not a jot when you have nice anthracite to cook in a boiler back in that timeframe of the Victorian-Edwardian era of WWI rather than that brown rubbish that soots it all
The deficiencies in electrification, lack of mechanization in various industries or so were covered by various authors like Chandler, Barnett, McCloskey or Saul. Another deficiency also mentioned by these historians was the domination by small firms, and anyone know about economics would be aware that this structure was terribly inefficient in sectors requiring large-scale capital investment and R&D, like electricity supply, or chemical.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
No. The market share of both West Germany and the US declined from 1965 to 1980 - the decline of the US market share being more rapid.
And British industries were still the biggest loser and were inferior in every aspect at the same time, but this is well after 1940
 
No. The market share of both West Germany and the US declined from 1965 to 1980 - the decline of the US market share being more rapid.
Don't indulge him in this, he's just using a red herring to get you off track of the picture since his argument is worse than Germany's World War winning streak.
 
I learn something new everyday! I assume the German ships still sank in a superior manner though?

Much like every time Germany's lost a war since 1871 (at a rate currently running at 100%) it's been done by the best commanders in the sexiest uniforms with the best tanks, planes, guns, battleships, submarines, etc, etc who planned their total defeat (twice) better than any of the stupid bastards on the British side who stupidly failed totally to be the best at anything while parading their inferior tanks, guns and uniforms through conquered and destroyed German cities...
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Much like every time Germany's lost a war since 1871 (at a rate currently running at 100%) it's been done by the best commanders in the sexiest uniforms with the best tanks, planes, guns, battleships, submarines, etc, etc who planned their total defeat (twice) better than any of the stupid bastards on the British side who stupidly failed totally to be the best at anything while parading their inferior tanks, guns and uniforms through conquered and destroyed German cities...
Who conquered Germany????Not in ww1, and not the British of course, it was the Soviet (destroyed 80% of German divisions) and the US (arsenal of democracy, and defeated the IJN alone) carried the heaviest weight in ww2.
 
Germany had to loot everything from its allies in that and still essentially collapsed before their supposedly inferior foes did. Probably because of that farming thing you seem to think is unimportant enough to deem them automatically superior to the chaps who could use tractors correctly without starving their nation and who could actually pull in the resources to keep their shacks running, as old as they may be.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Germany had to loot everything from its allies in that and still essentially collapsed before their supposedly inferior foes did. Probably because of that farming thing you seem to think is unimportant enough to deem them automatically superior to the chaps who could use tractors correctly without starving their nation and who could actually pull in the resources to keep their shacks running, as old as they may be.
Britain imported most of its food, ok? It might be more efficient, but it was just a token. OTOH, Germany was virtually self-sufficient in food before ww1. As I said, Germany emerged too lated and all of profitable colonies had been taken by Britain and France. Germany did not have the luxury to outsource agriculture. It was true that German farms lacked mechanization, similar to many of British industries. However, German farmers were the biggest users of chemical fertilizer in Europe. However, during the war, the materials used to make fertilizer had to be diverted to explosive production.

Next, Germany could not get rubber, as Malaya was held by Britain, so it had to produce synthetic rubber. It could not get oil since it did not hold the Middle East, so it had to produce synthetic oil. These demonstrated German clear superiority in chemistry, without which Germany would have lost after less than 3 years. Meanwhile, Britain did not have to produce synthetic stuff (and also could not, as it lacked expertise and capability to do so, since British chemical industry was not developed enough). It could not build a bigger navy than RN because it was a land power, surrounded by France and Russia. Letting itself to fall into a coalition war, which Bismarck feared the most, was about diplomacy, not industry.

Imagine a scenario in the future, when NATO goes to war and is cut off from Chinese rare earth, which is used to make electronic gadgets. This scenario would be exactly the same as Germany's situation in world wars.
 
Last edited:
Translation: HOW DARE YOU POINT OUT THAT AN INDUSTRY IS NOTHING WITHOUT RESOURCES

And having mechanized and modern agriculture is useful, in spite of your desperate attempt to turn Germany's ineptitude regarding it into a strength. Why? As mentioned; you open up a vast amount of manpower as tens of thousands of people are now not needed to keep even regarding food. You also can render the harvest easier and thus have less food go to waste. Lastly, these statements are full of less veracity than the Hindenburg was full of a non-flammable gas. I'm not buying British chemical ineptitude with chemicals until I see a roight proper source, author, pages, and all.
 
Who conquered Germany????Not in ww1, and not the British of course, it was the Soviet (destroyed 80% of German divisions) and the US (arsenal of democracy, and defeated the IJN alone) carried the heaviest weight in ww2.

Bremen-liberation.jpg


Inferior British tank built in some peasant cottage lit only by the coal fire drives through Bremen which had been left in ruins by inferior bombers built in some other cottages as well as shells from inferior guns built in etc, etc.

All commanded by inferior commanders, crewed by inferior soldiers and all done with far, far less sexy uniforms.

Still, at least the houses left standing in Bremen probably had their own telephone...
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Translation: HOW DARE YOU POINT OUT THAT AN INDUSTRY IS NOTHING WITHOUT RESOURCES

And having mechanized and modern agriculture is useful, in spite of your desperate attempt to turn Germany's ineptitude regarding it into a strength. Why? As mentioned; you open up a vast amount of manpower as tens of thousands of people are now not needed to keep even regarding food. You also can render the harvest easier and thus have less food go to waste. Lastly, these statements are full of less veracity than the Hindenburg was full of a non-flammable gas. I'm not buying British chemical ineptitude with chemicals until I see a roight proper source, author, pages, and all.
https://books.google.com.vn/books?i...e&q=british chemical industry in 1914&f=false

Well, before ww1, Britain basically lacked the organic chemical branch such as dyes, pharmaceticals, making it dependent to foreign imports of strategic material before ww1. The link also describes the importance of organic chemistry in war effort.
Besides, you know that the synthetic stuff I mentioned was made from organic chemical branch, which Britain toally lacked before and during ww1. Britain only had measures to nurture its own chemical industry after the war.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Bremen-liberation.jpg


Inferior British tank built in some peasant cottage lit only by the coal fire drives through Bremen which had been left in ruins by inferior bombers built in some other cottages as well as shells from inferior guns built in etc, etc.

All commanded by inferior commanders, crewed by inferior soldiers and all done with far, far less sexy uniforms.

Still, at least the houses left standing in Bremen probably had their own telephone...
After Soviet and US had done the heavy weight, OK?
 
https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=zXzwCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA228&dq=british+chemical+industry+in+1914&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiPptXF35jRAhXCUZQKHZj5AJYQ6AEIWjAJ#v=onepage&q=british chemical industry in 1914&f=false

Well, before ww1, Britain basically lacked the organic chemical branch such as dyes, pharmaceticals, making it dependent to foreign imports of strategic material before ww1. The link also describes the importance of organic chemistry in war effort.
Besides, you know that the synthetic stuff I mentioned was made from organic chemical branch, which Britain toally lacked before and during ww1. Britain only had measures to nurture its own chemical industry after the war.
I'd like pages to start, and a lot of the book is off limits, but it seems to me that the Brits kinda learned their lesson about having a very limited domestic ability to produce war-critical items without relying on potentially hostile powers, since they were able to crash build up the chemicals they needed. Counter this with Germany never really being able to counter not having the base materials in the first place and you can see why I place a lot of emphasis on resources and to a lesser degree economics when I talk industry.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I'd like pages to start, and a lot of the book is off limits, but it seems to me that the Brits kinda learned their lesson about having a very limited domestic ability to produce war-critical items without relying on potentially hostile powers, since they were able to crash build up the chemicals they needed. Counter this with Germany never really being able to counter not having the base materials in the first place and you can see why I place a lot of emphasis on resources and to a lesser degree economics when I talk industry.
Well, availibility of resources is crucial in wartime, but it also greatly depends on geographical position.

However, my thread also want to cover peacetime commercial aspect, which would be measured by export turnover or output, as well as technological progress, since you cannot obtain info about product quality. In this aspect, German industry demonstrated clear superiority in new sectors, especially in electronic, electrical goods, chemical, steel and machinery (especially machine tools). Britain, OTOH, fared better in old industries like shipbuilding and general marine engineering, as well as light, consumer good industries.
 
Last edited:

hipper

Banned
Well, availibility of resources is crucial in wartime, but it also greatly depends on geographical position.

However, my thread also want to cover peacetime commercial aspect, which would be measured by export turnover or output, as well as technological progress, since you cannot obtain info about product quality. In this aspect, German industry demonstrated clear superiority in new sectors, especially in electronic, electrical goods, chemical, steel and machinery (especially machine tools). Britain, OTOH, fared better in old industries like shipbuilding and general marine engineering, as well as light, consumer good industries.

is I quoted earlier Germanis machine tool production advantage was financial. they made cheaper copies of American machine tools.
The cheapness was caused by the relativly lower wages of German workers compared to the UK or America.

They did not make any advances in machine tools and suffered from lack of innnovation when cut off from the supply of American machine tools. they imported a great number of American machine tools when they had the opportunity.

Britain had the largest machine tool company in Europe prior to ww1 and kept a constant wharf of the world market untill the 60's
 
Who conquered Germany????Not in ww1, and not the British of course, it was the Soviet (destroyed 80% of German divisions) and the US (arsenal of democracy, and defeated the IJN alone) carried the heaviest weight in ww2.

Er

stereoscopic-image-of-troops-of-the-british-army-of-the-rhine-the-picture-id488063417


As you can see this image from the Getty archive even has a handy caption explaining what is going on. "In Cologne, where, instead of the 'goose-step,' the martial tread of British troops now reigns supreme."

So World War 1 (as in before the Soviet Union incidentally) and British troops in Germany, bearing arms and occupying.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
is I quoted earlier Germanis machine tool production advantage was financial. they made cheaper copies of American machine tools.
The cheapness was caused by the relativly lower wages of German workers compared to the UK or America.

They did not make any advances in machine tools and suffered from lack of innnovation when cut off from the supply of American machine tools. they imported a great number of American machine tools when they had the opportunity.

Britain had the largest machine tool company in Europe prior to ww1 and kept a constant wharf of the world market untill the 60's
Well, the problem was that American machine tool was more modern, more efficient and more diverse. Adopting, learning and copying from them was fine. Japan and Korea postwar did the same.

https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=tbCzUqFvfssC&pg=PA78&dq=british+exports+and+imports+of+machine+tool+in+1914&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU64WGrJbRAhXFJpQKHdVrCqEQ6AEIMjAA#v=onepage&q=british exports and imports of machine tool in 1914&f=false
Look at page 79. If British machine tools were truly superior, British producers would haven't been kicked out of French market by Germany firms like that. British market share dropped from 50% to just around 10%. This would be impossible if British producers produced superior products. France was not a place to sell junks like some colonies.

Finally, in these 4 sectors: electronic, electrical goods, chemical and steel, German superiority was undeniable.
 
Top