Discussion: Comparing British and German industries 1900-1940

Thomas1195

Banned
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...
People may think that German firms had new secret methods to produce steel so cheaply, but exposing German government's act is another problem.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Not only steel, but machine tool, locomotives, chemical, optics and electrical goods from Germany flooding British market. We could see GEC, Crompton, Dick, Kerr and Co, Chance Bros, Brunner Mond... going bankrupt.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
How are they funding this massive subsidy plot?
Maybe smaller HSF, plus tax revenue from a booming economy (German economy was basically always in a booming state during 1900-1914). Maybe also from cooperation with private firms. Note that the subsidy only directed to goods going to Britain. Trade with France, US...would be normal.
 
People may think that German firms had new secret methods to produce steel so cheaply, but exposing German government's act is another problem.

They could be getting the steel from unicorn shit for all they know, but what is stopping the British from reacting to this influx of steel, which they know fully is happening and to an extent they can quantify to the kilogram, by simply using more steel? It's very rare for a cheaper method to source a material to merely result in the materials cost to only shrink, it almost always leads to the material being used more often. So Britains construction industry booms, and the German government get less than diddly-squat.
 

Anderman

Donor
Tariff on agriculture was much higher, around 20%, and around 10% on manufactured goods. However, it was a league ahead 0% (Britain)

Tariffs on agriculture are a problem for Canada, Australia and other british colonies but not for the uk as fewer agriculturall imports into Germany means that the UK can import more
and the UK want/could not produce enough food by it self. So this means lower food prices in the UK good for the working class.
And 10% on manufactured goods are not high enough for a protective tariff even when the tariff in the UK is zero. Remember that is a tariff only for Germany the rest of the world has it own tariff equal for Germany and the UK.
 
Maybe smaller HSF, plus tax revenue from a booming economy (German economy was basically always in a booming state during 1900-1914). Maybe also from cooperation with private firms. Note that the subsidy only directed to goods going to Britain. Trade with France, US...would be normal.

I think it would be tough to have subsidies that only impact Britain, generally efforts to have differential pricing leads to substantial leakage if the gap is significant.

The likely consequence of this policy is mal-investment in Germany which at some stage will become apparent. At that point when the subsidies become unaffordable or trade barriers make the policy pointless there will substantial excess capacity and a lack of domestic demand. Other countries will likely also take offence at the policy when Germany in desperation tries to find new markets. Thus the 'booming economy' will come to an end.
 

Anderman

Donor
Maybe smaller HSF, plus tax revenue from a booming economy (German economy was basically always in a booming state during 1900-1914). Maybe also from cooperation with private firms. Note that the subsidy only directed to goods going to Britain. Trade with France, US...would be normal.

So France and the USA will now only buy german products in the UK and the perfidious albion will sell the cheap subsided german product back ot Germany....

Similar what Dow Chemical did ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Chemical_Company#Early_history

In 1905, German bromide producers began dumping bromides at low cost in the U.S. in an effort to prevent Dow from expanding its sales of bromides in Europe. Instead of competing head on with the German producers, Dow bought the cheap German-made bromides and shipped them back to Europe, undercutting his German competitors.[13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Chemical_Company#cite_note-13
 
How are they funding this massive subsidy plot?

Maybe smaller HSF, plus tax revenue from a booming economy (German economy was basically always in a booming state during 1900-1914). Maybe also from cooperation with private firms. Note that the subsidy only directed to goods going to Britain. Trade with France, US...would be normal.
How can Berlin possibly keep it directed to GB when GB is free to sell to the rest of the world (and was one if not the most economically connected county on earth)?

All selling cheap steel (or anything else) to GB is long term they are giving GB money, how does giving GB stuff win you anything? Do you hope eventually all the British people will just go soft and retire, I think Germany may have slight money problems first.....
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, Germany's situation in OTL ww1 is similar to a hypothetical naval war scenario where Royal Navy have to fight USN, HSF, and IJN at the same time with the French Navy as ally.
 
Well, Germany's situation in OTL ww1 is similar to a hypothetical naval war scenario where Royal Navy have to fight USN, HSF, and IJN at the same time with the French Navy as ally.

No not really as while in that scenario the British might have two thirds as many dreadnought battleships as their combined rivals they actually have a slight edge in battlecruisers and I suspect are better off in cruisers and destroyers too.

Worse though Britain sits across Germany's sealane access to her major extra-European markets and her colonies. In your hypothetical scenario Britain cuts her rivals in two even assuming the USN and IJN are willing to steam long distances to come to the aid of the Germans and French (I am assuming the French are hostile to the BE here as your wording is a little unclear).

A one on one war pitting Germany against Britain is really always a losing option as it pits Germany against British naval strength while denying her the use of her land armies but opening up her trade and merchant fleet to interception on the high seas. It has most of the costs of a full scale war for Germany but without being able to employ her army. The British on the other hand do not need to build an army as they can wait. Germany is effectively cut out of markets in the Americas and Africa and Asia while Britain still has access to its markets in most of Europe bar Germany. Trades with the Scandies might require convoys but that is really about it.

Geography enhances the effective powers of the British economy while negating much of the German military-industrial complex.

So no Germany is in fact in many ways in a worse situation somewhat tempered by the fact that it is not staring total national catastrophe in the face, they lack the means to prosecute a war effectively beyond sending off the HSF to get hammered. It makes the leadership look foolish which is in many ways worse than looking weak.

In order to threaten Britain Germany must occupy other countries, it is not really optional.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
No not really as while in that scenario the British might have two thirds as many dreadnought battleships as their combined rivals they actually have a slight edge in battlecruisers and I suspect are better off in cruisers and destroyers too.

Worse though Britain sits across Germany's sealane access to her major extra-European markets and her colonies. In your hypothetical scenario Britain cuts her rivals in two even assuming the USN and IJN are willing to steam long distances to come to the aid of the Germans and French (I am assuming the French are hostile to the BE here as your wording is a little unclear).

A one on one war pitting Germany against Britain is really always a losing option as it pits Germany against British naval strength while denying her the use of her land armies but opening up her trade and merchant fleet to interception on the high seas. It has most of the costs of a full scale war for Germany but without being able to employ her army. The British on the other hand do not need to build an army as they can wait. Germany is effectively cut out of markets in the Americas and Africa and Asia while Britain still has access to its markets in most of Europe bar Germany. Trades with the Scandies might require convoys but that is really about it.

Geography enhances the effective powers of the British economy while negating much of the German military-industrial complex.

So no Germany is in fact in many ways in a worse situation somewhat tempered by the fact that it is not staring total national catastrophe in the face, they lack the means to prosecute a war effectively beyond sending off the HSF to get hammered. It makes the leadership look foolish which is in many ways worse than looking weak.

In order to threaten Britain Germany must occupy other countries, it is not really optional.
I mean BE+France vs US+Germany+Japan naval war scenario

I mean Germany faced the same situation but in land warfare, facing a coalition of 3 and eventually 4 of 5 biggest world powers, while their allies were much weaker and much less useful, which means that Germany had to do the majority of the job in all fronts (except for Middle East front).
 
Last edited:
I mean BE+France vs US+Germany+Japan naval war scenario

I mean Germany faced the same situation but in land warfare, facing a coalition of 3 and eventually 4 of 5 biggest world powers, while their allies were much weaker and much less useful, which means that Germany had to do the majority of the job in all fronts (except for Middle East front).

This is one of the Great Myths of the Great War, Germany would not have fought nearly so well alone, not merely would they have been facing more Russians but they would not have been able to realise supplies from Austria-Hungary without paying for them nor had the opportunity to loot Romania.

As pointed out above you have this autarkic fantasy of Germany in your head that simply is not true.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
This is one of the Great Myths of the Great War, Germany would not have fought nearly so well alone, not merely would they have been facing more Russians but they would not have been able to realise supplies from Austria-Hungary without paying for them nor had the opportunity to loot Romania.

As pointed out above you have this autarkic fantasy of Germany in your head that simply is not true.
Not really about economy (well, actually A-H had significant oil production in Galicia).

But about military. Germany always had to have a big presence in the Eastern Front due to the mediocre performance of Austro-Hungarian army (If the French fought like that, the war would be over by Christmas). If A-H fought better and withstood the Brusilov offensive instead of getting its back broken, Germany would be able to move more troops to the West.
 
Not really about economy (well, actually A-H had significant oil production in Galicia).

But about military. Germany always had to have a big presence in the Eastern Front due to the mediocre performance of Austro-Hungarian army (If the French fought like that, the war would be over by Christmas). If A-H fought better and withstood the Brusilov offensive instead of getting its back broken, Germany would be able to move more troops to the West.

Now this is one of the myths perpetuated by board games such as Risk. Merely piling in more troops does not necessarily give you more combat power...something the Germans actually found out for real, note they lost the war after being able to transfer troops from the East following the fall of the Tsarist regime.

Having extra reserves is not a huge advantage in World War 1 as the enemy still has enough reserves to keep fielding fresh troops for long enough you run into the resources crisis that OTL Germany met by extorting her allies....that was another thing, Germany did not feed her troops in the east AH and Bulgaria and later the occupied territories did.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Now this is one of the myths perpetuated by board games such as Risk. Merely piling in more troops does not necessarily give you more combat power...something the Germans actually found out for real, note they lost the war after being able to transfer troops from the East following the fall of the Tsarist regime.
I mean the German army had to bail out their Austrian companions more than once on battlefield.
 
Last edited:

BooNZ

Banned
I mean BE+France vs US+Germany+Japan naval war scenario

I mean Germany faced the same situation but in land warfare, facing a coalition of 3 and eventually 4 of 5 biggest world powers, while their allies were much weaker and much less useful, which means that Germany had to do the majority of the job in all fronts (except for Middle East front).

Not really. In 1914 A-H had the fourth most powerful army in the world and was the fourth largest manufacturer of machine tools. It was just that Germany ignored its only significant ally before the war and then abandoned A-H to the Russians and Serbs when it tried to decapitate France at the very start of the war. Germany had to spend the rest of the war stitching all the pieces of A-H back together.

Conversely, the Entente team cunningly exhausted the Germans by taking turns in front of German machine guns...
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Not really. In 1914 A-H had the fourth most powerful army in the world and was the fourth largest manufacturer of machine tools. It was just that Germany ignored its only significant ally before the war and then abandoned A-H to the Russians and Serbs when it tried to decapitate France at the very start of the war. Germany had to spend the rest of the war stitching all the pieces of A-H back together.

Conversely, the Entente team cunningly exhausted the Germans by taking turns in front of German machine guns...

Germany could not expect the Conrad von Hötzendorf problem. They expected A-H to perform better. At least no one had to bail out the French in term of military before 1917 (the French did need support, but not a bailout like A-H).

Anyway, the German could win, or at least a draw with the three following PODs:
1) PM Rosebery in 1906 instead of CB. Rosebery tended to mess up everything, thus would lead to internal instability and make Britain weaker. And unlike CB, he might not retire after 1908.

2) Asquith still keep his PM seat over 1918, instead of "The man who won the war".

3) No US war entry
 
Top