How would British economy looks like without ww1?

Note that the Liberal Party would be very likely to remain one of the main party of the government (i.e. free trade). Besides, empirical evidence found that Imperial Preference actually had a negative impact on British industrial productivity over the long run.

The US would be isolationist for much longer ITTL. During near term Germany would be the only competitor.

While no expert in UK politics it is not simple enough to assume the Liberal Party will remain ascendant or that free trade will be a viable policy longer term, especially if we see a major shock such as the Depression, itself not entirely butterflied so easily here. Perhaps I should have used quotes but I can foresee even "Free Trade" sold as a trade agreement binding the Commonwealth and setting barriers to outsiders. We need to know more on how the domestic economy evolves as well as the political environment. But if as you opine that free trade holds longer then it benefits the German recovery from the war (assuming that still occurs here) and likely hastens the industrial decline of Great Britain with an accelerated emergence of the "post-industrial" service economy in the UK.

My opinion is that the American oil majors are as aggressive as ever and have plenty of power to get ahold of oil reserves in the Middle East without American government intervention, in fact the government will likely be pushed to pursue a de-colonial agenda which will worsen the relationship between the USA and the UK. If you are correct on free trade this will not get overly frosty but if the Commonwealth pulls tighter together to exclude American exports than we see the USA and UK getting chilly in their relations, and I surmise this can fuel warmer relations with Germany, especially if they too need open markets, thus my premise for a long term "Special Relationship" between the USA and Germany founded on trade and antagonism towards the colonial powers. Strange new paths open as butterflies tend to flock after the money and power.
 
Everyone who says that early industrial working classes had appalling conditions has never tried subsistence agriculture :)

I think as long as the loyalty of the army remained intact the Tzar would survive. I agree that Alexander was incompetent however I think any unrest could have been supressed. It's hard to say it's impossible but I'm not sure you can say it wa probable.

I agree and my opinion is that the Czar was motivated to go to war for this exact reason, the hope was that war would defer reform and instill patriotism in lieu of change. I admit it shades my choses when I think of how the Russians would behave, I pick war if they get the opportunity, the Czar simply sees a war as his best hat trick and never sees the dangerous mob looming at the back of the theater.
 

BooNZ

Banned
Everyone who says that early industrial working classes had appalling conditions has never tried subsistence agriculture :)

I recall reading an American trade report on Balkan agriculture drafted in the 1920s. It estimated the peasants on small landholdings worked about 75-80 days per annum, spending the rest of their time "pottering around".
 

Thomas1195

Banned
While no expert in UK politics it is not simple enough to assume the Liberal Party will remain ascendant or that free trade will be a viable policy longer term, especially if we see a major shock such as the Depression, itself not entirely butterflied so easily here. Perhaps I should have used quotes but I can foresee even "Free Trade" sold as a trade agreement binding the Commonwealth and setting barriers to outsiders. We need to know more on how the domestic economy evolves as well as the political environment. But if as you opine that free trade holds longer then it benefits the German recovery from the war (assuming that still occurs here) and likely hastens the industrial decline of Great Britain with an accelerated emergence of the "post-industrial" service economy in the UK.
But the probability of survive for them is actually greater. Regarding shocks, possessing leading economists in their rank (they already had) would be a clear advantage for the Liberals. And actually the Liberals were faster to move to interventionism, and this trend would accelerate when their nextgen MPs (Trevelyan, Benn, Acland, Samuel, Sinclair, Foot...who tended to be radicals, more like Lloyd George rather than Asquith) replace the old gang.

They might have a temporary Imperial System during a Depression but might leave a hole in Canada for the US (IOTL, Canada actually preferred this).

Many studies actually found that Imperial Preference had a negative impact on British economy over the long run.

My opinion is that the American oil majors are as aggressive as ever and have plenty of power to get ahold of oil reserves in the Middle East without American government intervention, in fact the government will likely be pushed to pursue a de-colonial agenda which will worsen the relationship between the USA and the UK. If you are correct on free trade this will not get overly frosty but if the Commonwealth pulls tighter together to exclude American exports than we see the USA and UK getting chilly in their relations, and I surmise this can fuel warmer relations with Germany, especially if they too need open markets, thus my premise for a long term "Special Relationship" between the USA and Germany founded on trade and antagonism towards the colonial powers. Strange new paths open as butterflies tend to flock after the money and power.
Well, with strong presence of Liberals (I am sure that they would at least stay a major government party during 1920s-1940s), free trade would dominate. There might be temporary Imperial System during a Depression. However, the US would be likely to be granted access via Canada (which Canada actually wanted), but with a condition of reducing their 40+% tariffs. For Germany, they already dominated trade in Continental Europe and Russia.

Meanwhile, if somehow the Franco-German hostility over A-L could be solved without war (very unlikely) and Russia became more of a threat to Europe, there could be European co-opearation, including trade. If not, only France and maybe, just maybe Belgium, Greece (if king Constantine was somehow butterflied away) and Italy (which depended on British coal) could be drawn closer to Britain.

Well, the problem in the Middle East was that the countries there tended to be under British sphere of influence. But as big as Standard Oil, they would get a foothold.
 

hipper

Banned
I recall reading an American trade report on Balkan agriculture drafted in the 1920s. It estimated the peasants on small landholdings worked about 75-80 days per annum, spending the rest of their time "pottering around".

My father was brought up in what was small scale peasant agriculture suplimented by fishing. He moved to the City as soon as he could. His stories about it make clear that hard physical labour every day was the norm, I still dine out on the time I had to spread seaweed on my fathers vegetable garden.

I suspect one persons pottering may be another persons hard work.

Cheers
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
Well as with all growth spurts German expansionism will continue untill its markets are saturated,and when cheaper labour countries start making widgets to compete with Germany, Russia is the unknown factor here.
Well, by that time, Britain would be firmly in the deindustrialization process, especially if it was still adhere to full-fledge free trade.
 
Everyone who says that early industrial working classes had appalling conditions has never tried subsistence agriculture :)
True.
One of the interesting things about the 1905 Revolution was the separate involvement of both the urban industrial workers and the rural agricultural peasants, though in different phases.

I think as long as the loyalty of the army remained intact the Tzar would survive. I agree that Alexander was incompetent however I think any unrest could have been supressed. It's hard to say it's impossible but I'm not sure you can say it wa probable.
That assumes that Alexander is intelligent, and decisive, enough to manage proper repression of such elements.

Before the war started in 1914 industrial unrest was on a massive scale, and increasing. I don't see it quietening much without the war, it's possible to argue that the outbreak of WW1 actually saved the Tsarist regime for a period.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
We should notice that by 1914, British products were increasingly driven out of Europe by German producers, who were more efficient and were able to produce superior goods. The British had to retreat to Empire markets.

What's next?

Over the long run, the lack of competition would make British manufacturers even more inefficient.

Besides, the lack of demand for high-tech goods would cripple anything left of British high-tech industries, which are considered as a main driver of productivity over the long run by all economists. Why lack demand? Well, places like Zulu, Nigeria, Malaya, Burma or Egypt do not need things like optical glass, machine tools, ball bearings or electrical machinery, or industrial chemicals like sulphuric acid or electrochemical. Well, even British home market was dominated by German optical producers.

Full fledged free trade continues also means that German (German because American products tended to serve their own huge domestic market) goods would continue to invade British markets and eventually driven domestic firms, which were mostly smaller and more ineffficient and amateurish than German counterparts, out of business.

Deindustrialization would be the next thing to happen, and it could even be faster than IOTL without state intervention to improve their critical weaknesses in organization, management, technology, R&D, education and infrastructure. If these were corrected, well, British industries would be competitive even with free trade.
 

hipper

Banned
We should notice that by 1914, British products were increasingly driven out of Europe by German producers, who were more efficient and were able to produce superior goods. The British had to retreat to Empire markets.

What's next?

Over the long run, the lack of competition would make British manufacturers even more inefficient.

Besides, the lack of demand for high-tech goods would cripple anything left of British high-tech industries, which are considered as a main driver of productivity over the long run by all economists. Why lack demand? Well, places like Zulu, Nigeria, Malaya, Burma or Egypt do not need things like optical glass, machine tools, ball bearings or electrical machinery, or industrial chemicals like sulphuric acid or electrochemical. Well, even British home market was dominated by German optical producers.

Full fledged free trade continues also means that German (German because American products tended to serve their own huge domestic market) goods would continue to invade British markets and eventually driven domestic firms, which were mostly smaller and more ineffficient and amateurish than German counterparts, out of business.

Deindustrialization would be the next thing to happen, and it could even be faster than IOTL without state intervention to improve their critical weaknesses in organization, management, technology, R&D, education and infrastructure. If these were corrected, well, British industries would be competitive even with free trade.

Or alternately the Uk has not taken the stupid virus and the UK will react to competitive stimuli...
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Or alternately the Uk has not taken the stupid virus and the UK will react to competitive stimuli...
Well, IOTL, the first world war woke them up. ITTL, you would need another chain of events to trigger a complete change in British business culture, like how Jena-Auerstedt completely changed Prussia a century ago.

Don't tell me "Imperial Preference" because IOTL it was proved to be counter-productive over the long run.
 
Last edited:
over the long run.

The issue here. In the long run everything turns equivalent. Your worship of German efficiency was a short-run phenomenon based on the free trade gold standard backed by the UK. If we follow your logic, then the UK will be unable to support such an open window in a few years and at that instant Germany loses access to the world market, and thus all the supposedly superior German efficiency wouldn't be worth a pfennig.
 

Deleted member 94680

The issue here. In the long run everything turns equivalent. Your worship of German efficiency was a short-run phenomenon based on the free trade gold standard backed by the UK. If we follow your logic, then the UK will be unable to support such an open window in a few years and at that instant Germany loses access to the world market, and thus all the supposedly superior German efficiency wouldn't be worth a pfennig.

Ah, but you must remember Germans are smarter and better than British.
 
All these threads seem to have a serious case of Correlli Barnett Syndrome, where any failing on the part of British industry is seen as a symptom of a deep-rooted malaise that can't easily be eradicated, but when Germany and the US have exactly the same failings they can be cured by a little superficial tinkering. When Gemany and the US entered WWII their torpedoes were garbage, but it's always "Yes, but after a year or two they made changes and then everything in the garden was lovely", but I have no doubt that if British torpedoes had been the same we'd have been regaled with stories of how bad British engineering was, how poor British managers were, and so on.

If you look at the Americans, they tried to copy the German MG151 cannon and failed; they tried to put the 20mm Hispano into production and the resulting guns were incredibly unreliable because they ignored the modified British plans (which worked) and went back to the original French plans (which didn't). The Brewster company built Corsairs under licence, but the resulting aircraft were pretty well useless due to poor-quality workmanship.

For the Germans you had the He177 and Me210, which were major failures. Of course the British had the Manchester, which wasn't good, but at least the British quickly went over to a four-engined version in the form of the Lancaster. The Germans could have done the same with the He277, but clearly the inefficient and hidebound management failed to cope with the problem. There's also the slight problem for the "Germans-are-uber" school, that the British completely outclassed them in electronics, code-breaking, jet engines, and many other areas.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
All these threads seem to have a serious case of Correlli Barnett Syndrome, where any failing on the part of British industry is seen as a symptom of a deep-rooted malaise that can't easily be eradicated, but when Germany and the US have exactly the same failings they can be cured by a little superficial tinkering. When Gemany and the US entered WWII their torpedoes were garbage, but it's always "Yes, but after a year or two they made changes and then everything in the garden was lovely", but I have no doubt that if British torpedoes had been the same we'd have been regaled with stories of how bad British engineering was, how poor British managers were, and so on.

If you look at the Americans, they tried to copy the German MG151 cannon and failed; they tried to put the 20mm Hispano into production and the resulting guns were incredibly unreliable because they ignored the modified British plans (which worked) and went back to the original French plans (which didn't). The Brewster company built Corsairs under licence, but the resulting aircraft were pretty well useless due to poor-quality workmanship.

For the Germans you had the He177 and Me210, which were major failures. Of course the British had the Manchester, which wasn't good, but at least the British quickly went over to a four-engined version in the form of the Lancaster. The Germans could have done the same with the He277, but clearly the inefficient and hidebound management failed to cope with the problem. There's also the slight problem for the "Germans-are-uber" school, that the British completely outclassed them in electronics, code-breaking, jet engines, and many other areas.
Well, you use military equipment, while this thread is about British industries' relative performance and competitiveness in the world market. And we are talking about 1914.

Soviets had lots of nice military kits, like Mig 15 in 1950s. And we all know how inefficient its industry and economy were.

And using a pre-Nazi Germany is better in this comparison. Before Nazi, Germany had a world class education system, and was the number one in science and technology, and in Nobel Prizes. Nazi helped mess up everything.


Britain? They did not even have a proper secondary school system until 1902. Likewise, the vast majority, if not all, of British firms before ww1 did not have a proper in-house R&D department.


Now, regarding relative performance of industries, the following stats should be better:

- By 1913, German machine tool exports were 4 times higher than that of Britain.

- German optics occupied 60% of British home market.

- German firms controlled 90% of global synthetic dye market, and 40% of world export market in electrical equipment.

- In 1913, Germany's steel output was 14 million tons, while British output was only 8 million tons.

- By 1913, German exporters dominated trade in Continental Europe and Russia.

- German superior science and technology helped them invented Fritz-Haber process, which helped Germany stayed in ww1 for over 4 years, and it eventually became world standard.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
All because the British was the backer of the global gold standard. Without that, Germany would not have been able to export.
Well, the gold standard would fall eventually. One day, the limited gold supply could no longer accommodate for economic expansion. Or a Great Depression occurs and all nations would have to abandon it.
 
The issue here. In the long run everything turns equivalent.
This long run can be very long, though; Italy, for example, still has a lower per capita GDP than Germany despite having many decades to "catch up".

Your worship of German efficiency was a short-run phenomenon based on the free trade gold standard backed by the UK. If we follow your logic, then the UK will be unable to support such an open window in a few years and at that instant Germany loses access to the world market, and thus all the supposedly superior German efficiency wouldn't be worth a pfennig.
I don't see how the breakdown of the British-backed gold standard would cause Germany to lose access to the world market. Higher transaction costs because of non-uniform monetary standards would only decrease trade, and that over a period of time, not plunge the world back into a Stone Age level of global autarky. They might be trading less, but they'll still be trading...
 

BooNZ

Banned
That assumes that Alexander is intelligent, and decisive, enough to manage proper repression of such elements.
Alexander?
Before the war started in 1914 industrial unrest was on a massive scale, and increasing. I don't see it quietening much without the war, it's possible to argue that the outbreak of WW1 actually saved the Tsarist regime for a period..
Not with any credibility...
 
Top