How would British economy looks like without ww1?

Deleted member 94680

Not, not really ASB. There could be German versions of Lawrence of Arabia. Britain had vast colonies, and independence movements could be triggered in regions such as India, South Africa and Egypt.

And they can realistically sell weapons to Irish factions in 1914 (without ww1 there would be a civil war in Ireland following Home Rule).

So a few posts ago you agreed that it would be the mid 1930s before Germany passed Britain, now for no reason whatsoever Germany is spamming resistance movements worldwide in 1914? There were German versions of Lawrence of Arabia, they failed in Afghanistan for lack of funds and genuine government interest. Independence in South Africa? Get real. They did sell guns to factions in Northern Ireland, once again it made no real effect. The vast majority of this happened during World War One your OP asked how the economy would be without World War One.

Take off the pickelhaube, put down the weißbier, drop the schnitzel and go back to your schloß, you've had too much.
 
I think we will see the same mas be away from production and toward financial service as we saw in OTL just earlier, we saw the same with the Dutch in the 18th century. As such we will see continued GDP growth, but a fall in industrial output compared to the other European countries.
 
The standardization of electrical standards would be delayed, which would make electrical industry retarded for much longer.
If anything the rationalisation of electrical supply standards would have been brought forward by 4 years. We would have had the Electricity Supply Acts of 1919 and 1926 brought forward by 4 years and the National Grid built 4 years earlier too.

There would also have been a lot more electrification of the railways. Several big schemes were truncated or abandoned altogether because of World War One. The railway companies would have electrified more lines in the 1920s IOTL had it not been for the poor state of the economy.

It is very likely that the entire south of England from Salisbury to Dover would have been electrified by 1939. There would have been more electrification around Manchester and Merseyside. The ECML between York and Berwick would have been electrified by 1930. That was part of a scheme by the North East Railway to replace about 1,000 steam locomotives with 500 electric locomotives between 1921 and 1939. The Great War stopped the Midland Railway electrifying the Midland Main Line as far as St Albans (not done until 1980s IOTL as part of the Bedford Scheme), the Tottenham Branch and the whole London Tilbury & Southend Railway (not done until early 1960s IOTL).

However, the downside is that there would have been no Grouping, but IIRC a bill to nationalise the railways was proceeding through Parliament in August 1914 so with no World War One that might have been passed.
 

Deleted member 94680

However, the downside is that there would have been no Grouping, but IIRC a bill to nationalise the railways was proceeding through Parliament in August 1914 so with no World War One that might have been passed.

I take it from your post that railways are your point of interest, so forgive me if this is a simplistic question, but what is Grouping? Also, were all these plans for electrification in place pre-WWI? Otherwise, AFAIWA, Britain intended to continue steam powering its railways due to the (at the time) plentiful supply of high-quality coal, no?
 
I take it from your post that railways are your point of interest, so forgive me if this is a simplistic question, but what is Grouping?/QUOTE]After World War One the British Government considered nationalising the railways, but instead settled for forcing 120-odd railway companies to merge into four regional groups. This became known as The Grouping (or simply Grouping if the definite article was removed) which came into effect in 1923. This was the company structure that was in force until the main line railways were nationalised in 1948.

The Wikipaedia article is accurate enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railways_Act_1921
 
Also, were all these plans for electrification in place pre-WWI?
Some of them were. The rest were extensions or updates of pre-World War One plans many of which were prepared by the consulting firm Merz and McLellan.

E.g. Merz and McLellan did a study in 1911 for the electrification of a large portion of the North Eastern Railway's lines using 1,200V DC and projected a return on investment of 22% (Yes Twenty-Two Per-Cent!). This evolved into the Shildon to Newport scheme that was in progress when World War One broke out, followed by the not implemented Newcastle to York Scheme of 1919 and the also not implemented 18-Year Plan of 1921.

I can't remember the exact figures, but the Southern Railway inherited about 80 route miles of electrified railway (out of about 2,200 route miles) from its predecessors in 1923 and passed on about 720 route miles to British Railways 25 years later. In 1944-46 it prepared a scheme to electrify everything east of Salisbury (about 1,800 route miles) which would take 10 years to implement after the Instruction to Proceed was given. They eventually settled on a less ambitious but still very big scheme for a mix of electrification and dieselisation. Only some of which was done at a much slower rate after Nationalisation.
Otherwise, AFAIWA, Britain intended to continue steam powering its railways due to the (at the time) plentiful supply of high-quality coal, no?
Is that a statement or a question? If it is a statement then its wrong. If its a question the answer is no. They wanted to electrify more than they did but could not afford the high capital cost of doing so.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
There would also have been a lot more electrification of the railways. Several big schemes were truncated or abandoned altogether because of World War One. The railway companies would have electrified more lines in the 1920s IOTL had it not been for the poor state of the economy.

It is very likely that the entire south of England from Salisbury to Dover would have been electrified by 1939. There would have been more electrification around Manchester and Merseyside. The ECML between York and Berwick would have been electrified by 1930. That was part of a scheme by the North East Railway to replace about 1,000 steam locomotives with 500 electric locomotives between 1921 and 1939. The Great War stopped the Midland Railway electrifying the Midland Main Line as far as St Albans (not done until 1980s IOTL as part of the Bedford Scheme), the Tottenham Branch and the whole London Tilbury & Southend Railway (not done until early 1960s IOTL).
These were undertaken by private firms

If anything the rationalisation of electrical supply standards would have been brought forward by 4 years. We would have had the Electricity Supply Acts of 1919 and 1926 brought forward by 4 years and the National Grid built 4 years earlier too.
This, however, require a big move away from laissez-faire doctrine, which dominated both Tory and Liberal agenda before the war, towards state intervention. IOTL, the role of state only became important after the war broke out.

https://books.google.com.vn/books?i...&q=charles merz electricity committee&f=false
The ideas in this book were basically that the war created an incentive to improve the power industry, due to rising demand for energy from munition plants.


In 1905, Merz first attempted to influence Parliament to unify the variety of voltages and frequencies in the country's electricity supply industry, but it was not until World War I that Parliament began to take this idea seriously, then appointing him head of a Parliamentary Committee to address the problem (wiki).
 

Deleted member 94680

Some of them were. The rest were extensions or updates of pre-World War One plans many of which were prepared by the consulting firm Merz and McLellan.

So pre-war plans were in place which means they will probably be carried through in absence of WWI. Would this have a knock-on effect to other lines and companies if proved successful? OTL history points to yes and yes in probability.

Is that a statement or a question? If it is a statement then its wrong. If its a question the answer is no. They wanted to electrify more than they did but could not afford the high capital cost of doing so.

It was a question.

I see, would government funds be made available for this kind of project in the absence of WWI debt, do you think?

That was a question by the way.
 
I myself believe that Britain would continue to decline relative to Germany. There are lots of reasons.

One of them is education. Specifically, German education system was much superior, especially scientific and technical education.
Specifically, in 1908, the entire Britain only produced 300 students in applied science. Meanwhile, in Germany, the number of chemical students alone was 400.
https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=jnDA4vY9kFEC&pg=PT212&dq=british+population+1870+1914&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiakqfg9u3QAhWDjZQKHSHaC0sQ6AEIQjAH#v=onepage&q=british population 1870 1914&f=false

This is significant because the new industries like chemical or electrical were scientific-based and required lots of systemic R&D that need to be carried out by professional scientists and engineers.

Besides, the proportions of apprentices and employees receiving vocational training were higher in German industry.
This is a very important point; as I mentioned elsewhere as an example in 1892 the University of Cambridge graduated exactly one student in physics, admittedly the brilliant, future Nobel Laureate, C. T. R. Wilson.
 
Thomas1195 said:

Germany could also economically cripple British Empire by creating 100+ Afghanistan (funding and encourage colonial independence movements and revolutions). They can start with Ireland in 1914, shipping weapons to both factions (well, they can even test chemical weapons).


That's just laughably ASB.
Are you unfamiliar with the Howth gunrunning? It'd be very easy for the German government to assist such efforts.
 

Deleted member 94680

Are you unfamiliar with the Howth gunrunning? It'd be very easy for the German government to assist such efforts.

I was unfamiliar with the specifics but I was aware of the Larne gunrunning for instance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larne_gun-running

However, in reply I did write:
There were German versions of Lawrence of Arabia, they failed in Afghanistan for lack of funds and genuine government interest. Independence in South Africa? Get real. They did sell guns to factions in Northern Ireland, once again it made no real effect. The vast majority of this happened during World War One your OP asked how the economy would be without World War One.

But as I said, this was about the economy of Britain in the absence of WWI, as opposed moustache-twirling Bond villainesque plots to overturn the British Empire. Plots which OTL the Germans never carried through to any reasonable degree. Thomas seemed to have a rush of blood last night and ATL'd a vast conspiracy more at home with Buchanan in a pre-WWI setting when we were attempting to discuss a post-WWI timeframe. The Germans pre-war were either uninterested or unable to carry these kinds of schemes through, in a timeframe minus WWI to do so would be an act of war if discovered. Historically, British intelligence in their colonies and holdings was rather good at this kind of thing so it doesn't bode well for the Germans.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I was unfamiliar with the specifics but I was aware of the Larne gunrunning for instance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larne_gun-running

However, in reply I did write:


But as I said, this was about the economy of Britain in the absence of WWI, as opposed moustache-twirling Bond villainesque plots to overturn the British Empire. Plots which OTL the Germans never carried through to any reasonable degree. Thomas seemed to have a rush of blood last night and ATL'd a vast conspiracy more at home with Buchanan in a pre-WWI setting when we were attempting to discuss a post-WWI timeframe. The Germans pre-war were either uninterested or unable to carry these kinds of schemes through, in a timeframe minus WWI to do so would be an act of war if discovered. Historically, British intelligence in their colonies and holdings was rather good at this kind of thing so it doesn't bode well for the Germans.
I mean if the political situation become something like Anglo German cold war, it would be easier for Germany to destabilize British Empire than the opposite. The costs of enforcing control over Crown Colonies would skyrocket with rising independence movements.
 

Deleted member 94680

I mean if the political situation become something like Anglo German cold war, it would be easier for Germany to destabilize British Empire than the opposite. The costs of enforcing control over Crown Colonies would skyrocket with rising independence movements.

And Germany doesn't have an Empire the British could do the same to? Why would it be harder for the British with their better intelligence services, world spanning naval assets and two centuries of experience? It would take more than the odd batch of German second hand rifles to destabilise the Empire. As to rising independence movements, what do you think the last eighty-odd years of Imperial history was? Everywhere Germany tried to stir the pot OTL they failed. Why, in the abscence of WWI and a generally more peaceful atmosphere across Europe, would they magically be more successful?

Do we have to consider this mythical Cold War in the scenario now? Why didn't you mention it beforehand?
 
I see, would government funds be made available for this kind of project in the absence of WWI debt, do you think?

That was a question by the way.
Understood:)

No I think not. There were grants given in the 1930s IOTL under the Railway Facilities Act of 1935, but that was an unemployment relief measure. According to Cabinet papers from earlier on in the 1930s I found on the National Archives website the Government was reluctant to do even that because Ramsay McDonald wanted to nationalise the railways and he didn't want to make them more profitable. In the 1920s there was also the abolition of Railway Passenger duty, which I don't know so much about, but the money saved on that had to be spent on capital investment. IIRC the Southern Railway used it to pay for the electrification to Brighton and possibly the electrification of the London Suburban area before that.

As McDonald was Prime Minister until 1935 that suggests that he was blocking what became the Railway Facilities Act.

However, the railway companies won't need government subsidies in the 1920s if there was no World War One because I think the British economy would be a lot stronger.

The railways were a service industry, therefore they need an industry to service to make money. AFAIK (and I don't know this as well as I should do) the decline in Britain's staple industries after 1913, i.e. coal, steel, cotton and shipbuilding hit the railways particularly hard. If there had been no World War One those industries don't loose markets which would have created more traffic for the railway companies to carry. The result would have been bigger profits for the railway industry, some of which can be invested in electric traction.
 
So pre-war plans were in place which means they will probably be carried through in absence of WWI. Would this have a knock-on effect to other lines and companies if proved successful? OTL history points to yes and yes in probability.
IMHO certainly.

The dates for this example are approximate. I don't have time to check my notes.

The LBSCR began a electrification scheme to electrify its London suburban lines in 1913 which was scheduled for completion in 1917. However, some of the equipment was ordered from a German firm, which because of World War One and the chaotic conditions in Germany afterwards meant work was severely delayed. The scheme was only completed in a reduced form in 1925 and the next year the Southern Railway which was created in the Grouping of 1923 decided to standardise on the former LSWR's 3rd rail system. This was completed in 1929 when the suburban section of the ex-LBSCR was finally fully electrified. The same year it was decided to extend to Brighton and it was completed at the end of 1933.

IMHO the LBSCR would have reached Brighton between 1920 and 1925.

Meanwhile the LSWR didn't start its first electrification scheme until 1913, but in spite of World War One managed to electrify 58 route miles by 1916 and without World War One would have completed even more. The LBSCR by contrast started electrification in 1903 had only managed to electrify about 25 route miles before World War One broke out. If there had been no World War One I think the LSWR would have completely electrified its London suburban lines by 1925 if not 1920 instead of 1929 IOTL.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Britain's staple industries after 1913, i.e. coal, steel, cotton and shipbuilding hit the railways particularly hard.
Well, these industries had structural weaknesses in technology and organization that harmed their competitiveness, for example, they were heavily unionized. However, the demand for these goods might not decline as much as IOTL, especially shipbuilding since there could be no WNT if the American still stayed isolationist. Besides, without the long decline during the IOTL interwar period, British shipbuilders might actually modernize their shipyards.
 

Deleted member 94680

Understood:)

Good ;)


No I think not. There were grants given in the 1930s IOTL under the Railway Facilities Act of 1935, but that was an unemployment relief measure. According to Cabinet papers from earlier on in the 1930s I found on the National Archives website the Government was reluctant to do even that because Ramsay McDonald wanted to nationalise the railways and he didn't want to make them more profitable.
...
As McDonald was Prime Minister until 1935 that suggests that he was blocking what became the Railway Facilities Act.

But, and I understand how hard this is to project, would a Labour majority government come into power in this timeframe? Is Labour in government a certainty, or a product of the economic slowdown post-War and the economic crash? Personally, I think a Labour government would need to be part of a Coalition first and then form a majority government much later, say the mid forties or the fifties.

However, the railway companies won't need government subsidies in the 1920s if there was no World War One because I think the British economy would be a lot stronger.

Agreed, but that then depends on electrification making good economic sense I suppose. Competition from foreign electro-locomotives, generating stimulus in the market, maybe?

The railways were a service industry, therefore they need an industry to service to make money. AFAIK (and I don't know this as well as I should do) the decline in Britain's staple industries after 1913, i.e. coal, steel, cotton and shipbuilding hit the railways particularly hard. If there had been no World War One those industries don't loose markets which would have created more traffic for the railway companies to carry. The result would have been bigger profits for the railway industry, some of which can be invested in electric traction.

Maybe even a improvement of the railway network that keeps industrial traffic to the rails as opposed to the roads?
 
Top