Without WWI, when would Russia's economy and military have surpassed Germany's?

RousseauX

Donor
Once again there are quite a few posters looking at Russia in a vacuum. If the Russian economic upturn (IMO unsustainable, as others have said) would elevate their GDP and per capita incomes without WWI, why would it not also increase Germany's? If the Russians would improve without the negative effects of global war, surely the Germans would continue to improve as well.
Because Germany was already an industrialized country and Russia wasn't: Russia can achieve very fast growth simply by moving peasants into factories. Germany has less peasants to move into factories because it already industrialized in the 19th century.
 
That would Austria-Hungary by 1910.
Possibly yes they surpassed Russia for a given year or years but over the twenty five year span? And had they comparable mineral and population resources to continue to grow almost as rapidly over the next twenty five?
 

RousseauX

Donor
Room it might have, but that's mainly because it had been so poor under the Tsarist system to date. Germany had a lead and under those circumstances wouldn't have a reason to lose it.
Tsarism is a shitty government yeah but so is China's Communist party. That doesn't stop China from being an industrial superpower because if your population is larger even if your per capita income/industrialization is lower it still evens out. That's why China has a bigger gdp than germany.
 

RousseauX

Donor
A military junta as a way of advancing the nation? Don't think that's ever worked before. Men become Generals because they don't tend to be interested in (or suited for) politics and governance, there are noted exceptions for sure, but the Russian Imperial Army is not well known for them.
South Korea/Taiwan were military dictatorships and 2 of the 6 countries which started out poor but converged with western level development in the 20th century, another 2 are Singapore and Hong Kong, neither of which were democracies during their growth periods.

We can also look at more controversial examples like Chile under Pinochet, but the idea that military dictators don't advance the economy is very very very wrong: military dictatorships were about as good as democracies for economic development in the second/third world at least until you hit middle income.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

wasn't all the industrialization focused on austria/bohemia?
Not exclusively, but mostly.

Possibly yes they surpassed Russia for a given year or years but over the twenty five year span? And had they comparable mineral and population resources to continue to grow almost as rapidly over the next twenty five?
Over the entire 25 years? No, but Russia was coming up from very little industrialization so could grow very quickly with targeted French investment; A-H didn't have that targeted foreign investment to help them and they had higher real growth since 1907 IIRC. Germany did invest in A-H as their primary foreign investment, but that was done not by the German government but by private investors that had set up subsidiaries in A-H and were profiting off of the cheaper labor/market access.
 

RousseauX

Donor
@Stenz think about it this way

Russia population 1914: 165 million
Germany population: 68 million

Russia's economy > German economy if Russia's GDp per capita on average hits 42% of Germany's. You might be right russia's gdp per capita will never converge to Germany's but I'm pretty sure they can hit at least 50% of Germany's gdp per capita.

this is the part where you point out slav vs non-slav part of the population but the non-slavic parts were the underdeveloped parts anyway you can probably ditch them without hurting the economy too much
 
@Stenzthis is the part where you point out slav vs non-slav part of the population but the non-slavic parts were the underdeveloped parts anyway you can probably ditch them without hurting the economy too much

Finland especially and the Baltic provinces to lesser degree were more developed than most of Russia on average, though. Not that this will have a major effect in the great scheme of things, just to point out that "non-slavic parts of the empire were less developed" is not universally true.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Finland especially and the Baltic provinces to lesser degree were more developed than most of Russia on average, though. Not that this will have a major effect in the great scheme of things, just to point out that "non-slavic parts of the empire were less developed" is not universally true.
ok, this part is true, and I wasn't thinking about the baltics
 

Deleted member 94680

I understand that lower income and less developed countries can have higher growth than more developed countries. The discussion is about the economic power of a country.

How many years has Cambodia had better growth than Germany? For how many of those was Cambodia in the G7/G20? As I've said previously, Russia can grow at a greater rate than Germany, because Russia has more 'room' to grow into, due to their lower starting position. But a nation's growth is usually measured in % of their own GDP, meaning a growth of 20% (for example) in Russia would be less in real terms than a growth of 5% (for example) in Germany.

Basically, for Russia to catch and overtake Germany requires a period of stagnation or contraction in Germany.


My comments reference the Tsarist system of government were aimed specifically at the Tsarist system of government which was particularly poor at managing a modern economy.
 

Deleted member 94680

Because Germany was already an industrialized country and Russia wasn't: Russia can achieve very fast growth simply by moving peasants into factories. Germany has less peasants to move into factories because it already industrialized in the 19th century.

OTL not very simple at all for the Tsarist government of Russia.
 

Deleted member 94680

We can also look at more controversial examples like Chile under Pinochet, but the idea that military dictators don't advance the economy is very very very wrong: military dictatorships were about as good as democracies for economic development in the second/third world at least until you hit middle income.

Which is what would be required for Russia to overtake Germany. So basically, a military government would be the best system for Russia until it reaches the point it requires this system.
 

RousseauX

Donor
I understand that lower income and less developed countries can have higher growth than more developed countries. The discussion is about the economic power of a country.

How many years has Cambodia had better growth than Germany? For how many of those was Cambodia in the G7/G20? As I've said previously, Russia can grow at a greater rate than Germany, because Russia has more 'room' to grow into, due to their lower starting position. But a nation's growth is usually measured in % of their own GDP, meaning a growth of 20% (for example) in Russia would be less in real terms than a growth of 5% (for example) in Germany.

Basically, for Russia to catch and overtake Germany requires a period of stagnation or contraction in Germany.


My comments reference the Tsarist system of government were aimed specifically at the Tsarist system of government which was particularly poor at managing a modern economy.
Russia economic power > German economic power if at any point in time Russia gdp per capita hits 42% of Germany's

Russia was growing at like >7% in 1900

You are telling me at no point will Russian gdp per capita will -ever- hit 50% of Germany's

that's a very very bold assertion

How many years has Cambodia had better growth than Germany? For how many of those was Cambodia in the G7/G20?
Cambodia isn't in it because it has low population and low per capita income

Russia at middle income will definitely be in the G7/G20 what have you, China certainly is even though China's per capita income is what 20% of the US
Stenz said:
As I've said previously, Russia can grow at a greater rate than Germany, because Russia has more 'room' to grow into, due to their lower starting position. But a nation's growth is usually measured in % of their own GDP, meaning a growth of 20% (for example) in Russia would be less in real terms than a growth of 5% (for example) in Germany.
The math of exponential functions shows that in this scenario the country growing at 20% beats the one growing at 5% no matter the base level on the long run
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 94680

Tsarism is a shitty government yeah but so is China's Communist party. That doesn't stop China from being an industrial superpower because if your population is larger even if your per capita income/industrialization is lower it still evens out. That's why China has a bigger gdp than germany.

Chinese communism was dedicated to surpassing western economies. The Tsarist Russian system was deducted to growing crops and keeping the Tsar in power.

Apples and oranges dear boy
 

RousseauX

Donor
Chinese communism was dedicated to surpassing western economies. The Tsarist Russian system was deducted to growing crops and keeping the Tsar in power.

Apples and oranges dear boy
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

this guy is someone who would have said in 1976 China's economy will never rival that of Americas
 

RousseauX

Donor
@Stenz srsly you do realize that Russia had rapid industrial growth under the Tsar in the late 1800s/early 1900s rite?

where the hell did you get the idea that the Tsarists only cared about peasants

where do you think 7% per annuam growth came from in 1900s russia?
 

RousseauX

Donor
@Stenz honestly do you know anything about economics at a level deeper than German economy good Russia economy backward and bad?

if you are gonna try to condescend to other posters you probably need to know more first
 

RousseauX

Donor
@Stenz

f9clpL2.png


oh yeah, a country whose rulers rulers

The Tsarist Russian system was deducted to growing crops and keeping the Tsar in power.

had industrial growth rates are par with the US in the late 19th century and twice as fast in overall terms as Germany and four times as Britain's
 
Top