Es Geloybte Aretz - a Germanwank

[Richter von Manthofen]

But could not have been doing so during the war.

It sounds like a pretty simple principle: if a nation is suddenly producing lots of guns and bullets instead of peacetime industrial goods, and has a finite number of industrial workers (women aren't superhuman; you can't train up millions of women to do a new job instantly, just as you can't do so for men), there will, inevitably, be a decrease in the amount of peacetime industrial goods it can produce. This provides an opening for foreign countries to supply it with those goods.

War hurts the nations that partake in it, wasting money and human lives on the task of killing people, and helps the nations that stay out of it and stay undamaged. I wasn't aware that this was controversial.

Perhaps I'm just being ignorant.

No not ignorant...


Its clear that Germanys output of "consumer goods" will drop during the war - but this does not mean that a foreign supplier is immediate compensating the reduction of supply.

On average the lack of supply will be upset partially by a reduction in demand - during "hard times" people tend to spend less - things that will be replaced during peactime will be used for additional time during war.

Household income is probably also reduced on average, so less money is there to buy things, imported goods will be more expensive too (especially if the wartime nation suffers from inflation + transport cost)

the warring nation will also import more likely more war material than consumer goods. - It will face reduced exports too. maybe - redirecting production of those exports towards goods needed domestically (including war material)

In sum the foreig nation will probably be able to increase experts to the warring nation, but not fully compensating the production drop. It might also replace the warring nations experts to third countries (Eg. if Germany sold tea kettles to spain during peacetime, it will likely not do so in war as the tea kettle production is reduced to levels to supply the domestic market. So Britain will be free to take over the tea kettle market in Spain, but not in Germany.

After war Germany might have troube to again export to spain (in the same volume like pre war), but some Spaniards might favor Krupp Tea kettles to brit teakettles after all

War hurts nations - definitely, but it also does it not only at the supply side - you have to consider demand.

Sure Britain will be better off, but probably not on a 1-1 base (750.000 - less dead does not mean 750.000 more employed) also less dead mean more domestic consumers = not all additional product is being available for export...

 

[Kvasir]

I have a few objections

one is, that Britain is exporting (more) to Germany and France.

Germanys industry is quite large and likely can (soon) produce everything necessary (again). In addition Germany will certainly take measures to protect its own industry. While Germany (and france?) have a shortage in manpower, this will be compensated by women taking up jobs.

IIRC Germany has taken money mostly from the US - not much going to Britain.

So, I'm actually pretty sure that Germany and France have take out loads of debt with Britain, so much so they pretty much maxed Britain out and then started to tap America. We need Carlton to confirm but I'm pretty confident about that. In regards to British industrial output not exporting to Germany during the war, l I find that unlikely Germany was pushed to breaking point trying to manufacture enough bullets, guns, artillery etc. never mind civilian manufacturing. Towards the end of the war Germany would definitely be in a make do and mend mentality but certainly at the start of the war people would be trying to keep calm and carry on as normal.

If we look OTL to WWI we see countries like Sweden and Spain did increase their exports to the wartime powers and they have a much reduced industrial base to start from compared to Britain who would probably be able to ramp up production quite swiftly. Furthermore women will indeed enter the workforce but it will be slower than instantly and will be quite disruptive and weaken productivity at least initially. So the compensation is not 1:1.

The additional manpower might actually slow Britains development instead of speeding it up.

Industry might not grow exceptionally (no need for wartime product) and continue as it was. (Windfall profits will likely be that profit for the rich and not additional domestic investment). No women taking jobs during wartime means no competition for men after war, so the additional manpower is less than it looks outwardly.

Actually the rich classes might keep their large prewar staff - so instead of people migrating to towns in search for (industrial) jobs, they stay in the countryside to serve their masters as their fathers and forfathers did.

Much additional money might also flood towards those landowners and competing industrialists (which might also want their countryside "castles" )


I believe that much additional industrial outbut (Growth WILL happen) will go towards third party countries (especially such Britain imports food from - to improve the trade balance)

I do not think that urbanisation will be prevented that much. We may have more people in the countryside but there will definitely still be overcapacity. If more wealth is stored in the countryside however that could see an increased push for a Land Value Tax. Whether Britain can maintain the competitive edge they hold will be the question. Windfall profits could be invested in modernisation, we simply don't know.

 

[Clandango]

Been a while since I read this... This the one where the Russians catch a ship with some boxes of diamonds on them, yet it doesn't end up with people claiming a Jewish man (I forget which) was using them to pay a ransom for other Jews? Just seemed like something the yellow journalism back then would do. Hmmm. I forget if they managed to sell those diamonds in San Fransisco or not...

 

[wietze]

Been a while since I read this... This the one where the Russians catch a ship with some boxes of diamonds on them, yet it doesn't end up with people claiming a Jewish man (I forget which) was using them to pay a ransom for other Jews? Just seemed like something the yellow journalism back then would do. Hmmm. I forget if they managed to sell those diamonds in San Fransisco or not...

maybe because crewmembers of said ship were too busy swiping the diamonds under their own carpet. can't nick diamonds if you talk too much about them

 

[Stendhal]

War hurts the nations that partake in it, wasting money and human lives on the task of killing people, and helps the nations that stay out of it and stay undamaged. I wasn't aware that this was controversial.

It's been controversial for 2500+ years and I look forward to the Konservative Revolution to make you aware of it.

Meta: I am being terse in order to be poignant, not injurious -- I shall elaborate if requested.

 

[Clandango]

It's been controversial for 2500+ years and I look forward to the Konservative Revolution to make you aware of it.

Meta: I am being terse in order to be poignant, not injurious -- I shall elaborate if requested.

So many people are in this train of conversation and quotes that I am unsure what to address. Hmmm... If I remember correctly, the French kept out of the Russo-German War and were loving how the free trade that opened with the Germans, who were too busy focusing on war material to compete with the French. I am unsure if this extended to the rations, utensils, clothing, pots and pans, tents, bags, and other things soldiers would use, as the German government might have those produced under contract with their own companies. I think here the French would see it as having been a profitable war, even if they are unlikely to get paid back by the Russians. For much of history war was seen as profitable due to land, slaves, or war booty that was seized, and during the early colonial ages when some through there was naturally a loser in any transaction, you had to grab what you could, by force if need be.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

Sure Britain will be better off, but probably not on a 1-1 base (750.000 - less dead does not mean 750.000 more employed) also less dead mean more domestic consumers = not all additional product is being available for export...

Don't forget the absence of the economic burden of the even larger number of seriously incapacitated such as those blinded or maimed/disfigured and the fact that most of the OTL "surplus women" will now marry and have children and numerous war widows OTL have more children. Remember too that emigration to the Colonies will be a factor. And, as well as the Colonial forces, a lot of Britons who were working overseas came home to do their bit and join up (from the USA, China, Brazil, Argentina etc.) these will stay overseas TTL. And no conscription means that STD rates are down a few percentage points with no conscription as are STD related infertility rates.
Another issue is that, while further decline of the landed classes (due to higher taxation and death duties - being capable of rolling over debt was as important as collecting rents) and British industry (rigid practices and concentration on competition vulnerable "old" industries) there is a lot of anectdotal evidence that a number of firms and estates ceased to bother about reinvesting for the future, doing research or developing new products in the 1920s or 30s as all possible heirs had perished. So the economic effect of a number of Sir Bufton Tuftons and Ephraim Hardcastles not losing their heirs on the Marne/Somme/Ypres/Passchendaele and modernising their businesses or estates rather than effectively running them down?

 

[wietze]

Don't forget the absence of the economic burden of the even larger number of seriously incapacitated such as those blinded or maimed/disfigured and the fact that most of the OTL "surplus women" will now marry and have children and numerous war widows OTL have more children. Remember too that emigration to the Colonies will be a factor. And, as well as the Colonial forces, a lot of Britons who were working overseas came home to do their bit and join up (from the USA, China, Brazil, Argentina etc.) these will stay overseas TTL. And no conscription means that STD rates are down a few percentage points with no conscription as are STD related infertility rates.
Another issue is that, while further decline of the landed classes (due to higher taxation and death duties - being capable of rolling over debt was as important as collecting rents) and British industry (rigid practices and concentration on competition vulnerable "old" industries) there is a lot of anectdotal evidence that a number of firms and estates ceased to bother about reinvesting for the future, doing research or developing new products in the 1920s or 30s as all possible heirs had perished. So the economic effect of a number of Sir Bufton Tuftons and Ephraim Hardcastles not losing their heirs on the Marne/Somme/Ypres/Passchendaele and modernising their businesses or estates rather than effectively running them down?

indeed no lost generation + no spanish flu that means a lot of surviving people

 

[Dan]

indeed no lost generation + no spanish flu that means a lot of surviving people

Greater emigration to Australia, Canada, South Africa, Rhodesia and New Zealand?

It will be interesting to see how that has knock on effects with the national identities of those Dominions too.

I understand that certainly Australia, Canada and New Zealand feel that to an extent, the first acknowledgement of their national identities came from their armies actions and contributions in WW1. Without that, how will those Dominions develop?
Also, and this is a little in the future, how will Ireland fare?
Ireland was moving towards home rule, effectively a dominion but this was put on hold by WW1 and ended by the Easter Uprising in 1916. This led to the post war rebellion and eventually civil war. Not to mention the bad feeling towards Britain between the wars and 20 years later, what is known now as "the troubles". With nothing getting in the way, does Ireland proceed, complete to home rule and later independence sans bloodshed?

 

[Stendhal]

With nothing getting in the way, does Ireland proceed, complete to home rule and later independence sans bloodshed?

"What answer from the North?"

 

[Shevek23]

It's been controversial for 2500+ years and I look forward to the Konservative Revolution to make you aware of it.

Meta: I am being terse in order to be poignant, not injurious -- I shall elaborate if requested.

Terse-but serious, not ironic, I take it? You've amazed me with gobstopping views before.

I note you don't say war is an actual good thing, just that to say it is unrelieved evil is "controversial." Which is true enough--there are loads of Devil's Advocates out there, including to some degree personalities like Theodore Roosevelt, to argue that without war the human spirit is somehow incomplete or disgustingly maldeveloped or some such.

It's just that I do believe, at the end of the day, that such Devil's Advocates are in fact advocating for the Devil. Any sacrifices, any costs we would bear if we could only convince everyone with the power to start a war that they must not do it, would be less costly than the war itself.

 

[Kvasir]

I think it is an open question how the Irish question plays out. It depends on how dramatic you feel WWI was in radicalising the Irish population and leading to outbreak of violence. Certainly the imposition of conscription, the suppression of the Easter uprising (which only happened because of WWI producing the conditions), the stresses placed upon the population through the war and the stresses placed on the British government all contributed vastly.

We have come to accept that Irish Independence was inevitable. But if the British push forward towards devolution within Ireland, I don't necessarily think full independence as the only outcome. Certainly it is a potential outcome.

Furthermore, if there was an attempted Irish rebellion in the early 20th Century then the British government would be in a much stronger position to try to suppress it and it is an open question whether they could. If they did try I think it could get very nasty indeed.

 

[Stendhal]

Devil's Advocates are in fact advocating for the Devil.

Would you be familiar with Abraham Maslow's 1943 "A Theory of Human Motivation" a.k.a. the pyramid of human needs ?

 

[Dan]

I think it is an open question how the Irish question plays out. It depends on how dramatic you feel WWI was in radicalising the Irish population and leading to outbreak of violence. Certainly the imposition of conscription, the suppression of the Easter uprising (which only happened because of WWI producing the conditions), the stresses placed upon the population through the war and the stresses placed on the British government.

We have come to accept that Irish Independence was inevitable. But if the British push forward towards devolution within Ireland, I don't necessarily think full independence as the only outcome. Certainly it is a potential outcome.

Furthermore, if there was an attempted Irish rebellion in the early 20th Century then the British government would be in a much stronger position to try to suppress it and it is an open question whether they could. If they did try I think it could get very nasty indeed.

I find the section I've bolded interesting, I think the movement for independence was a strong one, certainly when you read of the actions of the IRA columns in the OTL 1910s, but if the radicalisation brought to a head by WW1 can be negated or at least mitigated by the lack of WW1, would the movement return to minority support, and could we see a "Scottish" situation where we talk about "1966 Irish Indyref failing to pass causing the embryonic Scottish independence movement, which felt that a victory for the Irish independence campaign would aid them in their aims, to whither on the vine".

That could make an interesting WI in it's own right.

 

[Knightmare]

I find the section I've bolded interesting, I think the movement for independence was a strong one, certainly when you read of the actions of the IRA columns in the OTL 1910s, but if the radicalisation brought to a head by WW1 can be negated or at least mitigated by the lack of WW1, would the movement return to minority support, and could we see a "Scottish" situation where we talk about "1966 Irish Indyref failing to pass causing the embryonic Scottish independence movement, which felt that a victory for the Irish independence campaign would aid them in their aims, to whither on the vine".

That could make an interesting WI in it's own right.

Not really. Ireland, or at least most of it, wants OUT of England.

NI doesn't. And some PMs were pretty Unionist.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

indeed no lost generation + no spanish flu that means a lot of surviving people

The "spanish flu" might hit later - if actually hailing from the US it might come with tourists flooding old Europe after the war... It might hit at a time where the economy is recovering.

 

[wietze]

The "spanish flu" might hit later - if actually hailing from the US it might come with tourists flooding old Europe after the war... It might hit at a time where the economy is recovering.

the problem was not so much the flu, but the form in which it evolved. under normal circumstances someone very sick stays at home while the moderately sick keep moving around, causing the more extreme variants to burn off and the disease becoming milder.
In the case of the spanish flu the opposite happened in the trenches, the mildly sick stayed in the trenches, while the very sick were evacuated, thus spreading the more severe variety.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

Not to mention four years of relative food shortages and stress and overwork across Europe lowering the resistance to infection of the general population and the ability to survive the disease once infected.

 

[wietze]

Not to mention four years of relative food shortages and stress and overwork across Europe lowering the resistance to infection of the general population and the ability to survive the disease once infected.

exactly, plus troops & supplies being moved around in dense formations, giving another spread vector preventing effective quarantine.
also the news about the flu was suppressed for a while (hence the name spanish flu, since it appeared first in the spanish newspapers). in peacetime you will see a much more rapid quarantine.

 

[Kvasir]

The Spanish flu would be butterflied away. Another similar pandemic is possible obviously but it is not set in stone.