Discussion: Comparing British and German industries 1900-1940

Thomas1195

Banned
Likewise though Thomas your chosen paper for chemicals production rather suggests that taken as a whole the German chemicals industry was ahead but certainly not by a margin sufficient to deserve the hyperbole light years.




Interestingly in 1913 while Britain had only a 20% share of world chemical exports compared to Germany's 40% (as can be seen in table 2 of your papers by Murmmann) it still had near parity per capita in Sulphuric acid production with the ratio only favouring Germany by 1.05 to 1 (Murmann page 5). Basically what we see is that Britain focused efforts where she was most competitive and merely kept the ability to expand production in others.

This meant war cost Britain a far smaller share of the export market as it could more easily recover position post war hence having the cited post war numbers are 17.% in 1929 and 17.9% 1950 going by Murmann and for Germany 30.9% in 1929 and 10.4% in 1950...if World War 1 hurt its global position then World War 2 was twice as bad.

It also suggests that contrary to assertions British chemicals production was not stuck in the First Industrial Revolution but remained competitive afterwards.
British chemical products were mostly low tech, did not require extensive R&D and capital investment
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Likewise though Thomas your chosen paper for chemicals production rather suggests that taken as a whole the German chemicals industry was ahead but certainly not by a margin sufficient to deserve the hyperbole light years.




Interestingly in 1913 while Britain had only a 20% share of world chemical exports compared to Germany's 40% (as can be seen in table 2 of your papers by Murmmann) it still had near parity per capita in Sulphuric acid production with the ratio only favouring Germany by 1.05 to 1 (Murmann page 5). Basically what we see is that Britain focused efforts where she was most competitive and merely kept the ability to expand production in others.

This meant war cost Britain a far smaller share of the export market as it could more easily recover position post war hence having the cited post war numbers are 17.% in 1929 and 17.9% 1950 going by Murmann and for Germany 30.9% in 1929 and 10.4% in 1950...if World War 1 hurt its global position then World War 2 was twice as bad.

It also suggests that contrary to assertions British chemicals production was not stuck in the First Industrial Revolution but remained competitive afterwards.

Now, could you point out any new, high tech engineering industries other than motor car that Britain outperformed Germany BEFORE world war 1? I am sure you couldn't.
 
Now, could you point out any new, high tech engineering industries other than motor car that Britain outperformed Germany BEFORE world war 1? I am sure you couldn't.

What you mean like steam turbines? Parsons was the leader there until post World War 1.

Now how about some hard numbers from you comparing the outputs and/or market share of Germany and Britain in such areas as you think Germany ahead?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
What you mean like steam turbines? Parsons was the leader there until post World War 1.

Now how about some hard numbers from you comparing the outputs and/or market share of Germany and Britain in such areas as you think Germany ahead?
A whole industry would be more meaningful than some specific goods.

Electrical industry, Germany accounted for 46% of world export market, 2 times bigger than UK. I have posted the link above.

Two main new industries before ww1 were electrical and chemical industries.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
In 1944 an Admiralty report described the British shipbuilding industry as the fossilisation of inefficiency.
You must take into account market oversupply after ww1 and the impact of WNT. Beardmore went out of business because of these two factors, after having committed investments in new facilities in 1918.
 
Chemical: ICI was still no match for IG Farben.
ICI is one of the few British firms Barnett heaps prise on. IIRC the way it coped with the increased demand for explosives in the rearmament period and then World War II itself. He also said it was one of the few British firms with properly trained managers instead of "practical men" and a big research department full of university graduates instead of the usual "men in sheds."
 

Thomas1195

Banned
ICI is one of the few British firms Barnett heaps prise on. IIRC the way it coped with the increased demand for explosives in the rearmament period and then World War II itself. He also said it was one of the few British firms with properly trained managers instead of "practical men" and a big research department full of university graduates instead of the usual "men in sheds."
Yes, I know it had better practices, but IG Farben and Du Pont still outperformed it
 
Because the British Army was much smaller and it was only motorised in the second half of the 1930s. The German Army had about 100 divisions in September 1939 and the British Army in the UK had about 30 including the TA divisions.

However, from what I've read the Germans suffered from the same problem as the British which was insufficient production of too many models, but the Germans could not import trucks from the USA and Canada like the British could. Even if they could have produced more trucks, where would the fuel have come from? While I was writing this reply it occurred to me that instead of growing oats for horses, Germanys farms could have grown sugar beet to make ethanol in a similar way to Brazil makes it from sugar cane, but its probably the wrong type of sugar.

the German army was only motorised in the second half of the 1930s. with by late 39 (dec) 18 Panzer, Mot or light divs and in the higher wave inf divs very limited motorisation ever vs near dublt the number of motorised UK divs with a much larger capacity to expand and maintain.

The British never really had a problem of too many models or insufficient production certainly nothing like touchingly pathetic german attempts to motorise.

The answer as to where the fuel would come from is - you buy it on the open market the way everyone else did. But that means producing items people want to buy and selling them for money ( as the BRD postwar) but if you do that you end up making shoes and prams and plates and fine coffee makers not weaponry. And it means dealing with the problem of the very large german agricultural sector and mobiising the capitalisation of new industries.
 
A whole industry would be more meaningful than some specific goods.

Electrical industry, Germany accounted for 46% of world export market, 2 times bigger than UK. I have posted the link above.

Two main new industries before ww1 were electrical and chemical industries.

Hang on steam turbines are a rather, how should I put it, significant contributor to both shipping and electrical power generation. I think my point it that you not actually putting in the work here. You are unwilling to support your thesis that Germany was...well I am going to use the term an order of magnitude ahead of Britain as it has been pointed out that light-years are not a common industrial nor economic unit of measure.

I and others would like some kind of systemic comparison. You can find what I mean if you actually read some of the works you have cited. Because right now this thread reads like you have not. Now I don't expect you to be able to prove your point, this is history not pure mathematics there are two many variables and besides we deal with swathes time, for instance three decades here rather than fixed points but an actual consideration of evidence might be nice.

Instead of screaming Germany ahead in bold tell us by how much Germany was ahead in what. Yes I know it takes a long time, you keep asking me to do research for this thread when I have three RL projects I should be getting on with and the annoying thing is I can find evidence from this thread that so far you have put in less time on research for it than either myself. NOMISYRRUC or Hipper.
 
the German army was only motorised in the second half of the 1930s. with by late 39 (dec) 18 Panzer, Mot or light divs and in the higher wave inf divs very limited motorisation ever vs near dublt the number of motorised UK divs with a much larger capacity to expand and maintain.

The British never really had a problem of too many models or insufficient production certainly nothing like touchingly pathetic german attempts to motorise.

The answer as to where the fuel would come from is - you buy it on the open market the way everyone else did. But that means producing items people want to buy and selling them for money ( as the BRD postwar) but if you do that you end up making shoes and prams and plates and fine coffee makers not weaponry. And it means dealing with the problem of the very large german agricultural sector and mobiising the capitalisation of new industries.
I disagree with quite a lot of that.

Though what is interesting its that the British Army and German Army started rearming from roughly the same mobilisation bases in the early 1930s. The German Army had been reduced to 100,000 in 3 cavalry and 7 infantry divisions men by the Treaty of Versailles and there were restrictions on the size of the German armaments industry.

Meanwhile the British Regular Army (excluding the British troops in India) had been reduced to about 150,000 men including one cavalry division and 5 infantry divisions actually based in the UK.

At that time it had the capability to move one division by mechanical transport and had done in exercises. The RASC, which was the British Army's equivalent of the Kraftrupppen had been fully motorised by the late 1920s and IIRC the signals and engineer branches had been motorised by the early 1930s. However, the bulk of the Royal Artillery was still on Horse Transport and so was the transport of the cavalry regiments and infantry battalions. Yes behind them were the 14 infantry divisions of the Territorial Army, but their equipment had been allowed to become even more out of date than the Regular Army and that included an even greater reliance on Horse Transport.

Motorisation of the British Army didn't get into its stride until about 1936 and admittedly was largely complete for the Regular Army by September 1939.
 

hipper

Banned
Yes, I know it had better practices, but IG Farben and Du Pont still outperformed it

what is your metric for outperformed

return on capital
volume of output
value of output

at the moment you seem to be looking at volume of outputs which is nonsensical
 

Redbeard

Banned
Superior/inferior in what?

If we compare output the British industry appear overwhelmingly superior - by 1941 the British (excl. Empire) produced more of every significant category (planes, guns, tanks etc.) than the entire Axis combined!

I do not negate the ingenuity of German industry, but the German economy simply wasn't capable of going to total war economy until it was too late (1942-) and then had to resort to slave labour and extreme exploitation (and declining quality). The British economy went to total war economy from 1938/39 and stayed there for the duration of the war - without slave labour, extreme exploitation etc. You can say that they paid with their Empire, but after all that was cheap compared to the Germans who paid with their independence, dignity and national identity and pride.

But the post-war years made a significant difference. In Britain it was "relaxation time" upon the hard war years, and clapped out means of production were not renewed. In Germany there wasn't any means of production left (bombed or dismantled by the allies), and it was obvious to everybody that hard work was ahead. The reconstruction of Germany after WWII is one of the most impressive acts in history - in a few decades their economy was in a position better (both in relative and absolute terms) than before WWII! After WWI the Germans turned their frustration into political uproar - that didn't work. After WWII it was turned into silent and hard work - that worked.
 
Top