Discussion: Comparing British and German industries 1900-1940

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, Germany had far superior education system at that time, especially scientific education, which allowed Germany to dominate the Nobel Prize winners list, as well as the new industries (which required professional scientists and technicians rather than a bunch of practical men).
 
Well, Germany had far superior education system at that time, especially scientific education, which allowed Germany to dominate the Nobel Prize winners list, as well as the new industries (which required professional scientists and technicians rather than a bunch of practical men).

That last is very interesting as I would have thought new industries can only thrive if the practical application of theoretical notions is understood. An awful lot of research fails to upscale to commercial viability.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
That last is very interesting as I would have thought new industries can only thrive if the practical application of theoretical notions is understood. An awful lot of research fails to upscale to commercial viability.
Well, at that time, organic chemistry and electrical engineering required both academic and technical knowledge, especially the former, because these sectors required scientific-based sysemic R&D to make new products. Britain lacked the first, and their firms also usually lacked systemic R&D operation, especially before ww1.

There was a reason why Lord Rosebery and the Liberal Imperialists called for technical education reform. They realised that British education system by 1900 had lagged far behind US and Germany.

Oh wait, as far as I know, Germany did not suffered from things like 40% of male adults were not qualified for military service due to poor physical health.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
German economic and industrial policies were also more advanced than those of Britain, and more similar to modern economic policies. In Germany, the state and local governments actively supported their industries. The state-backed companies (in Germany, state-backed firms did perform well) played a huge role in German railway development. There were significant cooperation between public and private sectors, as well as between universities and industrial labs in scientific research (these were non-existant in Britain BEFORE 1914). The only significant state intervention in economy and industries in Britain before ww1 was Development Act 1909, which was a joke compared to German policies.
 
German economic and industrial policies were also more advanced than those of Britain, and more similar to modern economic policies. In Germany, the state and local governments actively supported their industries. The state-backed companies (in Germany, state-backed firms did perform well) played a huge role in German railway development. There were significant cooperation between public and private sectors, as well as between universities and industrial labs in scientific research (these were non-existant in Britain BEFORE 1914). The only significant state intervention in economy and industries in Britain before ww1 was Development Act 1909, which was a joke compared to German policies.
I cannot dispute the facts, but you haven't said why the British and German Governments did what they did.

The UK became The Workshop of the World without government intervention. The railways didn't need state backing when they were being built because there were lots of people prepared to invest money in them. In the mid-Victorian Era (about 1870) the UK was decades ahead of Germany. The Germany government intervened because it was necessary to help Germany catch up. The British Government didn't need to intervene until the German economy caught up with the British in some sectors and that wasn't until into the Edwardian Era.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The British Government didn't need to intervene until the German economy caught up with the British in some sectors and that wasn't until into the Edwardian Era.
They were slow to react. Before Germany emerged, they had faced rising American competition during 1895-1900.

Also, they were never aware that their national electrical industry, not to mention chemical industry, was a mess until after ww1 (well, unlike after ww1, before ww1 they had more than enough money to intervene). Each region had a different set of electrical standards, which made it difficult to mass produce electrical equipment for the whole country. I mean, the CEB should have been established 2 decades ealier than IOTL

About R&D, to be fair, Britain undertook the 1st Industrial Revolution without the need of systemic scientific research, so it could be lukewarm toward state-backed R&D.
 
They were slow to react. Before Germany emerged, they had faced rising American competition during 1895-1900.

Also, they were never aware that their national electrical industry, not to mention chemical industry, was a mess until after ww1 (well, unlike after ww1, before ww1 they had more than enough money to intervene). Each region had a different set of electrical standards, which made it difficult to mass produce electrical equipment for the whole country. I mean, the CEB should have been established 2 decades ealier than IOTL

About R&D, to be fair, Britain undertook the 1st Industrial Revolution without the need of systemic scientific research, so it could be lukewarm toward state-backed R&D.
A reasonable answer! Well done! Keep it up!:)

I broadly agree with that. There is a British proverb that goes, "Don't fix it until it breaks." I concede that the electrical supply industry was one of those that needed to be fixed many years before it was.

However, the chemical industry wasn't a problem until the creation of a mass army in World War I created an equally large increase in the need for explosives. When that need was revealed the British Government did intervene and on a massive scale.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
A reasonable answer! Well done! Keep it up!:)

I broadly agree with that. There is a British proverb that goes, "Don't fix it until it breaks." I concede that the electrical supply industry was one of those that needed to be fixed many years before it was.

However, the chemical industry wasn't a problem until the creation of a mass army in World War I created an equally large increase in the need for explosives. When that need was revealed the British Government did intervene and on a massive scale.
.
Even during the interwar period, the approach of both the Tories and Labour was quite conservative, with several exceptions like ICI and CEB. Especially the Labour, very interesting and promising manifesto but did nothing. More radical measures could have made British economy actually bigger than those of Soviet and Germany (if British average growth was 2-3 percent points higher than IOTL, this would be the case). For example, in 1924, Keynes proposed to spend 100m per year on public work, which would both reduce unemployment and develop national infrastructures. He also proposed not to return to the prewar Gold Standard.
 
Even during the interwar period, the approach of both the Tories and Labour was quite conservative, with several exceptions like ICI and CEB. Especially the Labour, very interesting and promising manifesto but did nothing. More radical measures could have made British economy actually bigger than those of Soviet and Germany (if British average growth was 2-3 percent points higher than IOTL, this would be the case). For example, in 1924, Keynes proposed to spend 100m per year on public work, which would both reduce unemployment and develop national infrastructures. He also proposed not to return to the prewar Gold Standard.
This period (i.e. 1918-39) is where I start to gradually agree with you.

Unfortunately another British proverb is, "Old habits die hard."

Some of the measures that were taken such as the creation of ICI and the Grouping of the main line railway companies were only the result of lessons learned during World War One.

In the case of the Labour Government being quite conservative, this may be illuminating. Recently I read a Cabinet paper on state aid for railway electrification. It said that the current Labour Government would not help private firms that it intended to nationalise, such as the railway companies. That was in the early 1930s when the aid was most needed to reduce unemployment and would have led to a significant increase in the size of the electrified railway network by September 1939.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
This period (i.e. 1918-39) is where I start to gradually agree with you.

Unfortunately another British proverb is, "Old habits die hard."

Some of the measures that were taken such as the creation of ICI and the Grouping of the main line railway companies were only the result of lessons learned during World War One.

In the case of the Labour Government being quite conservative, this may be illuminating. Recently I read a Cabinet paper on state aid for railway electrification. It said that the current Labour Government would not help private firms that it intended to nationalise, such as the railway companies. That was in the early 1930s when the aid was most needed to reduce unemployment and would have led to a significant increase in the size of the electrified railway network by September 1939.
The Liberals' plan during that period was actually very good and evolved over time. Look at pipisme's TL we can see some of its details. However, I think his TL could only be achieved if Lloyd George and Asquith united before 1918 election.
 

Anderman

Donor
Even so, 40% was a huge figure

For Germany the 50% (and i tend to think it is the same for the UK) means unfit for military service at the time medical/physical examination. Somebody who showed up
at the examiniation with a broken arm, leg or other illnesses is not fit for military servic.


German economic and industrial policies were also more advanced than those of Britain, and more similar to modern economic policies. In Germany, the state and local governments actively supported their industries. The state-backed companies (in Germany, state-backed firms did perform well) played a huge role in German railway development. There were significant cooperation between public and private sectors, as well as between universities and industrial labs in scientific research (these were non-existant in Britain BEFORE 1914). The only significant state intervention in economy and industries in Britain before ww1 was Development Act 1909, which was a joke compared to German policies.

Other then the better cooperation between the universities and the privat sector what where the state backed companies you are talking of ? I would agree on the railways but there were a lot of private railways and Bismarck bought the prussian ones only 1880.
The Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes were only founded in 1911 and did basic science and not product development.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Other then the better cooperation between the universities and the privat sector what where the state backed companies you are talking of ? I would agree on the railways but there were a lot of private railways and Bismarck bought the prussian ones only 1880.
The Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes were only founded in 1911 and did basic science and not product development.
On 1 April 1879, the Königlich Technische Hochschule Charlottenburg ("TH Charlottenburg") was formed in the governmental merger of the Berlin Building Academy (Bauakademie) and the Royal Trade Academy (Königliche Gewerbeakademie), two independent Prussian founding colleges established in 1799 and 1821 respectively.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_University_of_Berlin#History
 

Anderman

Donor
On 1 April 1879, the Königlich Technische Hochschule Charlottenburg ("TH Charlottenburg") was formed in the governmental merger of the Berlin Building Academy (Bauakademie) and the Royal Trade Academy (Königliche Gewerbeakademie), two independent Prussian founding colleges established in 1799 and 1821 respectively.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_University_of_Berlin#History

Sure but this a another university a school not a state backed companies which you are all the time talking about.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
How would British industries during 1914-1940 look like without ww1?

Answer: it would be a mess.

Why? No ww1 would butterfly away various crucial lessons that were realized IOTL during the war, and the outcomes would be:
- Electrical industry would still be a total mess, with different regions using different standards.
- No serious efforts for electrification (no CEB).
- Little to no public-private and university-industry cooperations in scientific research.
- No ICI. No serious efforts to develop an indigenous chemical industry.
- Little to no state intervention (lassez faire still rule). Delayed Keynesian revolution.
- No or slow adjustment towards mass production techniques such as assembly line or standardisation.
- No effort to rationalize industries.
 
Top