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

Deleted member 94680

If even shitty governments like Iranian Islamist theocratical regime post-1979 can do this process so can the Tsarists

They can. Of course it's theoretically possible but OTL they tried and failed.
 

RousseauX

Donor
They can. Of course it's theoretically possible but OTL they tried and failed.
????????????????????

how the fuck did they fail?

Russia's overall industrial growth rates were 2x that of Germany's from 1860-1914 and 4x that of Britain's
 

Deleted member 94680

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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

How would I when even in the post you quoted I said the Chinese communist government was dedicated to overtaking western economies?
 

RousseauX

Donor
How would I when even in the post you quoted I said the Chinese communist government was dedicated to overtaking western economies?
Because the only reason why you believe this is because you see China's economic growth rates post-1979 and rationalized it backwards

I know this because you don't know Russia's industrial growth rates in the 1900s so you project backwards that the Tsar only cared about farming
 

Deleted member 94680

????????????????????

how the fuck did they fail?

Russia's overall industrial growth rates were 2x that of Germany's from 1860-1914 and 4x that of Britain's

Really no need to swear. The rates of growth yes but, once again, when the starting point was so low the higher rates of growth are relatively easy to achieve. They failed due to the fact they needed to import vast quantities of manufactured goods, arms and chemicals. What they produced wasn't good enough for their own use, let alone export for any realistic quantity. Norman Stone goes in depth about the problems Russian industry had with cost and quantity of manufacture of artillery shells for instance. The Russians usually fell back on purchasing French stocks even when the stocks failed to arrive they ordered more rather than deal with their own production problems.
 

Deleted member 94680

I can't parse this sentence and understand what you are trying to say

You said a military government is good until it hits middle income. To expand past middle income is what Russia would need to surpass Germany. Hence the the system is good until the point they need it to be good.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Really no need to swear. The rates of growth yes but, once again, when the starting point was so low the higher rates of growth are relatively easy to achieve.
Right, but since Russia's base is lower than German's structurally they can maintain high rates of growth much longer, because they have a larger population they can hit Germany's base levels at lower per capita income


They failed due to the fact they needed to import vast quantities of manufactured goods, arms and chemicals. What they produced wasn't good enough for their own use, let alone export for any realistic quantity. Norman Stone goes in depth about the problems Russian industry had with cost and quantity of manufacture of artillery shells for instance. The Russians usually fell back on purchasing French stocks even when the stocks failed to arrive they ordered more rather than deal with their own production problems.
Those aren't permanent problems
 

RousseauX

Donor
You said a military government is good until it hits middle income. To expand past middle income is what Russia would need to surpass Germany. Hence the the system is good until the point they need it to be good.
no it doesn't, every European economy was middle income until at least the 1960s
 

Deleted member 94680

Because the only reason why you believe this is because you see China's economic growth rates post-1979 and rationalized it backwards

I know this because you don't know Russia's industrial growth rates in the 1900s so you project backwards that the Tsar only cared about farming

How useful you know what I'm thinking before I even say it. Also seeing as though I was born after 1979 it would be hard to do anything else.

Again, growth rates change and to extrapolate rates for an economy that collapsed and take them forward is just as bad, no?
 

RousseauX

Donor
How useful you know what I'm thinking before I even say it. Also seeing as though I was born after 1979 it would be hard to do anything else.

Again, growth rates change and to extrapolate rates for an economy that collapsed and take them forward is just as bad, no?
The economy collapsed because of a world war: we are proposing a situation without a world war, so yes: it does make sense to project it forward with the experiences of other developing countries as a guideline
 

Deleted member 94680

The economy collapsed because of a world war: we are proposing a situation without a world war, so yes: it does make sense to project it forward with the experiences of other developing countries as a guideline

It collapsed during the world war, far sooner than any of the other Great Powers (with the exception of maybe A-H). That doesn't speak to a great deal of robustness, when it's first serious challenge results in collapse.

When trying to project it forward we have to look at the system they used. If, as others have posited, the best way for it to continue its expansion is to change the system of governance (a tacit admission the previous system was unsuited) the Russian example of OTL points to Civil War and a decade or so of stagnation or recessions. This doesn't bode well. If the Russian Tsarist system is to continue and produce further industrialisation and expansion, it requires systematic changes I believe OTL proves it incapable of making.
 

RousseauX

Donor
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
 

Deleted member 94680

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

Correct, but I contend that Russia would be unable to keep that rate of growth going for the required period. Also, I put for example after each percentage because they weren't meant to be exact figures, but examples. A high rate of growth in Russia would be worth less than a moderate rate of growth in Germany.
 
Why would they be unable to keep that rate of growth going? A lot of the technology they would be investing in (powered ships, cars and lorries, telephony, railways, machine tools, farm machinery, food refrigeration) are likely to boost productivity and utilisation not diminish it.
 

Deleted member 94680

Why would they be unable to keep that rate of growth going? A lot of the technology they would be investing in (powered ships, cars and lorries, telephony, railways, machine tools, farm machinery, food refrigeration) are likely to boost productivity and utilisation not diminish it.

They might well be able to keep growth going. I meant that the particular rate would drop off as the economy expanded. A larger economy expanding in real terms (employment figures, balance of payments, liquidity, etc) would display a smaller percentage year on year, even as its expanding. As it gets bigger to continually display 5% growth means it would be exponentially expanding, which is much harder to do as more people are employed, areas industrialised, processes refined, markets dominated, etc.
 
Russia was in the middle of some major agricultural reforms, when they had been fully implemented we would see the increase in the growth of a domestic consumer base, but also free up rural workers to move to the cities as urban workers. On the other hand Russia thanks to their large amount of natural resources risk ending up focusing on resource extraction like modern Russia. I lean toward Russia will never reach German GDP per capita, but their larger population will mean that Russian nominal GDP overtake Germany around mid century.
 
It collapsed during the world war, far sooner than any of the other Great Powers (with the exception of maybe A-H). That doesn't speak to a great deal of robustness, when it's first serious challenge results in collapse.


I think you might be confusing things here. That the Russian state collapsed under the strain of WWI does not in any way directly say that the Russian society would not have potential for growth. The stability of a system and its potential are two different things. In fact, one of the very reasons Russia was societally so unstable in the 1910s was that it had seen major industrial growth as of late. The numbers of factory workers in the major cities had grown to that far unprecedented numbers, and they were, on average, much more literate than Russian peasants, due to the needs of industrial work. In the event of the war, these workers provided much of the potential growth for the revolutionary factions. Their existence contributed decisively for the revolution, in the abnormal conditions of a world war, but their existence in the first place does not speak of the weaknesses of Russia in terms of future growth but rather vice versa. These would be the industrial workers that provide a major part of the backbone of Russian growth in the 20s and 30s in a no-WWI scenario.


When trying to project it forward we have to look at the system they used. If, as others have posited, the best way for it to continue its expansion is to change the system of governance (a tacit admission the previous system was unsuited) the Russian example of OTL points to Civil War and a decade or so of stagnation or recessions. This doesn't bode well. If the Russian Tsarist system is to continue and produce further industrialisation and expansion, it requires systematic changes I believe OTL proves it incapable of making.

Why do you think Russia would be uniquely unable to modernize and make systematic changes in the way other major European nations were not? Why would the Tsarist regime be essentially so different from all the other absolutist European states that in time transformed to constitutional systems or democracies of some sort?
 

Deleted member 94680

I think you might be confusing things here. That the Russian state collapsed under the strain of WWI does not in any way directly say that the Russian society would not have potential for growth. The stability of a system and its potential are two different things. In fact, one of the very reasons Russia was societally so unstable in the 1910s was that it had seen major industrial growth as of late. The numbers of factory workers in the major cities had grown to that far unprecedented numbers, and they were, on average, much more literate than Russian peasants, due to the needs of industrial work. In the event of the war, these workers provided much of the potential growth for the revolutionary factions. Their existence contributed decisively for the revolution, in the abnormal conditions of a world war, but their existence in the first place does not speak of the weaknesses of Russia in terms of future growth but rather vice versa. These would be the industrial workers that provide a major part of the backbone of Russian growth in the 20s and 30s in a no-WWI scenario.

Again, I haven't said it doesn't have the potential for growth, just that I would be unable to exhibit the growth required to overtake Germany. All that you've said points to weaknesses in the system of governance that would have to be addressed for Russia to seriously be competitive with Germany's economy. The system requires stability to produce continued growth though, surely?


Why do you think Russia would be uniquely unable to modernize and make systematic changes in the way other major European nations were not? Why would the Tsarist regime be essentially so different from all the other absolutist European states that in time transformed to constitutional systems or democracies of some sort?

Purely by otl experience. The other absolutist nations that had successfully industrialised didn't experience the strife Russia did. IMO that is due to the Tsarist system (or the conditions in Russia) as opposed to absolutism per se.
 
Top