How would British economy looks like without ww1?

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, without world war 1, the lunatic and utopian Gladstonian laissez-faire doctrine would not go away soon, at least until a large recession occurs (however, IOTL, those like Phillip Snowden still practiced laissez-faire during the height of the Great Depression).


That would be an internal issue for the Indian Government. They'd got quite good at it to be fair. It wouldn't be that costly, if OTL is anything to go by.
Until it becomes something like Gandhi's movement IOTL, which could cost Britain the whole India.

Oh my god, that's fantastic.
Germany was more powerful than all the countries you mention combined.

however smartly applied blocade measures are available to the UK, seizure of German merchant vessels and German contraband carried in neutral vessels would offend no one indeed the Americans may welcome the sudden cessation of German competition in the world markets,
Blockading a country without a formal declaration of war (which equals ww1) would be a extremely blatant violation of international laws.

Seizing American ships would anger the US, which was the largest exporter to Germany.

Also, without a conflict with A-H and Russia, Germany already had safe markets.

their superior GDP illustrates that those societies were far better at primary production than the Germans were at making stuff in their sweat shops. Australia and NZ both bought a dreadnaught before the war, although HMS New Zealand was gifted and commissioned directly into the Royal navy. Imperial preference was already the default mindset for many within the British Empire.
If we compare Austria-Hungary to say, Australia. Australia might have higher GDP per capita. But, A-H of course had more developed industrial and manufacturing base (fourth largest machine tool builder). High-tech products like machine tools, electrical equipment, sulphuric acid, optics...would be more demanded from Austrian factories and labs rather than Australian farms.
 
Last edited:
The worse scenario for Britain is that its economic relative decline would reach a point where Germany could afford to outbuild RN while still maintaining a large army.

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).

And why exactly would they feel the desire to do this? if you remove WWI then you have to assume Germany followed a more rational foreign policy. Germany's real worries at the beginning of the 20th Century are a France that wants Alsace-Lorraine back and the vast Russian empire slowly modernizing to the east. The smart play for Germany is to try and wind the clock back and re-establish positive diplomatic ties, remember it's only Wilhelm II's blundering stupidity in trying to threaten the RN that drives the British into strengthening ties with France and Russia, both of whom were longstanding enemies of Great Britain. Have Annie Oakley be a little off target and there's far more reason to imagine an Anglo-German alliance than there is some pointless vendetta by the Germans against Britain.
 

hipper

Banned
Blockading a country without a formal declaration of war (which equals ww1) would be a extremely blatant violation of international laws.

Seizing American ships would anger the US, which was the largest exporter to Germany.

Also, without a conflict with A-H and Russia, Germany already had safe markets

Ask yourself why the Kaiser never helped the Boers, In Dec 1899 the British cabinet decided to let the Royal Navy search foreign ships suspected of carrying war material to the Boers. Three German ships, the Bundesrath, Herzog and General were forced into port and searched, with negative results.

In a situation where Germany was supporting and fermenting revolt on a wide scale then the German merchant fleet would be swept from the seas her own colonies placed in perlous positions and Germany would be unable to respond without invading Belgium and kicking off WW1.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
However, without ww1, a Land Value Tax might be implemented, which could be a positive stimulus for British economy (based on OTL Danish experience during late 1950s-early 1960s).
 

Deleted member 94680

Until it becomes something like Gandhi's movement IOTL, which could cost Britain the whole India.

Granted, but that was indigenous in inspiration and took until near-bankrupt post-WWII Britain relented. Inter-War, the British continued to hold India, in spite of Gandhi's actions.

Germany was more powerful than all the countries you mention combined.

The point wasn't comparative strengths (which would also include Britain and as WWI proved, Germany wasn't) it was to point out that those countries wouldn't ignore Germany's actions, which you naively seem to think they would. They all had colonies near to British possessions and these illegal actions by Germany would likely spill over into, or disturb the governance of, their colonial possessions. Hence they would have an interest in seeing Germany's actions cease.

Blockading a country without a formal declaration of war (which equals ww1) would be a extremely blatant violation of international laws.

And Germany's clandestine actions wouldn't? Sponsoring rebels and supplying arms is just tickety-boo, is it? Nothing to do with international law, because what, super-Germany is doing it and the world would bow their heads? If Britain decided to impose a blockade, it would undoubtedly be declared to be in response to Germany's actions, with supplied evidence to back it up.

Seizing American ships would anger the US, which was the largest exporter to Germany.

Why would Britain seize American ships? Depending on the conditions of the blockade they might be searched or more than likely be allowed to pass. The blockade in this, frankly ASB, scenario you're clinging to would be aimed squarely at Germany and Germany alone. German ships would be stopped, ending Germany's commercial trade on the high seas. America would benefit. If (and I emphasise 'if') there were any incidents with American vessels, international courts would arbitrate any complaints by the non-blockading nations.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
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 thought it was the bill to put railways under state control immediately after Britain joined the war.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I take it back.

According to The Oxford Companion to British Railway History...
Well, even so, nationalization would be inevitable as soon as Lloyd George becomes PM in a non-Tory government.

In fact, they already nationalized telephone and telegraph services.
 
1) Pre WW1 there were big political changes in Britain, away from the laissez faire of the 19th century. Lloyd George and Churchill were some of the reformers with the Peoples Budget, curbing the powers of the Lords in Parliament and (at least partly) tax-financed welfare for workers. Without WW1 they may continue their reform agenda into education, infrastructure, research or labour organisation. Already 1914 Germany had conquered far more Nobel Prizes in science than Britain, which could drive someone like Churchill to change the education system. But with a far bigger budget than IOTLs reformers.

2) On the other hand - the summer of 1914 Britain was a powder keg that was saved by the war. A general strike was planned for the autumn, and this time it was both well planned and financed. Ireland was ready to explode and the Army extremely unvilling to intervene. Suffragets burned down male institutions. Something was going to change in Britain, WW1 or not. But if it would benefit Britain or not is an open question.

3) Germany was also going through changes. The election laws were changing, which would give the social democrats far more power. But the outcome of this is as unclear as the point above.

4) During WW1 Germany tried to raise a jihad against the French, British and Russians in their muslim colonies. It was a total failure, since a) the muslim leaders knew that they wouldn't get any support from Germany when a rebellion was raised (due to Britain controlling the seas) and b) internal divisions, that made big uprisings impossible. I guess that similar effort against Ireland would have the same result.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Without WW1 they may continue their reform agenda into education, infrastructure, research or labour organisation. Already 1914 Germany had conquered far more Nobel Prizes in science than Britain, which could drive someone like Churchill to change the education system. But with a far bigger budget than IOTLs reformers.
I disagree. The first world war IOTL vastly increased the credibility of state control over the economy. I mean, nationalization gained far greater support after ww1.

Next, housing was treated as a public service for the first time following the Addison Act 1919 as a direct result of the failed promise of "A country fits for heroes". ITTL, such a promise would not exist.

Education Act in 1918 was passed partly because the importance of technical training was realized during wartime industrial mobilization (yoiu have to train women when they replace men in factories).
 
Last edited:
Not sure if it's been mentioned but without world war one the home rule movement would have likely won out in Ireland. That gives Britain another 3 million-ish population wise. The Irish economy was destroyed and retarded by the early nationalists perhaps home rule would bring more to Britian.
 
Well, even so, nationalization would be inevitable as soon as Lloyd George becomes PM in a non-Tory government.

In fact, they already nationalized telephone and telegraph services.
While I think that nationalisation in the 1920s would have been a good thing (if done correctly) it wasn't inevitable, especially without World War One.

It was the state control of the railways during World War One and the advantages of centralised control that were thereby revealed that led to widespread support for nationalisation (Churchill suggested running them at a loss to support British industry) or a least some rationalisation. This led to the grouping of the Main Line railways in 1923 and the nationalisation of all public transport in London in 1933.

No World War One means no state control of the railways in World War One (IIRC it continued until 1921) so support for nationalisation would have remained confined to the Labour Movement. It also means the decline of the coal trade is slowed down, the growth of competition from road transport is slowed down and probably no 1920s slump in British heavy industry. The Government and the people who elected it might think that having 120-odd companies run the railways wasn't perfect, but was adequate and probably think that they had more important things to do.

Nationalisation of the railways and even large scale mergers went against about 70 years of Government policy. There were a great many mergers up to about 1855 which left a great deal of the network under the control of the "Big Five" railway companies (i.e. the Great Northern, Great Western, London & North Western, Midland and North Eastern Railways). However, from then on HMG was reluctant to authorise further mergers.

I can't remember the exact dates, but there were two attempts to create what was effectively the Southern Railway (1923-48) between 1850 and 1875 by the merger of the LBSCR, LSWR and SER. There were two attempts by the LNWR and Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway to merge before the Government finally allowed it in 1921. The Midland and Glasgow & South Western Railways also had at least one merger attempt blocked by HMG. I don't remember the date but in the far north the Great North of Scotland and Highland Railways attempt to merge was blocked too. As late as 1906 HMG blocked an application for the "Three Greats", i.e. the Great Central, Great Eastern and Great Northern Railways to merge only for them to be forced into a merger in 1923 as part of the Grouping.

The only big merger in this period was the forced merger of the London Chatham and Dover Railway with the South Eastern Railway into the South Eastern & Chatham because the excessive competition between the two was doing a lot more harm than good.

Which is the crux of the problem. Her Majesty's Government thought competition between many railway companies was preferable to the economies of scale that might result by the grouping of the railways into a handful of firms or even a single firm.

If you really want to rationalise the railway companies then your POD should be 1873. Some of the merger applications referred to above led to the Government appointing a Royal Commission to study the issue. The Committee's Report recommended that the existing companies should be rationalised into regional groups (IIRC there would be five or six of them) which over time might become one huge firm which would be privately or state owned.

Therefore if I were you I'd bring the OTL Grouping forward from 1923 to 1873 and then have nationalisation brought forward from 1948 to 1923. It would also be a good thing if you sorted out the London Underground by having the District and Metropolitan railways merge when the Circle Line was completed.

If I was me I'd have some more piecemeal mergers (but using the magic of hindsight to make sure that they were the correct ones), but still have the Grouping in 1923 and Nationalisation in 1948.

Note

I don't have my copy of The Oxford Companion to British Railway History to check the dates for the above.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
No World War One means no state control of the railways in World War One (IIRC it continued until 1921) so support for nationalisation would have remained confined to the Labour Movement.
Well, never underestimate Labour movement.

In short and medium term (and long term if Labour never displaces Liberal), many Liberal governments would have to rely on Labour support, even. One of them would have to do so to keep Labour on their side. Not to mention the rising radical wing of the Liberal Party, especially the younger MPs.
 
Well, never underestimate Labour movement.
Don't overestimate it either.

Don't underestimate the British ruling class for that matter. If they were all "upper class twits" it wouldn't have lasted for centuries.

World War One may have culled tens of thousands of upper class twits, but it probably killed even more of the intelligent ones. Also World War One in itself did massive damage to the prestige of the ruling class. No World War One = no massive damage.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Don't underestimate the British ruling class for that matter. If they were all "upper class twits" it wouldn't have lasted for centuries.
Progressive taxation and land reform are waiting for them (I mean the land-owning class, the main targets for the radicals and socialists before the war). And it won't be nice.

Don't overestimate it either.
Well, between 1900 and 1906, popular votes for Labour rose from 62000 to over 500000, achieved without universal suffrage. Butterflying them after 1900 is ASB.

There was a reason why the prewar Liberal government had to enact reforms that line with Labour agenda, especially when they began to rely on Labour support.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
Not sure if it's been mentioned but without world war one the home rule movement would have likely won out in Ireland. That gives Britain another 3 million-ish population wise. The Irish economy was destroyed and retarded by the early nationalists perhaps home rule would bring more to Britian.
How? Can you explain more?
 

hipper

Banned
Not sure if it's been mentioned but without world war one the home rule movement would have likely won out in Ireland. That gives Britain another 3 million-ish population wise. The Irish economy was destroyed and retarded by the early nationalists perhaps home rule would bring more to Britian.

Ireland was in a currency union with the UK untill 1978, so Irish independence had little impact on the Economy of the UK and Ireland, though stopping the civil war would have improved things though.
 

Deleted member 94680

Not sure if it's been mentioned but without world war one the home rule movement would have likely won out in Ireland. That gives Britain another 3 million-ish population wise. The Irish economy was destroyed and retarded by the early nationalists perhaps home rule would bring more to Britian.

I don't follow you? How would it give Britain another 3 million population-wise?

Are you under the impression that Ireland was self-governing before Home Rule and HR was about bringing it back into the Union? Because that definitely wasn't what HR was about.
 
Progressive taxation and land reform are waiting for them (I mean the land-owning class, the main targets for the radicals and socialists before the war). And it won't be nice.
It'll still be a picnic compared to what befell them in World War One. They lost a lot of money as well as sons and prestige in World War One too.
 
Well, between 1900 and 1906, popular votes for Labour rose from 62,000 to over 500,000, achieved without universal suffrage. Butterflying them after 1900 is ASB.
1900 and 1906 are after 1900. Not all working class men vote Labour. Not all women vote Labour. The first British woman MP to take her seat was a Conservative who also happened to be an aunt of Joyce Grenfell.
There was a reason why the pre-war Liberal government had to enact reforms that line with Labour agenda, especially when they began to rely on Labour support.
Have you heard of One Nation Conservatism? It's somewhat like German Christian Democracy. That is very likely the route that the Conservatives would follow to take votes away from Labour and the Liberals.
 
Top