Discussion: Comparing British and German industries 1900-1940

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

It was unfortunate for Germany that they seem to have been reliant on their enemies making bad decisions rather than being able to rely on a superior industrial base.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
It was unfortunate for Germany that they seem to have been reliant on their enemies making bad decisions rather than being able to rely on a superior industrial base.
It was unfortunate for Britain that they seem to have needed US money AND war entry rather than being able to rely on their own economic and industrial base.
 
It was unfortunate for Germany that they seem to have been reliant on their enemies making bad decisions rather than being able to rely on a superior industrial base.
I agree.

The Entente had more resources (manpower, raw materials, factories and money) than the Central Powers. Therefore through the proper application of superior force an Entente victory in a long war was inevitable.

However, the saying goes that the side that wins is the side that makes the fewest mistakes. Therefore the Great War was for the Entente to loose rather than the Central Powers to win.
 
It was unfortunate for Britain that they seem to have needed US money AND war entry rather than being able to rely on their own economic and industrial base.

Borrowing heavily and ultimately relying on other countries manpower was long a key component of Britain's strategy, we might think it was high risk and if did carry long term financial consequences but it worked in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. It is one of those strategies that works well until it doesn't. I think you are running into the same problem that many of Britain's enemies did, it is very hard to gauge how strong such a system is and usually they underestimated it.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I agree.

The Entente had more resources (manpower, raw materials, factories and money) than the Central Powers. Therefore through the proper application of superior force an Entente victory in a long war was inevitable.

However, the saying goes that the side that wins is the side that makes the fewest mistakes. Therefore the Great War was for the Entente to loose rather than the Central Powers to win.
Germany was more powerful than each of the Entente powers, however the combined Entente was more than a match for Germany, based on war-making potential stats. But Germany was able to hold for 5 years and even knocked Russia out (sending Lenin was one of the rational decisions that Germany should have had more).

Borrowing heavily and ultimately relying on other countries manpower was long a key component of Britain's strategy, we might think it was high risk and if did carry long term financial consequences but it worked in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. It is one of those strategies that works well until it doesn't. I think you are running into the same problem that many of Britain's enemies did, it is very hard to gauge how strong such a system is and usually they underestimated it.
Well, during Napoleonic war, Britain only borrowed its own investors. Besides, at that time Britain had the biggest industrial capacity in Europe.

By 1914, thing was different because Germany now had greater industrial power than Britain itself, unlike Napoleonic France.
 
Germany was more powerful than each of the Entente powers, however the combined Entente was more than a match for Germany, based on war-making potential stats. But Germany was able to hold for 5 years and even knocked Russia out (sending Lenin was one of the rational decisions that Germany should have had more).


Well, during Napoleonic war, Britain only borrowed its own investors. Besides, at that time Britain had the biggest industrial capacity in Europe.

By 1914, thing was different because Germany now had greater industrial power than Britain itself, unlike Napoleonic France.

France under Napoleon though held out 14 years and repeatedly knocked out the whole of Germany, Austria and Russia. So really German performance never looks nearly so stellar by comparison.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
Britain would certainly lost the war if Asquith remain PM until 1918. Why? Lloyd George, the man who won the war, changed the war economy management approach towards a much more active and interventionist manner, unlike Asquith's lukewarm leadership. Also, it was LG who demanded convoy system to be introduced.
 
Britain would certainly lost the war if Asquith remain PM until 1918. Why? Lloyd George, the man who won the war, changed the war economy management approach towards a much more active and interventionist manner, unlike Asquith's lukewarm leadership. Also, it was LG who demanded convoy system to be introduced.

If you look at most wars it is notable that the participants tend to optimize their approach and become more efficient as the conflict drags on. Participants adjust their strategies to handle the problems they face.

Personally I think that Britain and the US have a pretty depressing and consistent track record of starting major conflicts with a series of avoidable mistakes, but that perhaps reflects the fact that unlike the leadership in Germany they did not spend as much time plotting world domination.
 
Germany was more powerful than each of the Entente powers, however the combined Entente was more than a match for Germany, based on war-making potential stats. But Germany was able to hold for 5 years and even knocked Russia out (sending Lenin was one of the rational decisions that Germany should have had more).
The cost to the Entente was astronomically high, but they bore that cost and still won. That is the point.
 
But Germany was able to hold for 5 years and even knocked Russia out (sending Lenin was one of the rational decisions that Germany should have had more).
4th August 1914 to 11th November 1918 = 4 years, 3 months and 7 days or almost exactly 4¼ years. You are stating that the war lasted 9 months or 17.65% longer than it actually did.

That speaks volumes...
 
All the goalpost shifts is amusing at best.


Okay, now that we've seen enough jerking off, perhaps we should attempt at returning to the original topic, whatever that was?

Well the original original topic was 1910-1940 comparison of British industry to German but that only meant four or five years of German industry being wank worthy and so it got moved...in some ways 1900-1940 is better because it shows given peace the Germans could overtake the British and did so and then war bolloxed it and preparations for another war if anything re-bolloxed what might have otherwise been a healthy catch up.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well the original original topic was 1910-1940 comparison of British industry to German but that only meant four or five years of German industry being wank worthy and so it got moved...in some ways 1900-1940 is better because it shows given peace the Germans could overtake the British and did so and then war bolloxed it and preparations for another war if anything re-bolloxed what might have otherwise been a healthy catch up.
Without war it would have far surpass Britain by 1940
 
in some ways 1900-1940 is better because it shows given peace the Germans could overtake the British and did so and then war bolloxed it and preparations for another war if anything re-bolloxed what might have otherwise been a healthy catch up.
Which is arguable, since part of why Germany had that catchup production boost was because it was in the arms race, and that is directly related to the global circumstances which would have easily led to war.

Without war it would have far surpass Britain by 1940
lolno, and don't bother bringing up that regression analysis here.
 
It was unfortunate for Britain that they seem to have needed US money AND war entry rather than being able to rely on their own economic and industrial base.

It was unfortunate for Germany that British naval superiority AND their mismanagement of a subsequently fragile economy caused their agriculture to collapse and the country was on the brink of starvation, rather than being able to rely on their own economic and industrial base.
 
It was unfortunate for Germany that British naval superiority AND their mismanagement of a subsequently fragile economy caused their agriculture to collapse and the country was on the brink of starvation, rather than being able to rely on their own economic and industrial base.
That totally explains why so many Germans starved during the war. You know, because they could "rely on their own economic and industrial base".
 
Well, can we all say that Britain and Germany have their strengths and weaknesses, like all nations, and that they aren't intrinsically inferior or superior to the other?

Oh, and someone should fill in the holes caused by the goalpost moving. There's so many...
 
Top