Discussion: Comparing British and German industries 1900-1940

Thomas1195

Banned
so basically you would take something that works just fine,destroy it and replace it with something else because the original wasn t state of the art.your shareholders want to have a word with you,that is if the bean counters leave anything for them to talk to.
They did not work fine. The whole Sheffield steel industry did not work at its maximum efficiency because of its decentralized nature.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
in what way?
Lack of economies of scale. While they might be still profitable, their output ans profit were below optimal because of lack of centralization.

Also, most small steel mills could not afford to still new equipment like electric arc furnace.
 
Lack of economies of scale
Works far more in wartime with only one customer. In peace time if you want to make many different types of alloy in different sizes how much do you gain by using the same production facility, stopping and starting each batch rather than having many less good set ups working in parallel?
 
Last edited:

BooNZ

Banned
If I were a British PM, I would bulldoze all the Sheffield steel sheds and rebuild a Krupp-size complex equipped with electric arc furnaces as replacement.
They did not work fine. The whole Sheffield steel industry did not work at its maximum efficiency because of its decentralized nature.
So you are advocating a Soviet centralized production economy - welcome to the glorious Peoples Democratic Republic of Great Britain and Ireland
 

BooNZ

Banned
Well, Figure 2 shows that the Great War disrupted German productivity growth so hard that they could not surpass Britain until postwar.
By "post war" you mean 60 years later...

German productivity was predicted to surpass Britain by mid 1930s
The same chart records British productivity greatly exceeding those projections despite the opportunity costs of fighting two world wars and a great depression. You are being dishonest to cite pre-war projections when those demonstrably underestimated actual British performance despite substantial OTL challenges.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
So you are advocating a Soviet centralized production economy - welcome to the glorious Peoples Democratic Republic of Great Britain and Ireland
Well, I would only nationalize them until new steel plants are completed. Meanwhile, I would organize a merge between small steel firms.
 
So you are advocating a Soviet centralized production economy - welcome to the glorious Peoples Democratic Republic of Great Britain and Ireland

"Cough" GB and Northern Ireland, who knows going for a Soviet style economy might actually make the Free State's basket case economy look better in this tl...
 

hipper

Banned
Well, Figure 2 shows that the Great War disrupted German productivity growth so hard that they could not surpass Britain until postwar. German productivity was predicted to surpass Britain by mid 1930s

By post war you mean 1955

But it's an interesting paper showing how much WW1 harmed Germany
 
But it's an interesting paper showing how much WW1 harmed Germany

I think that is the one solid thing to come out of this thread. I had a vague idea that World War 1 was bad for Germany, mostly as a result of talking to Germans as it happened, I had never truly grasped how much of a mess or how long term a mess it made of things till looking over the works that have presented in reaction to the OP's claims.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
How well did merging small firms in the Car and Aerospace industries work out for the UK?
So less crazy policy: Just support the steel firms, especially the largest ones to build new modern steel mills, among them would include a Krupp size steel complex.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
By "post war" you mean 60 years later...


The same chart records British productivity greatly exceeding those projections despite the opportunity costs of fighting two world wars and a great depression. You are being dishonest to cite pre-war projections when those demonstrably underestimated actual British performance despite substantial OTL challenges.

By post war you mean 1955

But it's an interesting paper showing how much WW1 harmed Germany
Well, it also showed how ww1 improved British productivity and industrial capacity. Most of the modernization in British industrial base happened during the war to support war demand, with the construction of the mainly electric-powered National Munition Factories, and with the increasing adoption of mass production techniques. The turning point was the formation of the Ministry of Munitions following the Shell Crisis. This also proved that Asquith was too passive and indecisive.

For example, the war transformed the optical industry from a small craft-based industry into a large-scale, mechanized one.

And even taking account of British productivity improvement, German prewar trend was still slight higher.
 

hipper

Banned
So less crazy policy: Just support the steel firms, especially the largest ones to build new modern steel mills, among them would include a Krupp size steel complex.

this actually happened

upload_2017-1-4_13-8-15.png


Business, Banking, and Politics: The Case of British Steel, 1918-1939
By Steven Tolliday
 

Thomas1195

Banned
this actually happened

View attachment 302436

Business, Banking, and Politics: The Case of British Steel, 1918-1939
By Steven Tolliday

https://books.google.com.vn/books?i...itish steel export and import in 1936&f=false
Britain was slower than its competitors in adopting new technology in steel production. You can read page 483, british steel output from electric arc furnace was even lower than France and Sweden.


Also, nationwide they tended to just carry out on-site improvements rather than building new ones. As British plants were mostly small or medium, this means British steel industry was still mostly dominated by small or medium mills, rather than Krupp Essen size complex. Even bigger plants like Richard Thomas plants were no where near Krupp Essen.
 

BooNZ

Banned
"Cough" GB and Northern Ireland, who knows going for a Soviet style economy might actually make the Free State's basket case economy look better in this tl...
Obviously having two Irelands would be far too inefficient - typical of those Britisher nincompoops...
Well, it also showed how ww1 improved British productivity and industrial capacity. Most of the modernization in British industrial base happened during the war to support war demand, with the construction of the mainly electric-powered National Munition Factories, and with the increasing adoption of mass production techniques. The turning point was the formation of the Ministry of Munitions following the Shell Crisis. This also proved that Asquith was too passive and indecisive.
The chart (figure 2) records a noticeable increase in British GDP growth during wartime representing an effective mobilization for war. This suggests British were familiar with the benefits of modern techniques before the war, but in peacetime the benefits did not outweigh the costs involved. It is probable a tipping point would have reached without the war that would have been triggered the British to gradually modernize their industry to maintain their competitive edge. The British industrialists had greater access to funds than any of their likely competitors. Notably the British GDP growth initially declined after the war, suggesting much of the British modernization undertaken during the war had limited peacetime application.

The performance of the British economy during wartime can be contrasted with the German wartime economy, which lost its metaphorical wheels off its metaphorical German wagon...

And even taking account of British productivity improvement, German prewar trend was still slight higher.
So you are saying the British demonstrated comparable productivity improvements to the Germans even before any British wartime or subsequent modernization programs...
 

Thomas1195

Banned
This suggests British were familiar with the benefits of modern techniques before the war, but in peacetime the benefits did not outweigh the costs involved. It is probable a tipping point would have reached without the war that would have been triggered the British to gradually modernize their industry to maintain their competitive edge
Are you sure? Liberal party did not shift to Keynesian approach until OTL postwar. Conservative? Protectionism but did not advocate large-scale public capital investment to overhaul infrastructures and industrial base. Besides, it was clear that there weren't any evidence of rapid adoption of mass production as well as centralization of electricity production before ww1. Not until MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS reorganized production. I have provided the example of optical industry. Britain would not modernize optical production like OTL without the war. A similar case would happen with dye, pharma and organic chemical industry. Measure like the formation of ICI would butterfly away without the war. Finally, the war had a big positive impact on motor vehicle, machine tools and electrical industries.
 
Last edited:
Are you sure? Liberal party did not shift to Keynesian approach until OTL postwar. Conservative? Protectionism but did not advocate large-scale public capital investment to overhaul infrastructures and industrial base. Besides, it was clear that there weren't any evidence of rapid adoption of mass production as well as centralization of electricity production before ww1. Not until MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS reorganized production. I have provided the example of optical industry. Britain would not modernize optical production like OTL without the war. A similar case would happen with dye, pharma and organic chemical industry. Measure like the formation of ICI would butterfly away without the war. Finally, the war had a big positive impact on motor vehicle, machine tools and electrical industries.

I think he can be quite sure, it's the sheds effect you see. All those men in sheds, sooner or later one is going to want to tinker with a new gadget, should it turn out to be a really good gadget he ends up head of the foremost company in the industry and is henceforth known as Sir Tinkerer. The effect not being fast is as Boonz suggested likely evidence that the productivity gains from new technologies were not all that great at least in the 20s and 30s.
 
Top