Discussion: Comparing British and German industries 1900-1940

Of course they DID.

Britain's debt after ww1 would have been far lower than IOTL if its industrial capacity was bigger. Britain with a bigger industrial capacity than IOTL would have been able to supply France and Belgium what these countries and even Britain itself IOTL relied on American imports, thus saving lots of their reserves (for both UK and France).

Next, for ww2, being less reliant on Lend Lease would have make UK much better off post war.
In a way no Lend Lease in a TL where Britain had greater industrial capacity would make the UK much worse off.

That is British industry might be able to satisfy all the British armed forces needs, but the Treasury would have to pay for it. Lend Lease was for free. Therefore the extra production would produce a larger National Debt after the war, meaning more interest to pay on said debt and less money to pay for things like the new Welfare State.

The ideal situation for the UK would have been able to build all the equipment that the USA supplied for free under Lend Lease, with the US Government still paying for it. But I don't see President Roosevelt being that generous even if Congress and the American people would allow it.

Where having more industrial capacity would help is the period before Lend Lease and after World War II, which in British history is known as the Austerity Era. Before Lend Lease it would have meant the British foreign currency reserves would not have been exhausted so quickly. However, even then the need to import so much wasn't because of the weakness of the whole of British industry, it was because the arms industry had been wound down too much after World War One.

The ability to produce more goods would have been good for the post-war Export Drive and at the same time allowed more for the home market so that Austerity would have been less austere. However, the benefits of that would have been offset or even cancelled out altogether by having an even bigger National Debt. Furthermore as I've been saying about steel, its not enough to be able to make more. You have to be able to sell it at a competitive price and still make a profit.
 
I haven't read through such a long thread, but to the OP's topic which seems to me to be essentially "how did the military-industrial sectors of Britain and Germany compare to each other during the world war era?" the answer is that in both conflicts Germany alone was superior to Britain alone, and if one somehow imagines a bizarre war during the early-mid twentieth century which pitted the two against each other with all other countries remaining completely neutral, Germany would win due to the British economy collapsing from the effects of U-boat blockade.

However, a combination of the inherent difficulties of the German strategic position (that is, Germany being stronger than Britain, and other countries fearing Germany more than Britain as a result) and unforced blunders on the part of Germany's rulers (the Zimmerman Telegram, Operation Barbarossa, etc.) meant that Britain was able to secure alliances with countries which collectively were able to overwhelm Germany and win decisive victories in both world wars. Therefore, Germany's economic/technological superiority vis a vis Britain is a factor which could have been important had German strategy not been overaggressive towards third parties, but did not matter in the end as the latter outweighed the former.
 
I haven't read through such a long thread, but to the OP's topic which seems to me to be essentially "how did the military-industrial sectors of Britain and Germany compare to each other during the world war era?" the answer is that in both conflicts Germany alone was superior to Britain alone, and if one somehow imagines a bizarre war during the early-mid twentieth century which pitted the two against each other with all other countries remaining completely neutral, Germany would win due to the British economy collapsing from the effects of U-boat blockade.

However, a combination of the inherent difficulties of the German strategic position (that is, Germany being stronger than Britain, and other countries fearing Germany more than Britain as a result) and unforced blunders on the part of Germany's rulers (the Zimmerman Telegram, Operation Barbarossa, etc.) meant that Britain was able to secure alliances with countries which collectively were able to overwhelm Germany and win decisive victories in both world wars. Therefore, Germany's economic/technological superiority vis a vis Britain is a factor which could have been important had German strategy not been overaggressive towards third parties, but did not matter in the end as the latter outweighed the former.

Bolding mine. How would Germany win? If it's set during WW1 era, Britain brings all its fleets home minus some for mopping up raiders- so Britain has enough destroyers. And that means no unrestricted warfare, or else the US gets involved. And Britain could finance itself quite well. And Britain had it locked down in 1939- it was the German's gaining access to French ports, extending their range, that cause the mid-Atlantic gap.
 
Bolding mine. How would Germany win? If it's set during WW1 era, Britain brings all its fleets home minus some for mopping up raiders- so Britain has enough destroyers. And that means no unrestricted warfare, or else the US gets involved. And Britain could finance itself quite well. And Britain had it locked down in 1939- it was the German's gaining access to French ports, extending their range, that cause the mid-Atlantic gap.

Germany would win because it could devote nearly the entirety of its war effort to producing submarines in the scenario I posited as there are no major land fronts, the only significant other expense would be (if during the WWII timeframe) fending off a strategic bomber offensive (which in turn would be a considerable expense for Britain to mount). Realistically, it is correct that USW would bring about US involvement, which is why I said "if one somehow imagines a bizarre war... with all other countries remaining completely neutral." The reason I brought up the scenario is because although it isn't particularly realistic, it is the most accurate way of measuring the relative strengths of Britain and Germany in isolation. As for the gap, Operation Weserubung could still be conducted to acquire Norwegian basing locations and construction of the Type IX, which first entered commission as early as 1938 in OTL and had a large enough range to operate in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, would be prioritized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Type_IX_submarine
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I haven't read through such a long thread, but to the OP's topic which seems to me to be essentially "how did the military-industrial sectors of Britain and Germany compare to each other during the world war era?" the answer is that in both conflicts Germany alone was superior to Britain alone, and if one somehow imagines a bizarre war during the early-mid twentieth century which pitted the two against each other with all other countries remaining completely neutral, Germany would win due to the British economy collapsing from the effects of U-boat blockade.
Military industrial sectors are only a part of my thread. I also focus on peacetime commercial aspect, such as synthetic dye.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Like that's going to be fun with no land borders and only the north sea to fight in as GB mops up more colony's....
German could try to complete Berlin-Baghdad railway in an Anglo-German war without Russia and Serbia, then bring troops to attack Suez.
 
German could try to complete Berlin-Baghdad railway in an Anglo-German war without Russia and Serbia, then bring troops to attack Suez.

Letting other nation's troops to transit your nation is almost always an act of war- even if you make the soldioers and weapons ship separately. Britain protests, and promises the Ottoman's neighbors territory. Suddenly, Greece, Bulgaria, Italy, Russia, and all the other little nations invade. Why not? They were carving up Ottoman territory 1911-1913 OTL. France jumps in since Russia is in, and now we have a slightly different WW1.

(1)Germany would win because it could devote nearly the entirety of its war effort to producing submarines in the scenario I posited as there are no major land fronts, the only significant other expense would be (if during the WWII timeframe) fending off a strategic bomber offensive (which in turn would be a (2) considerable expense for Britain to mount). Realistically, it is correct that USW would bring about US involvement, which is why I said "if one somehow imagines a bizarre war... with all other countries (3) remaining completely neutral." The reason I brought up the scenario is because although it isn't particularly realistic, (4) it is the most accurate way of measuring the relative strengths of Britain and Germany in isolation. As for the gap, (5) Operation Weserubung could still be conducted to acquire Norwegian basing locations and construction of the Type IX, which first entered commission as early as 1938 in OTL and had a large enough range to operate in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, would be prioritized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Type_IX_submarine

No, actually. (1) It would still have to maintain its land forces- it shared borders to nations hostile to it. (2) Which OTL, Britain mounted, and still won. Germany lost. (3) This is the After 1900 forum, so no, other countries would respond. Only in the ASB forum do other nations ignore their ships sunk and citizens killed, illegally I might add. (4) It really isn't- 1913, Bulgaria had a larger standing army, and more modern than the US- who today would argue Bulgaria was the stronger one? The time frame is critical- the US could mobilize far more over 4 years, as Britain could as well- comparing, frex, the UK and German armies in 1913 is pointless, unless it is a 12 months or less war, since Britain could, and did, mobilize an army almost as big as Germany by 1916. People seem to forget we have OTL data of Germany enjoying a lead, but when war dictated Britain close the gap, they did. (5) The operation which gutted the German navy? Again, here Germany cannot ignore the other 2 branches (army/ air force), since France and Poland are hostile towards it. And even if they decided to only build subs, they still need subs now to train on, and Britain will, as they did OTL, launch a crash building program of escorts. And German torpedoes are mostly useless (what, 40% dud rate?). And that operation, along with Sickle Cut and Barbarossa, are not fixed points in time. They should have accomplished far less than they did. There are no certainties that without Danish air fields (or are they invading them too? Makes Poland and France mighty nervous, which means they order more weapons, so Germany has too as well- so less subs) the Germans succeed. Or, the Norwegians send out mobilization orders via radio and not by mail.

And just skimming the article, those subs have 2 big issues- slow diving time and less maneuverable, means more time for planes to bomb, or destroyers to attack, and more likely within the area when depth charges arrive.
 
German could try to complete Berlin-Baghdad railway in an Anglo-German war without Russia and Serbia, then bring troops to attack Suez.
An Anglo-German war (1914) will go, short navy (surface, U boats not ready and illegal) clash with 1SG/HSF surviving by running away due to size disparity, then Russia begin a limited defensive mobilization and Germany starts to head toward Belgium (it doesn't have any other response in its plans available)....
 
I only mean that Germany's problem was caused by its bad handling of diplomacy.

A wiser approach would be engaging in a Chinese-style trade war, or if they really want a war, make sure that the war would be just Anglo-German (like in 1870 with France).
World War One only being between Germany and the entire British Empire...

This video will save both of us a lot of time...


And for my next thread, "Reagan and Mondale's Laugh In. An Alternative 1984 US Presidential Election."
 

hipper

Banned
Germany would win because it could devote nearly the entirety of its war effort to producing submarines in the scenario I posited as there are no major land fronts, the only significant other expense would be (if during the WWII timeframe) fending off a strategic bomber offensive (which in turn would be a considerable expense for Britain to mount). Realistically, it is correct that USW would bring about US involvement, which is why I said "if one somehow imagines a bizarre war... with all other countries remaining completely neutral." The reason I brought up the scenario is because although it isn't particularly realistic, it is the most accurate way of measuring the relative strengths of Britain and Germany in isolation. As for the gap, Operation Weserubung could still be conducted to acquire Norwegian basing locations and construction of the Type IX, which first entered commission as early as 1938 in OTL and had a large enough range to operate in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, would be prioritized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Type_IX_submarine

Submarine warfare was decisively defeated by the introduction of convoy in two world wars given Given Germanys location its very hard for them to wage submarine warfare against the U.K. Without widening the war by invading other countries . Furthermore the nature of submarine warfare tends to upset neutral nations bringing them into a war against Germany. Having your ships sunk and salors killed is worse than having your ships escorted into port ant their cargoes purchased.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
So, a trade war? Germany could secretly subsidize its producers to export goods to Britain and its Empire at below their production costs, while devaluing the mark by a few percents, like what China did these days. Britain would not be able to react until it's too late. Worse, it did not even have a trade protection system like the US today.
 
So, a trade war? Germany could secretly subsidize its producers to export goods to Britain and its Empire at below their production costs, while devaluing the mark by a few percents, like what China did these days. Britain would not be able to react until it's too late. Worse, it did not even have a trade protection system like the US today.

Why not? What exactly is stopping Britain from doing the same thing? Also, aren't they sending money to keep alive inefficient peasant farms in the countryside already?

I also thought that the whole point of Germany being superior at industry means they could undercut Britain anyway, without subsidies.
 
Why not? What exactly is stopping Britain from doing the same thing? Also, aren't they sending money to keep alive inefficient peasant farms in the countryside already?

I also thought that the whole point of Germany being superior at industry means they could undercut Britain anyway, without subsidies.

The funny thing is Germany was doing a lot of that, for example German steel producers were dumping at below cost prices large plates for shipbuilding(1), the result of which was to make British shipbuilding even more cost efficient..

The real problem for Germany seems to be while they could perhaps make all the parts cheaper the British could often put them together in a package for which they could charge more.

(1) British and World Shipbuilding 1890-1914, Sidney Pollard, pp 439-440
 
Last edited:
Well, I mean they might just use dumping tactic specifically towards Britain.

And again, what's stopping Britain from doing the same thing? Canada, Australia et al produces a lot of food, what's stopping them from forcing Germany to choose between the destruction of domestic agriculture or heavy protectionist policy that sucks them dry of cash?

London was the financial heart of the world, and in many ways it still is, they're not idiots when it comes to some fairly basic economics, they're going to see what Germany tries to do.
 
Top