Industrialization and Global Economics without the World Wars?

Let's start with the big obvious stuff
No large scale collapse of trade, this had tremendous effect on many countries even not involved in the war.
No wartime large scale involvement of the government into the economy, this had great effects especially in the US and Germany
No destruction of economic assets in many countries due to war.
A lot of people that died during the war simply don't die, this had a tremendous effect on many fiends, from physics to engineering
A lot of war specific stuff isn't discovered or produced.
Higher degree of political stability inside every country involved or otherwise.
Smaller deficits and lower taxes overall.
Socialism takes a big hit overall, at least the more radical side. That said, there is no red scare, so for example the socialist party would continue to exist in the US
Overall less political polarization in most countries.
A lot of people aren't called to arms and keep living their lives
Now let's get into the situation inside specific countries
Sweden for example is one of the very few countries that benefitted from the war, because it was able to sell iron to the great powers involved in the war, fixing a lot of the financial problems that Sweden had.
Italy, AH and Russia would continue their incredible economic growth, with the first two converging with North western Europe by the 1940s.
All the countries that are especially dependent on international trade, like many South American countries, Canada, Australia and a lot of European colonies would experience stronger growth. More political stability would especially benefit South American countries like Argentina, Chile and Brazil, which would also see a more stable Flux of immigrants.
Oh course there would be another panic, probably around 1915.
The great depression of 1929 doesn't happen, but a slowdown is possible around the same time. This might have political consequences in countries that were growing fast and were politically unstable, such us Russia.
There would not be the power vacuum in China that allowed Japan to take control of large swaths of China. This might result into a more stable China overall.
Other miscellaneous: another minor war in the Balkans is possible and an Ottoman expedition into Arabia is plausible. The Arabs would not get the support from the UK and would probably lose, but of course the issues with the Arabs wouldn't end there.
Remaining on the topic, the Berlin-Bagdad railroad would be completed and the ottomans would start see the benefits of their large oil reserves. But Oil would have to compete with solar power, which was being developed at the time by the American inventor Frank Schuman and raised the interest of the German and British government before the war
 
Let's start with the big obvious stuff
No large scale collapse of trade, this had tremendous effect on many countries even not involved in the war.
No wartime large scale involvement of the government into the economy, this had great effects especially in the US and Germany
No destruction of economic assets in many countries due to war.
A lot of people that died during the war simply don't die, this had a tremendous effect on many fiends, from physics to engineering
A lot of war specific stuff isn't discovered or produced.
Higher degree of political stability inside every country involved or otherwise.
Smaller deficits and lower taxes overall.
Socialism takes a big hit overall, at least the more radical side. That said, there is no red scare, so for example the socialist party would continue to exist in the US
Overall less political polarization in most countries.
A lot of people aren't called to arms and keep living their lives
Now let's get into the situation inside specific countries
Sweden for example is one of the very few countries that benefitted from the war, because it was able to sell iron to the great powers involved in the war, fixing a lot of the financial problems that Sweden had.
Italy, AH and Russia would continue their incredible economic growth, with the first two converging with North western Europe by the 1940s.
All the countries that are especially dependent on international trade, like many South American countries, Canada, Australia and a lot of European colonies would experience stronger growth. More political stability would especially benefit South American countries like Argentina, Chile and Brazil, which would also see a more stable Flux of immigrants.
Oh course there would be another panic, probably around 1915.
The great depression of 1929 doesn't happen, but a slowdown is possible around the same time. This might have political consequences in countries that were growing fast and were politically unstable, such us Russia.
There would not be the power vacuum in China that allowed Japan to take control of large swaths of China. This might result into a more stable China overall.
Other miscellaneous: another minor war in the Balkans is possible and an Ottoman expedition into Arabia is plausible. The Arabs would not get the support from the UK and would probably lose, but of course the issues with the Arabs wouldn't end there.
Remaining on the topic, the Berlin-Bagdad railroad would be completed and the ottomans would start see the benefits of their large oil reserves. But Oil would have to compete with solar power, which was being developed at the time by the American inventor Frank Schuman and raised the interest of the German and British government before the war
How would immigration/emigration impact all this? Europe going to have a much larger population especially Russia. Won’t Germany and Western Europe have to deal with large influx of Easterner European immigrants especially of Jews from the Russian Empire? Will Europe have a overpopulation issue?
 
How would immigration/emigration impact all this? Europe going to have a much larger population especially Russia. Won’t Germany and Western Europe have to deal with large influx of Easterner European immigrants especially of Jews from the Russian Empire? Will Europe have a overpopulation issue?

There will be a lot more emigration from Europe to North America and various colonies. This could butterfly away the Great Migration in America though.
 
Foreign Investment

This table shows the distribution and value of the UK's foreign investment in 1913.

2VgzeS1.jpg

The bulk of Britain's foreign investment was in the Empire and substantial proportions were invested in North and South America.

Between 1885 and 1900, global foreign investment almost doubled and then almost doubled again to 1914. In 1914 46% of this investment was from the UK, 21% French and 16% German. Only 6% was American. Of the £1,610,000,000 of French foreign investment, only 30% (£488m) was invested outside Europe. For Germany's £1,292,000,000 a higher 45% (£578m) was invested outside Europe. On the other hand, 94% of Britain's £3,859,000,000 was invested around the globe (£3,617m). Only a miserly £200m was invested in Europe.

This table shows the amounts and proportions of investment and trade in relation to GDP for all the major powers.

Te9FHad.jpg


A surge in Britain's foreign investing occurred in the period 1900-1914 and 10% of Britain's GDP was derived from interest earned from her global investments.

eL1VPyW.jpg


Not until 1993 would trade, as a proportion of the global economy, reach the levels it had attained by 1913; the international flows of capital, not until 1996.

wwQhMzS.jpg


This graph shows that foreign investment only grew 5% from 1914-1930 compared to the 90% increases in the 15 years to 1914. The dashed lines are where the levels could be if the trend continued. Note how the US and GB has converged in the postwar era, this was noted in USN submissions for building programs in the 1920's. While tariffs grew in the latter part of the 19th century they were largely overcome by technological advances and the free-trade areas within European empires. However, trade restrictions mushroomed after WWI, exacerbated by the rampant protectionist policies of the countries created by the break-up of the Ottoman, German and Austro-Hungarian empires. Protectionist impulses still lurk, however, often manifesting themselves in currency devaluations to "improve the balance of trade.”

This table lists the costs of the war to each power and expressed as a proportion of 1913 GDP. It also includes the proportion of defense spending in years,for example Canada spent 2 centuries of 1913 Defense spending on WW1. Note how low Debt to GDP ratio was in 1913, the envy of many countries today.

IjcHQYu.jpg


There was also a huge impact for inflation. Here are some graphs detailing price increases in energy, and manufacturing and the price hikes being permanent post-war.

ZFsewDc.jpg

6p per gallon!

kzBf0Ub.jpg



4dLtBwB.jpg


K4GASgD.jpg


The pre-war dip in motor vehicles is probably the influence of the introduction of Ford's production line.

World War I destroyed the global integration of capital markets. The Gold Standard never returned despite attempts after the war to revive it. The system of issuing bonds and shares internationally failed to recover from the war, and stock exchanges listed fewer international shares. The ownership of stocks and bonds from other countries shrank dramatically.
 
It illustrates the extent of the economic damage done to the 1913 world. International investment still increased and The US had been increasing too so the boom was not just European.
 
As a rough guesstimate of the impact of manpower losses, Australia sent 300,000 men over-seas. 60,000 died and of the rest none were discharged fit. This was 40% of the working age male population.
Lets assume in 1913, males are responsible for 80% of GDP.
  • 1913 Population = 4,820,172
  • About 2,410,086 are male
  • 750,000 working age male (based on 300k being 40%)
  • 690,000 survivors (50% with some form of disability/injury)
This suggests perhaps at least 8% less production for a generation on 1913 levels. Far more than the 1.2% of population loss suffered in the war.
Perhaps by the same proportion, German losses of 2m men out of 68m Germans in 1913 would equate to a permanent loss of 13% of GDP from productive manpower.
The loss of males in war didn't impact breeding stock, females just bred with other males. The Spanish Flu did impact numbers of healthy young females - assume 4-5 million. The bigger impact is in women chosing to have 2, 3 or 4 children. In poor economic circumstances between the wars then this would put a crimp on the natural size of families.

By the 1930’s the war had cost Australia about £800m.
 

Deleted member 1487

World War I destroyed the global integration of capital markets. The Gold Standard never returned despite attempts after the war to revive it. The system of issuing bonds and shares internationally failed to recover from the war, and stock exchanges listed fewer international shares. The ownership of stocks and bonds from other countries shrank dramatically.
What? The Gold Standard came back WW1 in Europe, but was killed off by the Great Depression until Bretton Woods:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Depression_and_World_War_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Bretton_Woods
The Nixon Shock finally killed it off for good in the early 1970s.

Arguably the return to gold after WW1 helped cause the Great Depression.

As a rough guesstimate of the impact of manpower losses, Australia sent 300,000 men over-seas. 60,000 died and of the rest none were discharged fit.
That doesn't sound right...none of the returning soldiers were fit, all disabled? Do you have a source on that?

This says otherwise:
https://www.awm.gov.au/wartime/article2
When repatriation of the Australian Imperial Force was completed in 1920, 264,000 men and women had returned to Australia, of whom 151,000 were deemed “fit”, and 113,000 “unfit”. Many had returned throughout the war, beginning in 1915 with those suffering from disease and injuries; then as fighting on Gallipoli, Sinai–Palestine and the Western Front progressed, the wounded began steadily returning home as well.

  • 690,000 survivors (50% with some form of disability/injury)
Math is off on that, as there would have only been 240k survivors of WW1 if 300k were sent and 60k didn't come back. More than half of the 690k men would have not been in WW1 and that isn't even counting the numbers of men that age into to that working age age-range every year.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They went back onto Gold because they wanted the pre war system back but it was never going to work and did more harm in the economic wreckage of the post war world.
 

Deleted member 1487

They went back onto Gold because they wanted the pre war system back but it was never going to work and did more harm in the economic wreckage of the post war world.
Sure, but they went back to it until the Great Depression made them abandon it...then they went back to it again after WW2 with Bretton Woods.
 
Even Charlie Chaplin had an opinion.Winston Churchill had Charlie Chaplin as a guest at Chartwell at 1931. Over dinner, Chaplin opened the conversation by saying,"You made a great mistake when you went back to the gold standard at the wrong parity of exchange in 1925." Churchill was somewhat taken aback. As the film star proceeded to hold forth at length about the subject with a great deal of knowledge, Churchill, who hated to be reminded of past mistakes, sank into a morose silence, a mood broken only when the comedian picked up two rolls of bread, put two forks in the and did the famous dance from 'The Gold Rush'.
 
Brazil is going to get massively handcapped without the brains received during both world wars and the massive amount of land lease, industrial help and foreign investiment that we received in the second war. The most basic technology to get the steel to be used on consumer goods couldn't be produced here until Pres. Vargas signed a agreement for the USA to give us the technology in exange for our entry in the war.

Brazil most likely remain agrarian but to be honest our process of development was so crushed in the 90s that things wouldn't be so different.
 

Deleted member 1487

No where in there does it support your claim that 100% came back unfit for anything. Plus apply for pension help doesn't mean they were necessarily disabled either or any less effective as workers depending on the field they were working in, or even that those who came back 'unfit' in some way weren't able to work or be productive in some field even if it wasn't the one they would have chosen if totally fit. Still it is an interesting corrective to the official numbers.
 

Deleted member 1487

750,000 working age males in 1913
Less 60,000 dead
Equals 690,000 ‘survivors’ of the 1913 pool.

Yes some will enter the workforce but also some will retire.
Not the part I was referring to, I was talking about the 50% of working force being disabled; even if you include everyone shipped off and the dead, that still less than 50% and you still haven't proven everyone that came back was unfit to work or less able to work than before.

Also given that the age distribution for most western societies in the 1910s skewed much younger, there were probably more men entering the work force than leaving it yearly, with the war years of course skewing things due to the unnatural death rate for prime age men.
 
...none of the returning soldiers were fit, all disabled?

...your claim that 100% came back unfit for anything.

...50% of working force being disabled

No you're confusing or conflating 'unfit' with TPI (totally and permanently incapacitated). By 1938, there were 77,000 incapacitated soldiers and 180,000 dependents were still on pensions. Of the TPI there were 1600 of these poor cases still alive 20 years after the war ended.
anzac-hostel-enlargement_tcm16-44781.jpg


At its peak in 1932 there were 283,322 soldiers and dependents being paid war pensions. 'Unfit' is generally unfit for further military service. My Great Uncle blew his hand off on his first day in action. His battalion was supposed to be bringing munitions forward as carrying parties but they found themselves cut off in the front line. They had to fuse the boxes of grenades that they had been carrying without any training, during a firefight, and in the dark... 'Unfit' for further service but was able to work in a timber-mill with a hook for his hand.

The Australian WW1 Official history was a remarkable achievement. The British Army tried to control the process. They could do this easily in GB as they controlled sources of information and those doing the writing were serving officers so their careers were under threat if they didn't write what they were told. However, the Brits couldn't control the Australians as the head historian Charles Bean was a civilian (and a journalist) and the Australian Defense Minister had the foresight to have the records and primary sources duplicated before leaving Europe at the end of the war.

This article makes the case that only about 10% of those who served in a war zone were left unscathed but even this figure could be high.
https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_losses_australia

Compared to their 1913 selves all the veterans were harmed in some way. Their mental problems we can only imagine as these were denied, not acknowledged and those afflicted usually had to suffer in silence.
 
Brazil is going to get massively handcapped without the brains received during both world wars and the massive amount of land lease, industrial help and foreign investiment that we received in the second war. The most basic technology to get the steel to be used on consumer goods couldn't be produced here until Pres. Vargas signed a agreement for the USA to give us the technology in exange for our entry in the war.

Brazil most likely remain agrarian but to be honest our process of development was so crushed in the 90s that things wouldn't be so different.
Brazil might actually get more investment from the US and UK. The US is likely to be much more focused on the Western Hemisphere and to lesser extent maybe the Far East too. They aren’t going to be investing as heavily into Europe without the world wars. The US especially won’t be as dominant in Europe economically as otl. Trade is going to be more mutual and less one sided by the two. Germany probably dominates mainland Europe economically while Britain has a tight grip on most global trade. Britain controls 1/3 of the world and has the world largest navy. Germany might be more advanced in industry and have better production but Britain has control over a large amount of the world’s raw resources. Britain and US could have a odd relationship when it comes to investing in Latin America or South America. Britain probably distance itself more from Europe then otl and starts focusing more overseas especially in places like Latin America. The question is how much would US and UK business and investors blur together in Latin America. A lot of British and New England capitalist often worked together and mixed.
 
This is just a microscosm of the world, but look at the immigration levels to Canada prior to the war and what followed. The Canadian economy was in the midst of an unprecedented boom that would have seen a far more populous Canada by the 21st century if immigration hadn't collapsed from the war. From stats Canada
 

Attachments

  • c-g01-eng.png
    c-g01-eng.png
    127.1 KB · Views: 70
Top