How would British economy looks like without ww1?

We've not addressed the question, what does Britain's economy look like without WW1? Instead we're comparing it to others.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
We've not addressed the question, what does Britain's economy look like without WW1? Instead we're comparing it to others.
Faster deindustrialization. I have mentioned above.

The first world war actually created an incentive to build up new industries due to rising demand (new technology and electric power must be applied to meet demand for munitions)
 
Last edited:
Faster deindustrialization. I have mentioned above.
One thing the empire has going for it is agricultural and petroleum resources. If a preferential economic pact can be made with the Dominions, the empire would own much of the world's grain producing lands. And then there's oil.... with Nigeria and much of the Middle East in British hands, once these discoveries are made, BP will be one of most powerful firms in the world. Then there's rubber and tin in Malaya, diamonds in Africa, etc, etc.
 
One thing that can't be under-emphasized is the demographic impact. The British and French lost an entire generation of productive young men, including some of the best, the brightest, the most talented and inventive. No WWI, all those young men live, they work, they write, create, invent, start businesses, travel, marry, have children.

And I'd imagine that the British government wouldn't have spent itself into ruin on futile military investment.
 
One thing that can't be under-emphasized is the demographic impact. The British and French lost an entire generation of productive young men, including some of the best, the brightest, the most talented and inventive. No WWI, all those young men live, they work, they write, create, invent, start businesses, travel, marry, have children.
It's a very good point. We forget that due to ill health much of the poverty-striken population of Britain was unable to serve, so it was the sons of the educated and upper classes that was lost.

Makes you wonder if Labour would have become a strong party, or if socialism would have taken such a hold in Britain. So many butterflies....
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Makes you wonder if Labour would have become a strong party, or if socialism would have taken such a hold in Britain.
The rise of Labour as the main opposition is no longer guaranteed, since the reform tendency of Liberals actually accelerated since 1910 until the ww1, and of course clearly outperformed the Tory. Actually, I prefer to see a strong Liberal Party going down the New Deal path. Becoming "the party of New Deal" would allow them to replace the Tory as the natural party. I like the Liberals' tendency to limit military spending for other more productive segments.

One thing the empire has going for it is agricultural and petroleum resources. If a preferential economic pact can be made with the Dominions, the empire would own much of the world's grain producing lands. And then there's oil.... with Nigeria and much of the Middle East in British hands, once these discoveries are made, BP will be one of most powerful firms in the world. Then there's rubber and tin in Malaya, diamonds in Africa, etc, etc.
The problem is that the pro-free trade faction would be much stronger than IOTL. If the Tory tries to call for Tariff Reform in their manifesto, they would be flayed like in 1906 election at least during 1920s.

If BP somehow becomes more powerful than IOTL, it would be a boost for petrochemical.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
We forget that due to ill health much of the poverty-striken population of Britain was unable to serve, so it was the sons of the educated and upper classes that was lost.
Well, many of the sons of the landed gentry would be culled by Liberal land reforms (IOTL, after the war, as many of these men died, land reform was no longer a hot issue). In the worst case, it could wipe out a good deal of Tory power base.
 

Deleted member 94680

Well, many of the sons of the landed gentry would be culled by Liberal land reforms (IOTL, after the war, as many of these men died, land reform was no longer a hot issue). In the worst case, it could wipe out a good deal of Tory power base.

Liberal land reform wouldn't have killed these people though, unless your ATL Liberal government has some terrible plans..?
 
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.

I meant that without the war Home rule would have passed and the economy of the United Kingdom would have had more resources in the form of the south.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Liberal land reform wouldn't have killed these people though, unless your ATL Liberal government has some terrible plans..?
I mean many of them would see their weath drop substantially due to land taxation and death duties. Many would see their power and influence dwindle with their wealth.
 

Deleted member 94680

I meant that without the war Home rule would have passed and the economy of the United Kingdom would have had more resources in the form of the south.

No it wouldn't if Home Rule passed. If Home Rule passed, Britain would have lost the resources of the South as they did OTL, only earlier.
 

Deleted member 94680

Well, if Sinn Fenn still wipe out the IPP

I don't think a 'simple' no WWI would remove the rise of Sinn Fein.

If Home Rule passes, it's a peaceful step on the route to an independent Ireland. I seriously don't think Home Rule would keep Eire in the Union indefinitely. It would effectively legitimise the Dáil Éireann that they set up OTL when refusing to sit in Westminster. By making republican MPs, they would be giving a voice to a referendum on independence in a matter of years.
 
I wonder if growing German economic might would lead to a closed British Imperial market, and an abandonment of Smith's free market ideas, instead putting in place his proposal for an imperial economic federation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith#In_British_Imperial_debates

If Britain and its empire (24% of the world's population and land area) block the import and sale of German goods, well, that forces Germany to find other markets or be limited in its continued success.

Britain and its Empire enjoyed a favourable balance of trade with Germany, exporting mostly raw materials, so I doubt the Dominions would be in favour of such a policy. Below are the figures for exports from the British Empire to Germany in 1913. Canada exported more than $15 worth of goods to Germany, but only imported $3 million worth of goods from Germany. For Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and India the situation was also similar. Imposing restrictive tariffs or a blockade during a time of peace would have been foolish from an economic stand point.

Exports to Germany in 1913
United Kingdom $208,454,000 (Coal, Cotton Yarn, Worsted Yarn)
India $128,936,000 (Jute, Rice, Cotton, Hides, Copra ,Rubber)
Australia $70,468,000 worth of goods (Wool, Lead Orers, Copper, Zinc).
British West Africa $32,010,000 (Palm Nuts, Cocoa, Palm Oil, Peanuts)

South Africa $16,570,000 (Wool, Ostrich Feathers)
Canada $15,293,000 (81% wheat)
Straits Settlements $5,792,000 (Rattan, Rubber)
New Zealand $2,397,000 (wool)
British East Africa $1,804,000 (copra)

Additionally, Germany actually imported more goods from from the United States in 1913 with $407,246,000 and Russia $339,055,000 than it did from Britain, and these were almost exclusively raw materials. Raw cotton from the United States accounted for one-fourth of all goods sold to Germany, with wheat and lard being the next largest items. From Russia too, grain, foodstuffs and timber all dominated. Germany had supplanted Britain as a leading exporter of industrial goods for much of Europe and was second after Britain in South America. It was there where the economic rivalry with Britain was most acute.

If protective tariffs were to be implemented, the U.S. was far more of a commercial "threat" to trade between Britain and its Empire. Germany was replacing Britain in Europe and Latin America, with Brazil, Argentina, Chile etc importing larger numbers of industrial goods from Germany. The U.S. on the other hand was supplanting Britain's role in its Dominions, particularly in Canada where American industrial goods had supplanted those from Britain. In Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, American imports were increasing far quicker than British ones prior to the war. Importantly, the U.S. was also gaining ground in trade with Japan and China, the West Indies, Mexico and Central America.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
If protective tariffs were to be implemented, the U.S. was far more of a commercial "threat" to trade between Britain and its Empire.
Germany was more of a commercial threat to British home market, but the US was more of a threat to Empire markets.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The failure to adopt new technology and new methods in industrial production would be still a big problem for British industries, especially the staple industries.

Also, we must know that before ww1, British government and politicians had absolutely no idea of an industrial policy, unlike those in France, Germany or the US. This alone would put Britain in a disadvantage. The war taught them what an industrial policy look like and how to implement it.

If they actually had a clue of industrial policy, they would have tried to industrialize South Ireland.
 
If they actually had a clue of industrial policy, they would have tried to industrialize South Ireland.

Why? What do they get out of the Republic (as it now is) that they don't get out of the English North and Midlands, Glasgow etc?

Especially considering that Home Rule was a major issue pre-1914 and any money put into industrialising what was to become the Republic would be lost post-1922 and would probably never achieve anything anyway considering the trouble in Ireland after 1916...
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Why? What do they get out of the Republic (as it now is) that they don't get out of the English North and Midlands, Glasgow etc?

Especially considering that Home Rule was a major issue pre-1914 and any money put into industrialising what was to become the Republic would be lost post-1922 and would probably never achieve anything anyway considering the trouble in Ireland after 1916...
Economic disparity between Ulster and the rest of Ireland was a core reason for the Ulster problem.
 
Economic disparity between Ulster and the rest of Ireland was a core reason for the Ulster problem.

But not the only reason and (given the policies of UK governments before 1914) a reason that was gradually losing credibility thanks to various land reforms. I also doubt that there was all that much disparity between most of Ulster (ie, pretty much anywhere outside of Belfast, Lisburn and Londonderry) and the rest of the island. Outside of Belfast's heavy industry and the linen in parts of Down and Londonderry most of Ulster would have relied on agriculture just as the rest of the island did.

No matter how industrialised you make the south of the island, religious and historical grievances mean that there will always be a push for Home Rule and eventual self rule.

So what does the UK government get out of spending a lot of money in the south for very little (if any, considering the cost of build an entirely new infrastructure) profit bearing in mind that Ireland was already a net drain on the UK economy?
 
But not the only reason and (given the policies of UK governments before 1914) a reason that was gradually losing credibility thanks to various land reforms. I also doubt that there was all that much disparity between most of Ulster (ie, pretty much anywhere outside of Belfast, Lisburn and Londonderry) and the rest of the island. Outside of Belfast's heavy industry and the linen in parts of Down and Londonderry most of Ulster would have relied on agriculture just as the rest of the island did.
Oddly enough, the Irish Land Acts had a retrograde effect on Irish economic growth. The old landlords get a very bad press since the Wyndham Acts as absentee bloodsuckers but it is impossible to read an old Irish agricultural journal of the late Victorian or early Edwardian period without noticing how much of a contribution the landed class actually made to agricultural improvement through introducing improved breeding stock and seed, new machinery and processing plant and new crop rotation and fertiliser techniques. Now they didn't do this entirely out of the goodness of their hearts obviously, they wanted a higher rate of return from their tenants and to increase the value of their land. Nevertheless they did it. Once of the consequences of land reform was a slowdown of farm modernisation and a growth of agricultural practices that degraded the quality of the soil. A bit out of period, but read Paul Rouse: Ireland's own soil 1945-65 which demonstrates some of these issues. It wasn't until the late sixties or early seventies that the Irish State got its act together in that regard. In fairness to them they had to go slowly and gently as the peasant farmers were the bulk of the electorate and resented interference.

You also underrate how industrialised/urban the Six Counties were by 1912. I don't have 1911 census figures handy but the 1926 census gave them a population of 1,250,561. At that time around 35% of the population were engaged in either agriculture or agricultural processing (malting, brewing, distilling, milling, cheese and butter production). That obviously means that 65% were not (arguably textile manufacture and thread making could be defined as agricultural processing (from flax) also but were and are not so considered). Remember that in Edwardian Ulster, Omagh, Strabane, Dungannon, Banbridge, Dromore, Comber, Newtownards, Ballymoney and Lurgan were all prosperous mill towns and Gilford, Milltown (Co. Armagh, where the penalty kick was invented), Gracehill, Donaghcloney, Balnamore, mill villages. Coleraine and Portadown were mill and foundry towns. Newry was a mill and foundry town and transport hub. The urban working class and lower middle class was sufficiently large to support three good sized holiday resort towns -Bangor, Portrush and Newcastle. In the Free State/ROI the figure for population engaged in either agriculture or agricultural processing was greater than 60%. Religion and ethnicity were also factors of course but I think Thomas 1195 makes a very fair point.
 
Top