Discussion: Comparing British and German industries 1900-1940

Thomas1195

Banned
As I mentioned earlier the need to convert to electrical machinery wasn't as acute in Britain due to its high quality coal which allowed high efficiency steam machinery whereas brown coal in Germany did not. So is this efficiency measured against high quality, widely available and cheap black coal driven machinery or crappy brown coal which has to travel over considerable distances?
Oh I forget, you need electricity to produce aluminum
 

Thomas1195

Banned
As I mentioned earlier the need to convert to electrical machinery wasn't as acute in Britain due to its high quality coal which allowed high efficiency steam machinery whereas brown coal in Germany did not. So is this efficiency measured against high quality, widely available and cheap black coal driven machinery or crappy brown coal which has to travel over considerable distances?
Steam machinery vs automated machinery (always electric powered)?
 
Electricity isn't an end in itself, its a means to an end. If your streets are lit by gas lights and the machinery in your factory is driven by steam using high quality coal than the requirement for electricity and an electrical industry is reduced.

Various economic and resource factors, not simply industrial and societal inertia drove Germany and Britain in different directions. I don't disagree that Germany was better at a lot of higher tech industries like chemical and electric, I simply contend that the circumstances in Germany pushed this development and other countries didn't share the same circumstances.
 

"On the one hand, by the turn of the century, Germany had become highly dependent on the global economy. As to imports a good deal of German industrial production relied on the supply of foreign raw materials and semi-finished products."

From your source which btw does not give me comparative figures for either British nor US output. However just the above tells me quite clearly that Germany's industry is very vulnerable to war with a superior naval power...however in the spirit of fairness the statement by itself would have born some substantiation with actual figures to give a proper indication of the impact.


https://books.google.com.vn/books?i...QAhVFH5QKHd3QD6cQ6AEIHjAB#v=onepage&q&f=false
Electricity output: Germany (13000 megawatt hours)> Entente (11600 megawatt hours)

The problem here is the figure is essentially meaningless, for a start how much electrical power did the Entente need? How much power was provided by steam engines? What was the nearest equivalent price per kilowatt hour? After all if for example British electricity is a lot cheaper than German electricity and the use of on site steam engines cheaper still then the British are getting the better deal even though because they are spending less money their GDP figures might seem smaller as a result.

No equivalent, of course. World's top 4 electrical firms were GE, Westinghouse, Siemens and AEG. English firms were Ferranti, Crompton, Marconi, or later English Electric and GEC (BRitish one) were no match for these giants.

But by what measure? Output by value? Output by units? What is the relative output so we can understand what you mean by no contest.

For precision instruments, I have given you the link about optical industry. 60% of British optics were imported form Jena, 30% from France in 1914.

But optics are not the only kind of precision instrument. Not only that but your figures indicate a robust French industry that can expand to fill the German gap in the event of war.

Part of the problem is you need to explain how, if German industry was so vital Britain's war effort did not simply collapse in 1914-18 and 1939-45 yet in each case Britain survived. More than that though rather than sounding like a propaganda film you need to actually flag up points of comparison.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Electricity isn't an end in itself, its a means to an end. If your streets are lit by gas lights and the machinery in your factory is driven by steam using high quality coal than the requirement for electricity and an electrical industry is reduced.

Various economic and resource factors, not simply industrial and societal inertia drove Germany and Britain in different directions. I don't disagree that Germany was better at a lot of higher tech industries like chemical and electric, I simply contend that the circumstances in Germany pushed this development and other countries didn't share the same circumstances.
Yes, agree, but there are things like aluminum require electricity in production. Besides, automated machinery are not steam-powered. Using automated machinery would certainly increase output, and reduce human errors.
 
Yes, agree, but there are things like aluminum require electricity in production. Besides, automated machinery are not steam-powered. Using automated machinery would certainly increase output, and reduce human errors.

Funny thing is that automated machinery was initially water powered via a means of transmission from a water wheel be it gears or a revolving belt, later on steam power, again via a means of transmission from the engine by gears or a revolving belt. Electrical power means that the motor can be on the device and you only need to transmit the power by means of an electrical current. However automated machinery can be powered by lots of means, strictly speaking an automated process can be powered by a human or an animal as the machine actually performs the process the living being is simply a source of power.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
"On the one hand, by the turn of the century, Germany had become highly dependent on the global economy. As to imports a good deal of German industrial production relied on the supply of foreign raw materials and semi-finished products."

From your source which btw does not give me comparative figures for either British nor US output. However just the above tells me quite clearly that Germany's industry is very vulnerable to war with a superior naval power...


The problem here is the figure is essentially meaningless, for a start how much electrical power did the Entente need? How much power was provided by steam engines? What was the nearest equivalent price per kilowatt hour? After all if for example British electricity is a lot cheaper than German electricity and the use of on site steam engines cheaper still then the British are getting the better deal even though because they are spending less money their GDP figures might seem smaller as a result.

But by what measure? Output by value? Output by units? What is the relative output so we can understand what you mean by no contest.

But optics are not the only kind of precision instrument. Not only that but your figures indicate a robust French industry that can expand to fill the German gap in the event of war.

Part of the problem is you need to explain how, if German industry was so vital Britain's war effort did not simply collapse in 1914-18 and 1939-45 yet in each case Britain survived. More than that though rather than sounding like a propaganda film you need to actually flag up points of comparison.

https://books.google.com.vn/books?i... largest electrical companies in 1914&f=false
Well, two third of British electrical industry was dominated by Siemens, GE and Westinghouse. This means none of British electrical firms were as large as these three. The link also mention that AEG was the fourth largest firm.

Germany did not have resource rich colonies, their homeland lacks some critical material like rubber or oil. They had to import them. Look at Japan today. Basically the same
 
https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=xSuiAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA120&dq=world+largest+electrical+companies+in+1914&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHoqmJ0sjQAhWBGZQKHSWTDAwQ6AEIGDAA#v=onepage&q=world largest electrical companies in 1914&f=false
Well, two third of British electrical industry was dominated by Siemens, GE and Westinghouse. This means none of British electrical firms were as large as these three. The link also mention that AEG was the fourth largest firm.

Germany did not have resource rich colonies, their homeland lacks some critical material like rubber or oil. They had to import them. Look at Japan today. Basically the same


Sources of supply are only good if you can get at them. Though if you are arguing that Germany should have stuck to peace, which it was really good at, rather than war at which...well it basically sucks judging by results, then I am with you. The British developed an economy that could replicate most inputs meaning they were never dependent on one source. This was useful, for example when they had insufficient tanker capacity to supply the needs of industry,Army and Navy in World War 1 from their colonies and Iran they were able to purchase oil in America to make up the shortfall. Likewise imports from Germany could be substituted from other sources be they domestic or foreign.

The British system does have vulnerabilities but no one has been able to make effective an economic system that does not import something from somewhere, not even the USA nor the DPRK which might seem the prime candidates for such an effort.

Yet you are not in this thread trying to compare the natures of the two economies, warts and all, rather this seems to be an effort to force all to agree, contrary to all extent evidence of history, that Germany was universally superior and thus won both WW1 and WW2 contrary to the opinions of German historians.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Funny thing is that automated machinery was initially water powered via a means of transmission from a water wheel be it gears or a revolving belt, later on steam power, again via a means of transmission from the engine by gears or a revolving belt. Electrical power means that the motor can be on the device and you only need to transmit the power by means of an electrical current. However automated machinery can be powered by lots of means, strictly speaking an automated process can be powered by a human or an animal as the machine actually performs the process the living being is simply a source of power.

But it is clear steam machinery had been phased out of manufacturing factories long ago by electric and internal combustion engines (may be except for the most obsolete ones, I am not talking about electricity generation, but manufacturing).
 
But it is clear steam machinery had been phased out of manufacturing factories long ago by electric and internal combustion engines (may be except for the most obsolete ones, I am not talking about electricity generation, but manufacturing).

Long ago from today or long ago in 1910 when your point seems to be the British relied a lot upon steam power and yet were able to gear up a war industry that supplied not just themselves but their allies.
 
Yes, agree, but there are things like aluminum require electricity in production. Besides, automated machinery are not steam-powered. Using automated machinery would certainly increase output, and reduce human errors.

Britain had electrical power generation prior to 1900, so could smelt aluminium, which they did for their aircraft industry.

What automation was there in 1910-1940? Factories had machines to do things, and in Britain these machines were often driven by overhead machinery powered by steam engines whereas Germany ran their factory machines with electrical motors.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Sources of supply are only good if you can get at them. Though if you are arguing that Germany should have stuck to peace, which it was really good at, rather than war at which...well it basically sucks judging by results, then I am with you. The British developed an economy that could replicate most inputs meaning they were never dependent on one source. This was useful, for example when they had insufficient tanker capacity to supply the needs of industry,Army and Navy in World War 1 from their colonies and Iran they were able to purchase oil in America to make up the shortfall. Likewise imports from Germany could be substituted from other sources be they domestic or foreign.

The British system does have vulnerabilities but no one has been able to make effective an economic system that does not import something from somewhere, not even the USA nor the DPRK which might seem the prime candidates for such an effort.

Yet you are not in this thread trying to compare the natures of the two economies, warts and all, rather this seems to be an effort to force all to agree, contrary to all extent evidence of history, that Germany was universally superior and thus won both WW1 and WW2 contrary to the opinions of German historians.
Germany was able (this would be impossible without a highly developed technological base even if you want to) to develop synthetic material to survive the war for almost 5 years despite being blockaded.

Sources? You do know that most of Asia and Africa were colonized by UK and France, and many were even before the rise of Germany. And I agree, another reason was that Britain had a superior navy as well as shipbuilding and marine engineering industry. But overall the problem is more about diplomacy and geography.

And look at 1913-1914, Germany was able to maintain over 4 million soldiers plus a big navy (second largest) at the same time, and its economy had no problem supplying them.
 
Germany was able (this would be impossible without a highly developed technological base even if you want to) to develop synthetic material to survive the war for almost 5 years despite being blockaded.

Sources? You do know that most of Asia and Africa were colonized by UK and France, and many were even before the rise of Germany. And I agree, another reason was that Britain had a superior navy as well as shipbuilding and marine engineering industry. But overall the problem is more about diplomacy and geography.

And look at 1913-1914, Germany was able to maintain over 4 million soldiers plus a big navy (second largest) at the same time, and its economy had no problem supplying them.

Well the thing is many of the nations of Europe had quite sophisticated centres of science, including some that were not seen as big industrial players. However surviving a war is the objective and victory condition for those attacked, if you are the one launching the attacks you need to have something to show for it afterwards.

Germany in 1913-1914 did not maintain 4 million soldiers, the peacetime strength was 830,000 the rest were reservists employed in civilian occupations, further but its economy had experienced a problem maintaining the World's second largest Navy and so the effort had been abandoned in 1912.

So we have a situation in which Germany sort to avoid war with the British because it could not go to war with them 1 v 1 as you have claimed. Germany would have to rely on the resources of other powers...for example it often not mentioned how much in the way of supplies Germany raped away from Austria-Hungary. The result was the Germans cannibalised the very ally they had nominally gone to war to uphold in order to preserve their ability to continue resistance despite being able to loot several large conquered areas. This is not in fact an indicator of robust economic strength.

The German genius however is for peaceful trade, something born out by your examples. War, in part because of geography, in part because the choices required for war do not play to Germany's inherent strengths was always going to be a silly option.

Now the British economy was a different beast to that of Germany but not it would seem inherently weaker, producing some 90% plus of the comparative GDP product, though GDP is not always a good means of measuring comparative capacity, with a population some two thirds that of Germany. It focused on its strengths but retained the capacity to exploit most cutting edge science and engineering of its day. Further but the British while if anything even more vulnerable to blockade were in fact able to ensure that such a blockade would not succeed.

Of course the British were not likely to be able to conquer another great power in this era but that was a useful diplomatic tool. British power was defensive and would aid an ally's defence. There was no need to undertake the offensive.

Britain also grew rich off of peaceful trade.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well the thing is many of the nations of Europe had quite sophisticated centres of science, including some that were not seen as big industrial players. However surviving a war is the objective and victory condition for those attacked, if you are the one launching the attacks you need to have something to show for it afterwards.

Germany in 1913-1914 did not maintain 4 million soldiers, the peacetime strength was 830,000 the rest were reservists employed in civilian occupations, further but its economy had experienced a problem maintaining the World's second largest Navy and so the effort had been abandoned in 1912.

So we have a situation in which Germany sort to avoid war with the British because it could not go to war with them 1 v 1 as you have claimed. Germany would have to rely on the resources of other powers...for example it often not mentioned how much in the way of supplies Germany raped away from Austria-Hungary. The result was the Germans cannibalised the very ally they had nominally gone to war to uphold in order to preserve their ability to continue resistance despite being able to loot several large conquered areas. This is not in fact an indicator of robust economic strength.

The German genius however is for peaceful trade, something born out by your examples. War, in part because of geography, in part because the choices required for war do not play to Germany's inherent strengths was always going to be a silly option.

Now the British economy was a different beast to that of Germany but not it would seem inherently weaker, producing some 90% plus of the comparative GDP product, though GDP is not always a good means of measuring comparative capacity, with a population some two thirds that of Germany. It focused on its strengths but retained the capacity to exploit most cutting edge science and engineering of its day. Further but the British while if anything even more vulnerable to blockade were in fact able to ensure that such a blockade would not succeed.

Of course the British were not likely to be able to conquer another great power in this era but that was a useful diplomatic tool. British power was defensive and would aid an ally's defence. There was no need to undertake the offensive.

Britain also grew rich off of peaceful trade.

Another aspect is that Germany had a clearly superior technical education and scientific base. You could find info about number of science amd engineering graduates, number of patents and number of Nobel prizes.


British industrial organisation was also inferior, as it was dominated by small family firms with very few big corporates. These family firms cannot carry out large, capital intensive r&d programs, which were the norm in new industries. They cannot benefit from economies of scale.
 
Another aspect is that Germany had a clearly superior technical education and scientific base. You could find info about number of science amd engineering graduates, number of patents and number of Nobel prizes.


British industrial organisation was also inferior, as it was dominated by small family firms with very few big corporates. These family firms cannot carry out large, capital intensive r&d programs, which were the norm in new industries. They cannot benefit from economies of scale.

Define inferior though. Peacetime it seems to have provided a higher per capita income as of 1914; $244 for Britain compared to $184 for Germany going by Table 21 of The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy. In war time...well it won Two Worlds Wars and only one World Cup going by the song.

Economics is about learning to play to your strengths, the British appear to have done just that.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Define inferior though. Peacetime it seems to have provided a higher per capita income as of 1914; $244 for Britain compared to $184 for Germany going by Table 21 of The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy. In war time...well it won Two Worlds Wars and only one World Cup going by the song.

Economics is about learning to play to your strengths, the British appear to have done just that.
German per capita trend was disrupted by 2 wars. The prewar was going to catch up with Britain in 1920s.

New sectors like electrical and electronic industries generate more income than textile or coal, especially in the long run.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Have you read about the electrification of the North East of England before 1914?
No, but I read about the electrification of London. It was a total mess.

A side effect was that British electrical and electronic equipment industry was retarded and lagged far behind Germany, even after ww1
 
Top