Discussion: Comparing British and German industries 1900-1940

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.

The danger of such a strategy is that not only can the target react, but after achieving some measure of success in gaining market share the next upcoming country does the same. Thus you never really gain the imagined profitability and ultimately the companies and countries involved may have been better off trading normally.

The German subsidies make consumers in other countries better off, longer term this has an impact on the domestic living standards and social stability. Those subsidies would likely have more profitable or productive alternative uses.
 
Last edited:

hipper

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.

What do you mean by too late and how long would Germany subsidise the UK in this scenario
 
No, actually. (1) It would still have to maintain its land forces- it shared borders to nations hostile to it.

Which is a tiny fraction of actually fighting on land fronts.

(2) Which OTL, Britain mounted, and still won. Germany lost.

Germany lost because it was fighting the US and SU as well as Britain.

(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.

On the contrary, there were major neutralist political figures in the US during this timeframe, such as Robert Taft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Taft It is unlikely, but not impossible, that such a figure could have been the leader of the US during an Anglo-German war.

(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.

????????????? Who said anything about comparing the size of the standing armies? What I said was the most accurate test of the relative economic/military strengths of Germany and Britain, (or any two countries), is to imagine them fighting a war with all other countries remaining completely neutral, not counting the size of their armed forces at the outset.

(5) The operation which gutted the German navy?

And succeeded in attaining its objective.

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.

Which was completely inadequate until the massive amounts of free stuff from the US came rolling in.

And German torpedoes are mostly useless (what, 40% dud rate?).

So 60% useful by your own guess? And the problem was eventually solved. http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1599&context=etd

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.

Countering increased Franco-Polish peacetime orders is still a tiny fraction of the effort needed to replace the losses which accrue from fighting on major land fronts. Also, for the WWII timeframe, Britain would need to divert resources in a similar manner to counter Japan.

Or, the Norwegians send out mobilization orders via radio and not by mail.

No reason to believe they would do so ITTL if they didn't in OTL.

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.

More than made up for by the ability to focus on production of submarines and the lack of US participation.

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.

The U-boats were not defeated by the "introduction of the convoy," they were defeated by Britain being kept in the war by enormous amounts of US assistance and then direct American entry. And I already acknowledged that the scenario of an Anglo-German war with other countries staying neutral is not particularly likely, it's a thought experiment designed to measure which of the two countries in isolation is stronger, if either.
 

Anderman

Donor
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.

Before the WW1 Germany like the most other nations was on the gold standard and this means gold coins that are in circulation. Devaluing is not as easy as today, lead to problems in Germany and will be a blow for the presitge of the German empire.
 
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.
Just stop. You're only showing you have no idea what you're talking about.

You cannot devalue your currency in a near-global gold standard without destroying your own economy.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
What do you mean by too late and how long
Well, as long as Asquith and Lloud George stay in power (assume no ww1).

Too late. Well, maybe when Sheffield steel sheds (which are much smaller than the likes of Krupp and thus most would not going to survive this kind of competition) go bust one by one.

Before the WW1 Germany like the most other nations was on the gold standard and this means gold coins that are in circulation. Devaluing is not as easy as today, lead to problems in Germany and will be a blow for the presitge of the German empire.
Oh, you are true. Sorry, I forget this. But export subsidies to keep price artificially low could be sufficient to cripple a free trade nation.
 

Anderman

Donor
Well, as long as Asquith and Lloud George stay in power (assume no ww1).

Too late. Well, maybe when Sheffield steel sheds (which are much smaller than the likes of Krupp and thus most would not going to survive this kind of competition) go bust one by one.


Oh, you are true. Sorry, I forget this. But export subsidies to keep price artificially low could be sufficient to cripple a free trade nation.

The problem is that the empire at the federal level has a quite limited tax base mostly sales taxes on certain products. So doubt that the money there in the first place.
Even if the government find the money it will only help the companies/industries which products are subsidised buth the burden is on the rest of the industries.
Cheap german steel is bad for the steel mills in the uk but great for the british ship yards they become even more competitive and of course the german ship yard now have to pay
higher taxes in some form.
 

Anderman

Donor
Germany already had tariff, unlike Britain, where the people (except for the Tories) were blind free traders

Do you have some numbers on tariffs ? I only know that the tariffs went up in the 19th century but went down again at the end of if stayed low until WW1.
 
Germany already had tariff, unlike Britain, where the people (except for the Tories) were blind free traders
Do you have some numbers on tariffs ? I only know that the tariffs went up in the 19th century but went down again at the end of if stayed low until WW1.

There was backlash against Chamberlain's attempt to reintroduce protection in 1903, but that was because there was the assumption other countries were playing fair. No one in their right mind would allow some upstart to attempt at undermining the natural order of things.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Do you have some numbers on tariffs ? I only know that the tariffs went up in the 19th century but went down again at the end of if stayed low until WW1.
Since the long depression, Continental Europe reverted to protectionism.

https://books.google.com.vn/books?i...#v=onepage&q=German tariff level 1913&f=false
German tariff by 1913 was 12% on average

There was backlash against Chamberlain's attempt to reintroduce protection in 1903, but that was because there was the assumption other countries were playing fair. No one in their right mind would allow some upstart to attempt at undermining the natural order of things.
If the German publicly adopted dumping then Britain would react. But of course they would do quietly if they decide to do so.
 
Wasn't the Chinese flooding of the global steel market caused by a slowdown in construction in China, meaning demand no longer met supply and hence the steel had nowhere to go but overseas? Because it seems like deliberately trying to crash and cause mass unemployment in the economies of countries you are selling to sounds like a fucking genius move for an export-oriented economy.

Yes, Germany, try to 'sabotage' the British by giving them cheap steel. Maybe the Kaiser can perform cunninglingus on Queen Victoria to permanently cement the British humiliation.
 

Anderman

Donor
Since the long depression, Continental Europe reverted to protectionism.

https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=-_e4DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=German+tariff+level+1913&source=bl&ots=qMfOV9rFtF&sig=6ODoEoUJAWI0ZFJfzYnXMXcOUFI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc2uDr3_vRAhVDj5QKHWIhDIQQ6AEIPTAG#v=onepage&q=German tariff level 1913&f=false
German tariff by 1913 was 12% on average


If the German publicly adopted dumping then Britain would react. But of course they would do quietly if they decide to do so.

Interesting in after the german wikipedia Leo Caprivi ended Bismarcks Schutzzollpolitik

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_von_Caprivi

Your link states that germany had a tariff of 12% that is about the same as for the EU of today. And not realy a protective tariff.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Your link states that germany had a tariff of 12% that is about the same as for the EU of today. And not realy a protective tariff.
Tariff on agriculture was much higher, around 20%, and around 10% on manufactured goods. However, it was a league ahead 0% (Britain)
 
You don't need spies, if it's going to cause any effect then somebody in Britain, a shipyard owner or a bridge architect or whatever, has to look over and sign off on purchasing all this steel. Dockmasters are going to notice huge cargo ships full of steel, along with their sources and values. You can't exactly supply the material for a skyscraper on the black market.

And with your attitudes to free trade as a 'blinding ideology', I expect you to next tell me that gold and silver have inherent value...
 
Top