Why was it that the German Empire was (at least, perceived as) so much more powerful than France? Was it because of better industrialization due to more resources, or were there other reasons, like France's demographic slowdown?
Why Germany over France?
- Thread starter Shtudmuffin
- Start date
Was it really? I think that pound for pound, France was quite powerful and had at least the 3rd and probably the 2nd strongest land army in the world before WWI. French industrialization proceeded a bit slower than some nations but it was not that slow. Besides, there was just not as much coal as in Britain or Germany and the loss of Alsace Lorraine and its coal to Prussia was not exactly helpful. And even if French industrialization was behind Germany, it was never lacking in the realm of innovation; the French were often at the forefront of scientific advancement and were eager to adopt new technbologies.
But it is that demographic slowdown in the midst of such growth by its rivals that I think made the most difference. Why it happened I don't know but there is no question that fewer people most likely meant slower economic growth, less labor force, a smaller tax base and of course, smaller armies than what could have been managed had French population growth better matched England's and Germany's. It also might have meant more French immigration to the US or Canada.
But it is that demographic slowdown in the midst of such growth by its rivals that I think made the most difference. Why it happened I don't know but there is no question that fewer people most likely meant slower economic growth, less labor force, a smaller tax base and of course, smaller armies than what could have been managed had French population growth better matched England's and Germany's. It also might have meant more French immigration to the US or Canada.
Last edited:
By the late 19th century, Germany was just industrially superior. They had enormous coal reserves which France lacked. Germany also leapfrogged ahead of France in railroads quite early. Railroads were seen as a component of German nationalism as it could unite the various statelets into one nation. In France, railroads competed with pre-existing water routes so there were existing interests acting against the spread of rail. I think these two advantages were a major factor in Germany bypassing France as an economic power.
The other factor was greater German population which happened just as this industrial power was overtaking France. The two combined was just too much for France to happen alone.
Of course, the other major factor was the Fall of France in 1940 which no one expected, and which was in many ways a strange fluke. That perception has caused people to overlook the many strengths that France had and still has.
I could name many advantages that Germany had - its Prussian military traditions, scientific and academic strengths, and individual economic strengths, but the fact is that France has just as strong heritage in all of these areas.
The other factor was greater German population which happened just as this industrial power was overtaking France. The two combined was just too much for France to happen alone.
Of course, the other major factor was the Fall of France in 1940 which no one expected, and which was in many ways a strange fluke. That perception has caused people to overlook the many strengths that France had and still has.
I could name many advantages that Germany had - its Prussian military traditions, scientific and academic strengths, and individual economic strengths, but the fact is that France has just as strong heritage in all of these areas.
Example (from the Rise and Fall of the Great Powers):
68 of a thousand army recruits were illiterate in France as of the early 20th century.
Sounds good, right? Austria-Hungary is 220 out of a thousand and poor Italy is 330 out of a thousand (I don't have figures for Russia or Britain).
Germany? 1 out of a thousand.
France certainly was not a slouch, but it was outproduced in more categories than bear thinking about.
68 of a thousand army recruits were illiterate in France as of the early 20th century.
Sounds good, right? Austria-Hungary is 220 out of a thousand and poor Italy is 330 out of a thousand (I don't have figures for Russia or Britain).
Germany? 1 out of a thousand.
France certainly was not a slouch, but it was outproduced in more categories than bear thinking about.
As other people have said on the thread. Germany had access to more industrial resources, had a faster growing population (lots of orphans for factory work 
) and a better educated population. That isn't to overshadow the fact that France did a lot to pull itself out of its relatively weak situation after the Franco-Prussian war. Or the fact that the French still had a few things over the Germans, like a larger overseas empire, greater foreign investments and some pretty cool artillery in the form of the 75mm field gun. Not quite sure how the last one compared to the German artillery but it is a sign that France wasn't some ineffectual disaster in the making like Tsarist Russia was.
) and a better educated population. That isn't to overshadow the fact that France did a lot to pull itself out of its relatively weak situation after the Franco-Prussian war. Or the fact that the French still had a few things over the Germans, like a larger overseas empire, greater foreign investments and some pretty cool artillery in the form of the 75mm field gun. Not quite sure how the last one compared to the German artillery but it is a sign that France wasn't some ineffectual disaster in the making like Tsarist Russia was.Not so sure that's fair.As other people have said on the thread. Germany had access to more industrial resources, had a faster growing population (lots of orphans for factory work
Look at the statistics Elfwine posted. Although France was one of the best-educated countries in Europe (a greatly improved situation from the 1870's), it still couldn't quite match up to Germany in terms of literacy rates.
68 out of a thousand translates to.7 percent...Which means 99.3 percent were literate. Germany also has the advantage of having a great many autonomous states for a far longer period, which each ruler championing his/her own version of the Arts within his state. more schools and institutions of higher learning with their own particularly influential set of patrons.
France is a unified state with a single government responsible for those same things across the entire breadth of the nation. Germans may have a better standard for the basics of education...the three R's as it were.. but when you get to more theoretical work and philosophical discourse, French Universities probably rank ahead of all of their German contemporaries.
Two points:
1) Italy was fairly similar to Germany in having being divided into several states that actually had some history in scholarly competition, but still had fairly high analphebetism rates if compared to the rest of Western Europe.
2) I think that German universities from 1870 onwards, and probably before, were at least on par with French ones in genral quality, though I admit that a quantitive comparison would be hard to assess. Honestly I do not have any hard number to support this.
I am not very sure of what to derive from the above, but I guess that French relative perceived weakness was the byproduct of several factors.
To be fair to France, it has to be said that France actually managed to withstand Germany in WWI, though I'd easily concede that France alone would not have been able to defeat Germany.
wolf_brother
Banned
Coal & Iron
Population
Prestige
For all it's power though Berlin was constantly punching well outside of it's league. Being #1 (or, more accurately, #2 or 3) doesn't matter for much if you piss off all your neighbors.
Population
Prestige
For all it's power though Berlin was constantly punching well outside of it's league. Being #1 (or, more accurately, #2 or 3) doesn't matter for much if you piss off all your neighbors.
Last edited:
As someone who usually prefers to defend France as underrated in these kind of threads (and I think those who know my beliefs I know that I'm an Austrophile first and an Anglophile second, so France is as best not one of them):
".. . . The beneficiaries were not only the Prussian army, but also the factories requiring skilled workers, the enterprises needing well-trained engineers, the laboratories seeking chemists, the firms looking for managers and salesmen - all of which the German school system, polytechnical institutes, and universities produced in abundance.
. . .
But it was industrial expansion that Germany really distinguished itself in these years. ITs coal production ggrew from 89 million tons in 1890 to 277 million tons in 1914, just behind Britain's 292 million and far ahead of Austria-Hungary's 47 million, France's 40 million, and Russia's 36 million. In steel the increases had been even more spectacular, and the 1914 German output of 17.6 million tons was larger than that of BRitain, France, and Russia combined.
More impressive still was the German performance the German performance in the newer, twentieth century industries of electrics, optics, and chemicals. Giant firms like Siemens and AEG, employing 142,000 people between them, dominated the European electrical industry. German chemical firms, led by Bayer and Hoeschst, produced 90 percent of the world's industrial dyes."
I don't know how you compare theoretical work, but it has precious little relevance by comparison to these statistics when it comes to national power - where France is just plain dwarfed.
Yes, it fought credibly in WWI. But it would have lost on its own - not just failed to defeat Germany but failed in the same way it failed in 1870.
".. . . The beneficiaries were not only the Prussian army, but also the factories requiring skilled workers, the enterprises needing well-trained engineers, the laboratories seeking chemists, the firms looking for managers and salesmen - all of which the German school system, polytechnical institutes, and universities produced in abundance.
. . .
But it was industrial expansion that Germany really distinguished itself in these years. ITs coal production ggrew from 89 million tons in 1890 to 277 million tons in 1914, just behind Britain's 292 million and far ahead of Austria-Hungary's 47 million, France's 40 million, and Russia's 36 million. In steel the increases had been even more spectacular, and the 1914 German output of 17.6 million tons was larger than that of BRitain, France, and Russia combined.
More impressive still was the German performance the German performance in the newer, twentieth century industries of electrics, optics, and chemicals. Giant firms like Siemens and AEG, employing 142,000 people between them, dominated the European electrical industry. German chemical firms, led by Bayer and Hoeschst, produced 90 percent of the world's industrial dyes."
I don't know how you compare theoretical work, but it has precious little relevance by comparison to these statistics when it comes to national power - where France is just plain dwarfed.
Yes, it fought credibly in WWI. But it would have lost on its own - not just failed to defeat Germany but failed in the same way it failed in 1870.
Actually 68 out of a thousand translates to 6.8% illiteracy or 93.2% literacy, which is pretty good for the era. Germany's 1 out of a 1000 or 0.1% seems suspiciously high considering no country today actually has a literacy rate higher than 99.5% thanks to the existence of learning difficulties and disabilities.
Note that this is X out of a thousand recruits entering the army, not people on the whole.
It doesn't include women, who might have been less exposed to education and it also excludes the disabled, both physically and mentally, thus excluding a lot of people with severe learning difficulties.
IMO the reason for Germany becoming stronger than France in the 19th century is the lack of centralism in Germany. Everything in Farnce is centered on Paris. But this wasn't the case in Germany.
According to the book "The German Genius", that's simply not the case. Germany at least from the point when the industrial revolution took hold up until that fateful January in 1933 was THE scientific powerhouse of the world. Until that year, a full 1/3 of all Nobel prizes in the hard sciences went to German scientists.
The author of the book goes so far as to postulate that Germany spearheaded the second industrial revolution and was the most influential country when it comes to modern natural sciences, liberal arts and philosophy and thus modern Western thinking in its entirety.
In chemistry and physics, it was "publish in German or perish".
Sorry, but France just could not compete.
Before you ask: The book was written by a Brit
And the man does make several striking cases in point. Objectively speaking.Germany was more decentralized? I'm still a novice on the topic of the German government at this time but I thought the Kaiser was the undisputed ruler of all Germany? Could you help to explain to me the functions of the German government so that I can understand this better?