Why Germany over France?

katchen

Banned
If I had to put my finger on one primary factor which may have retarded both French population growth and French industrialization during that crucial 19th Century, I would say it was France's anachronistic land tenure and inheritance laws. Those laws, which divided land up equally between children when landowning parents passed away resulted in a) fragmentation of landholdings, with farmers owning widely scattered pieces of farmland around villages b) too many farmers farming too little land, since these widely scattered landholdings were and still are extremely difficult to consolidate and mechanize and run efficiently. Wheras the British system of enclosure and primogeniture might force farmers off their land, but in doing so, this "creative destruction" created both impetus for immigration to America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa...) and migration to English cities and towns and a pool of potential factory labor. c) farmers tied to these small landholdings tended to have small families once the threat of infectious diseases receded--as much to prevent further fragmentation of landholdings as the inability of families to do more than scratch out a living on the land.
Thus the French conquest of Algeria, which had a primogeniture system existed since the 18th Century might have resulted in massive French settlement of Algeria and industrialization of Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco, overwhelming the previous Arab and Berber population, did not do so and only resulted in a relatively small, South African proportioned white minority in Algeria which was ultimately forced out in the 1960s.
 
Is there a difference in the area of universal conscription?

Yes. Germany consistently drafted only around 60% of its available recruits, partly for financial reasons, more for political. France, on the other hand, used conscription almost universally.
 
The point is neither the french monarchy nor the french nobility in the 18th century. France was developing quickly in the 18th century, but in a different way from Britain.

Geography, and especially geological geography was the key in the industrial age, that is from 1850 on. Demography is the second and last important factor. The rest is totally neglectible.

Germany had enormous raw material ressources : Silesia/Saxony + Rhineland.

There could not be material/industrial balance. Things were settled once and for all since 1814/1815, when the UK decided that France should never control Belgium, Luxemburg and the rest of Rhineland.

France was at the top of the second industrial revolution (its auto industry was european number one in 1914). But it just lacked the basic industrial ressources. Give it Belgium and Luxemburg and you would have had industrial balance with Germany.
 
I may be straying into politically incorrect territory here, but isn't there something about deeper culture? Germany seems to be marked by a high level of efficiency and organization throughout the entire population when I travel there. The same is seen in Austria, Switzerland and Scandinavia, despite very different political histories. France seems further behind, and places like Italy and Spain even more so. I can't help but think this divergence helped Germany enormously in its war-waging ability versus France. I don't really understand where it comes from, as you'd think the legacy of the Roman Empire would have helped the Latin states more, but apparently not.
 
I may be straying into politically incorrect territory here, but isn't there something about deeper culture? Germany seems to be marked by a high level of efficiency and organization throughout the entire population when I travel there. The same is seen in Austria, Switzerland and Scandinavia, despite very different political histories. France seems further behind, and places like Italy and Spain even more so. I can't help but think this divergence helped Germany enormously in its war-waging ability versus France. I don't really understand where it comes from, as you'd think the legacy of the Roman Empire would have helped the Latin states more, but apparently not.

I think that's a cart-before-the-horse thing. The habits of efficiency that modern Germany is famous for are the product of a successful industrialisation and the creation of a modern society through the organs of school, church, police, factory, and law court. It came later in Germany than in France or Britain, and I suspect as a result it embraced more modern concepts. But the process lasted until well into the twentieth century. It can explain, in part, how modern Germany is industrially more successful than modern France (despite the French having the better infrastructure, housing and urban development, actually), but it will hardly explain how Germany gained the military upper hand when it was just starting along this trajectory.
 
I would really really dispute the myth of German efficiency. I live literally on the border. There is no difference to be seen. German municipalities waste just as much money on stupid and useless project. Military efficiency during WWI and WWII is a myth.

Germany gained the military upper hand in two wars. The first one, 1870 was when the French army was an utter joke, it just had been kicked out of Mexico, half of the generals were traitors who wanted Napoléon III to lose. WWII is really not better, half of the generals were almost fascist, and the motto of the french right between the wars was : better Hitler than the Popular Front. During WWI, France build more trucks, tanks and planes than the German. They also build (and fired) more artillery ammunition despite the German having more guns. During WWI France evolved form possibly the worst army of Europe in 1914 (they had learned basically nothing since 1870, and was considered at the end of the war to be the best army of the world until it lost in 1940.

About today's industrial efficiency : IIRC, France have lost less industrial jobs than Germany since the peak of the 70. But it have a different demography, so the effects are more pronounced in percentage.
 
I would really really dispute the myth of German efficiency. I live literally on the border. There is no difference to be seen. German municipalities waste just as much money on stupid and useless project. Military efficiency during WWI and WWII is a myth.

WWII, I agree, but WWI German military efficiency was of a high order.

It managed to face most of the efforts of the Entente with little effective help from its allies - dragging down Russia and nearly doing so to France in the process.

That's not the work of an inefficient power. Nor is the ability to muster so many useful troops from the population (Germany mobilized more than Russia for pete's sake) and have the reserves be something other than fodder.

Yes, Germany's abilities have been exaggerated - but it was definitely a formidable power, more so than France alone.

Note that I'm not arguing on the issue of "Germans are efficient". Doing well in WWI in some particular ways is one thing, that is another.

During WWI, France build more trucks, tanks and planes than the German. They also build (and fired) more artillery ammunition despite the German having more guns.
I would love to see the source for this. Not to question your credibility, just looking for more information.
 

katchen

Banned
The point is neither the french monarchy nor the french nobility in the 18th century. France was developing quickly in the 18th century, but in a different way from Britain.

Geography, and especially geological geography was the key in the industrial age, that is from 1850 on. Demography is the second and last important factor. The rest is totally neglectible.

Germany had enormous raw material ressources : Silesia/Saxony + Rhineland.

There could not be material/industrial balance. Things were settled once and for all since 1814/1815, when the UK decided that France should never control Belgium, Luxemburg and the rest of Rhineland.

France was at the top of the second industrial revolution (its auto industry was european number one in 1914). But it just lacked the basic industrial ressources. Give it Belgium and Luxemburg and you would have had industrial balance with Germany.

France could have compensated for not having Belgium and Luxembourg by industrializing first Algeria and then Morocco. Algeria and Morocco have rather large coal and iron deposits.
From wikipedia Mining in Algeria":
[edit source | edit]

Some minerals, such as high-grade iron ore, phosphate, mercury, and zinc, have been exported since the early 1970s. The state mining and prospecting corporation, the National Company for Mineral Research and Exploration (Société Nationale de Recherches et d'Exploitations Minières), was established in 1967. As a result of the government's decentralization policy, the company was restructured in 1983 into separate production and distribution entities. The most important of these were an iron ore and phosphate company known as Ferphos, which had three production units and a port complex at Annaba, and another company called Erem that specialized in conducting mineral research at Boumerdas, on the Mediterranean Sea, and Tamanrasset in the south.[2]
Morocco’s minerals industry is dominated by phosphate mining, where it is the world’s third largest producer, after the USA and China. Other minerals produced include anthracite, antimony, barite, cobalt, copper, fluorspar, iron ore, lead, manganese, salt, silver, and zinc.from http://www.mbendi.com/indy/ming/af/mo/p0005.htm
Coal is to be found on the other side of the Sahara near Agadez in what is now Niger. As well, huge gold reserves are to be found in a belt across the Sahel from Senagal to Niger--gold reserves larger than South Africa's, if France will invest in the infrastructure to exploit it as soon as France pacifies these areas between 1890 and 1914. And other industrial minerals from iron and nickel to molybdenum to more copper are to be found in French Equatorial Africa if France will make the investment in railroads to exploit those resources.
 
Jotun said:
In chemistry and physics, it was "publish in German or perish".
Burke's The Day the Universe Changed makes much the same point. The Germans weren't necessarily first in discovering, but they were best at applying. It strikes me they were, in their day, like Japan in the '60s & '70s: where the U.S. was innovating, but feeling fat & happy, the Japanese were applying & getting rich.

Why that was, tho, I have no clue.:eek:
 
WWII, I agree, but WWI German military efficiency was of a high order.

It managed to face most of the efforts of the Entente with little effective help from its allies - dragging down Russia and nearly doing so to France in the process.

That's not the work of an inefficient power. Nor is the ability to muster so many useful troops from the population (Germany mobilized more than Russia for pete's sake) and have the reserves be something other than fodder.

Yes, Germany's abilities have been exaggerated - but it was definitely a formidable power, more so than France alone.

Note that I'm not arguing on the issue of "Germans are efficient". Doing well in WWI in some particular ways is one thing, that is another.

The thing is that France and the Wallies (to use a WWII term) never had a large numerical superiority (they were largely outnumbered at the start of the war). France was not as powerful as Germany, but managed to be more efficient than Germany during WWI. French reserve were better equiped than Germany (in 1918, German units that weren't on the offensive were less equipped than the units that led the assault, while French units had the same equipment.)

I would love to see the source for this. Not to question your credibility, just looking for more information.

An article in the Guerres & Histoire n°5 about the French Army in 1918. I need to find it to find the sources of the article in it if you want.
 
Burke's The Day the Universe Changed makes much the same point. The Germans weren't necessarily first in discovering, but they were best at applying. It strikes me they were, in their day, like Japan in the '60s & '70s: where the U.S. was innovating, but feeling fat & happy, the Japanese were applying & getting rich.

Why that was, tho, I have no clue.:eek:

Right place, right time, mostly. Germany was lucky inheriting a decentralised and progressive education system and skilful at adapting it to the needs of an industry that most West European countries could have developed, but it was able to create on a larger scale.

Don't forget a lot of the 'Rise of German superpower' in the years between 1880 and 1914 is a contemporary myth. The economic growth was impressive, but it did not create an unstoppable juggernaut. France's decline vis-a-vis Germany was much more a matter of perception and reflected internal political debates about the future of the country at least as much as it did hard data. Really much like today's obsession with China in parts of the American political scene. Many French politicians were convinced that their country was in terminal decline, eclipsed by its more vigorous, more manly, less decadent and all things considered perhaps even more virtuous neighbour. And they were scared.
 
This question is so vast and far reaching that pin pointing a single cause behind France absolute decline against Germany is in my opinion impossible.

In many more ways than meet the eyes France and Germany are vastly different countries. A common way to describe France in climatic and geographical terms in French high school is to say "France is a sumary of Europe", don't laugh that's the expression one of my teachers used. In a way however this is true since you have everything from continental to oceanic to mediterranean climate zones in France. In the same vein, France is open to the North Sea, the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea all at the same time.

If we look at Germany on the other hand, Germany has none of France internal diversity, all of its major rivers are flowing north towards the North Sea and the Baltic, most of Germany climate could be classified as continental.

What I am getting at here, is that it is a lot harder for a polity like France to decide where to focus its own energies, as it has several possible areas in which it could expand or project power.
France tried to project power southwards in Italy during the 16th century, this policy failed and was instead replaced by a policy of projecting power north and east, thence the wars of Louis XIV and the Rhine borders pursued by the Revolution. At the same time, France actively tried to expand overseas but these efforts were half hearted in some cases, since especially in the 17th century continental wars absorbed most of France own energies and resources.

For Germany things are a lot simpler on the other hand, as it is easier to project power into a single direction without being distrated elsewhere. This is especially the case for the Navy, when France has to divide its fleets between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Germany can focus on the North Sea only, any assets on the Baltic being easy to transfer through thanks to the Kiel Canal.

Geography also favours Germany over France in a lot of respects. As I said in another thread, the "centre" of Europe has always been on an axis begining in the Low Countries and ending in Lombardy or Venice. This is essentially the Rhine/Elbe valley and thence the Alpine passes to northern Italy. This axis is a natural transport route from southern Europe to northern Europe.

France by comparison as never been the undisputed economic centre of Europe. The only time it nearly claimed the title was during the middle ages, at the times of the Champagne fairs before trade moved further east or took to the seas.

Paris has never been a centre of trade routes in the same way as Amsterdam, London or Frankfurt were and still are. Its geographic position is ideal, but only as far as northern France is concerned, which is why it was ideal as a capital. Early political centralisation meant that no city ever became a rival powerful enough to challenge it. The same thing happened in Britain as well, except during the Industrial Revolution were London was briefly challenged by northern cities. So in a way, yes Germany early divisions probably helped it in the very long run.

"Historical Errors" have also played a big part behind the divergence between Germany and France. The impact of the French Revolution on the country economy was terrible, especially in the western habours who traded with the sugar colonies and around whom buddying industries and manufactures were concentrated. The Revolution and Napoleon continental system destroyed them, forcing France to reorient her development eastwards instead of westwards.

The significant conservatism and reluctance to invest of both the French peseantry and aristocracy also played a part in reducing France's overall potential for growth and development. It took two centuries for the potato to be adopted in France for example and an equally long time for things like cloverfields and such to be implemented to raise livestock farming productivity.

For France to reach her potential and consequently become the centre of Europe. A POD during the Revolution if not the Middle Ages is needed in my opinion. More domestically focused risk taking governments in the modern times would help as well, but they will come too late to bridge the population gap.

Interesting books here are Fernand Braudel books, especially The Identity of France series.
This is really interesting. Thx.

Suppose France starts out more powerful, say by controlling more Caribbean territory? What effect does it have?

Or, suppose she manages to avoid Napoleon being in charge. How much difference does it make?
 
This is really interesting. Thx.

Suppose France starts out more powerful, say by controlling more Caribbean territory? What effect does it have?

Or, suppose she manages to avoid Napoleon being in charge. How much difference does it make?

I say that he easiest way to have a more powerful France is to avoid Napoléon and the wars in Germany, with a Bourgeois republic (but less corrupt than the Directoire) controlling Belgium and the west bank of the Rhine. France have a bigger industrial basis in the 19th century so it can compete with alt-germany (if it forms).

Without the Rhineland, Prussia is not powerful enough to unite Germany, so Austria is the only power in Germany and it really was not so interested in uniting it. 19th century is another France vs Britain century.

Carribean territories are a bad idea as the people who made money with them were not the same people who invested in early industries.
 
This is really interesting. Thx.

Suppose France starts out more powerful, say by controlling more Caribbean territory? What effect does it have?

After slavery was abolished, and beet sugar popularized, the importance of the Caribbean fell dramatically.
 
Coal is to be found on the other side of the Sahara near Agadez in what is now Niger. As well, huge gold reserves are to be found in a belt across the Sahel from Senagal to Niger--gold reserves larger than South Africa's, if France will invest in the infrastructure to exploit it as soon as France pacifies these areas between 1890 and 1914. And other industrial minerals from iron and nickel to molybdenum to more copper are to be found in French Equatorial Africa if France will make the investment in railroads to exploit those resources.

You can't just compare the price of production with resources from another continents with a production that used raw resources that would travel 200~300 km max. to be used.

IMHO the concentration of Silesia and Rhineland on Prussian hands was critical to German industrial development.
 
The thing is that France and the Wallies (to use a WWII term) never had a large numerical superiority (they were largely outnumbered at the start of the war). France was not as powerful as Germany, but managed to be more efficient than Germany during WWI. French reserve were better equiped than Germany (in 1918, German units that weren't on the offensive were less equipped than the units that led the assault, while French units had the same equipment.)

1918 is by the point the French have the aid of (as well as the British) the huge resources of the US. I hardly think that's a fair model of the general course of the war.

As for a numerical superiority, I seem to recall reading (I don't have my copy of The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers at my fingertips) it boiling down to - roughly - 3 to 2 without counting Russia.

For "Vs. Germany" its almost 2 to 1. "It" being manpower mobilized.

But this is counting everyone the Entente used, not all of which was on the Western Front.

So not a large superiority, but there's no way to present Entente weakness here without acknowledging German strength or vice-versa here.

There's a good reason WWI happened as it did, but I would defend that WWI Germany performed exceptionally well - and better than WWII Germany.

An article in the Guerres & Histoire n°5 about the French Army in 1918. I need to find it to find the sources of the article in it if you want.

That would be appreciated. Alas, I cannot read French, but its something.

On the whole, I agree and accept that while Germany was probably the more powerful country, France was a considerable power. And it did win in WWI - not without considerable help, but that's not really the point. It was able to handle its problems.

Germany, by 1918, was failing - with or without fresh Americans.
 
funnyhat said:
After slavery was abolished, and beet sugar popularized, the importance of the Caribbean fell dramatically.
It's the period before that I'm thinking of: between about 1500 & 1800, which is one hell of a long time to have such enormous wealth at hand.:eek:
Imladrik said:
I say that he easiest way to have a more powerful France is to avoid Napoléon and the wars in Germany, with a Bourgeois republic (but less corrupt than the Directoire) controlling Belgium and the west bank of the Rhine. France have a bigger industrial basis in the 19th century so it can compete with alt-germany (if it forms).
That sounds reasonable.
Imladrik said:
Without the Rhineland, Prussia is not powerful enough to unite Germany, so Austria is the only power in Germany
While I'll happily believe Prussia can't do it, why default to Austria? Rather than, say, Saxony? Or even Bavaria?
Imladrik said:
Carribean territories are a bad idea as the people who made money with them were not the same people who invested in early industries.
It's not about industry: it's about the nation having more money to throw around on things like wars (or industry...but probably war:p).
 
Top