Discussion: Comparing British and German industries 1900-1940

Thomas1195

Banned
Stop evading the question. Industry was by far the major part of the British economy in 1910, and it wasnt all of Germany's economy.
I did not have figure about % of GDP, but in employment service and industry equally accounted for 44% of total labour force, which means that Service had a big part in British economy (although industry would be larger).

Germany: 34,5% Agri-37,9% Ind-27,6% Ser
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/sbroadberry/wp/eurosector5a.pdf
Agriculture in Germany was very labour intensive.

And British industrial output was mostly from old, low-tech industries (textile, coal, clothing, footwear, outdated First Industrial Revolution machinery...).
You do know that British new industries, especially chemical, electrical and electronic equipment, and machinery significantly lagged behind Germany all the time.
 
Works in Latin America basically only generate revenue for firms in old industries, so new industries and new tech could not be developed.
You are still missing the point.

Another thing is that for all we know investing more money in domestic industries might have generated a smaller income for U.K. Ltd than what happened IOTL.
 
I did not have figure about % of GDP, but in employment service and industry equally accounted for 44% of total labour force, which means that Service had a big part in British economy (although industry would be larger).

Germany: 34,5% Agri-37,9% Ind-27,6% Ser
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/sbroadberry/wp/eurosector5a.pdf
Agriculture in Germany was very labour intensive.

And British industrial output was mostly from old, low-tech industries (textile, coal, clothing, footwear, outdated First Industrial Revolution machinery...).
You do know that British new industries, especially chemical, electrical and electronic equipment, and machinery significantly lagged behind Germany all the time.


While as much at a loss as to the point you are trying to make as anyone else, I think it is worth noting that German advantages in certain parts of certain sectors of high tech industry (and it was not universal across the board) did not grant the Germans the capacity to win a naval arms race in 1910-12 and meet their other commitments nor would they have been able to win a naval and air armaments race beginning around 1940. However the strength of German industry and its export sector do suggest that moaning about not getting a fair deal in international affairs was rather a false complaint and that Germany's best course of action would have been to avoid both world wars and its second best course of action to avoid the Second World War.

Because it really is rather hard to guess otherwise what argument you are attempting here.
 
Britain also lacked excellent industrialist (I mean manufacturing business entrepreneurs) that make big difference like Edison, Westinghouse, Carnegie, Ford in the US or Werner von Siemens, Emil Rathenau, Robert Bosch in Germany.
You may be onto something here. There is an argument that all the most capable British men went out to govern the empire leaving second and third rate people to run British industry. I don't know if the theory is correct though.
 
And although the British were behind the Germans in the development of some technologies they were often ahead in their application. British radar was not as advanced as Germany's at the start of World War 2, but the Germans didn't have it integrated into a national air defence system like the British had with Fighter Command. The British Airborne Interception and Ground Controlled Interception radars weren't as good as the radars the Germans had at the time, but it was a year or two before the Germans had radar in their night fighters IIRC.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
While as much at a loss as to the point you are trying to make as anyone else, I think it is worth noting that German advantages in certain parts of certain sectors of high tech industry (and it was not universal across the board) did not grant the Germans the capacity to win a naval arms race in 1910-12 and meet their other commitments nor would they have been able to win a naval and air armaments race beginning around 1940. However the strength of German industry and its export sector do suggest that moaning about not getting a fair deal in international affairs was rather a false complaint and that Germany's best course of action would have been to avoid both world wars and its second best course of action to avoid the Second World War.

Because it really is rather hard to guess otherwise what argument you are attempting here.

In high tech industries, german advantage was certainly universal, sorry guy. There were only few exceptions.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
He's making generalised, sweeping statements about trees, while failing to recognise the forest that they form.

Well, my question focused on comparing industrial sectors' performance and capability of two countries, as British relative industrial decline was a popular topic.
 
And while the US was great at the little stuff, even they had to buy heavier weapons from the French.

Note that many of those French Weapons were mostly chosen because US Companies had already tooled up to make spares and shells for them by 1917.
It was faster than trying to ramp up production of the modern US pre-War guns, like the 3" , 3.8" , 4.7" and 6" guns and howitzers.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
And although the British were behind the Germans in the development of some technologies they were often ahead in their application. British radar was not as advanced as Germany's at the start of World War 2, but the Germans didn't have it integrated into a national air defence system like the British had with Fighter Command. The British Airborne Interception and Ground Controlled Interception radars weren't as good as the radars the Germans had at the time, but it was a year or two before the Germans had radar in their night fighters IIRC.
Synthetic dye case proved the opposite
 
Synthetic dye case proved the opposite

How is this an answer to this?

And although the British were behind the Germans in the development of some technologies they were often ahead in their application. British radar was not as advanced as Germany's at the start of World War 2, but the Germans didn't have it integrated into a national air defence system like the British had with Fighter Command. The British Airborne Interception and Ground Controlled Interception radars weren't as good as the radars the Germans had at the time, but it was a year or two before the Germans had radar in their night fighters IIRC.

I am really all agog to learn how you detect aircraft at a distance using synthetic dye, I will be truly amazed when you explain to us all how you use synthetic dye to co-ordinate an air defence and I will tip my hat to you when you expose the previously unseen documentation that shows the Germans did exactly that in World War 2.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
How is this an answer to this?



I am really all agog to learn how you detect aircraft at a distance using synthetic dye, I will be truly amazed when you explain to us all how you use synthetic dye to co-ordinate an air defence and I will tip my hat to you when you expose the previously unseen documentation that shows the Germans did exactly that in World War 2.
Synthetic dye was a classic example to show british weakness when bringing its inventions to practical application.
 
I am really all agog to learn how you detect aircraft at a distance using synthetic dye, I will be truly amazed when you explain to us all how you use synthetic dye to co-ordinate an air defence and I will tip my hat to you when you expose the previously unseen documentation that shows the Germans did exactly that in World War 2.
I think it might have been a British invention that the German military used first, but not as part of an air defence control and reporting system.
 
Top