Germany, Britain and industrialisation.

[Brain_in_a_vat]

I'm curious. How did the relatively small German Empire eventually surpass the British Empire in production rates and military capacity? How could any nation surpass it? The British were the first nation to industrialise and possessed a respectable workforce on top of which they held sway over a truly massive proportion of the world population.

[gaunty14]

we got lazy...^-^

[Brain_in_a_vat]

Yeah, it's tough at the top.

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

Germany was bigger then Britain. (Not counting colonies). It had much more population, The biggest in Europe. They were even richer without these big colonies. Germany in any aspect could surpass GB if it had won WW1 (Or it hadn't happened), yup fleet too. They would out build it and since they would get Suez Canal by Treaty. Germany would be new ruler of waters.

[Brain_in_a_vat]

So it was just based on the size of the actual nation? Thanks, rep+. I know it was an easily researched question but I couldn't be bothered.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

Plus, Germany was THE pioneer in the field of mechanical engineering from the middle 19th to the middle 20th century and a bigger powerhouse of natural sciences in general than Britain. I bet this technologic edge gave them a boost over their rivals.

[Barry Ferguson]

Britain's actual population was quite small, Britain itself is quite small, and all the industry was in Britain, the Empire provided raw materials and manpower. The largest volunteer army ever assembled was the Indian Army in WWII.
Germany was significantly larger then than it is now

[bushbush]

they got a lot of coals and well educated labor, plus the government of germany encouraged land owning elites to invest in industries so they had a lot of capital to start with.

[dogukan]

Prussia was already an industrialized state. Once they united they had a lot of resources...Coal which was one of the symbols of industry revolution. And the Protestant working ethic helped I'd say.
Manpower-discipline of society- natural resources

[Monarchist]

Prussia was already an industrialized state. Once they united they had a lot of resources...Coal which was one of the symbols of industry revolution. And the Protestant working ethic helped I'd say.
Manpower-discipline of society- natural resources

+rep for the coal reminder.
Prussia was a state where 2/3 of the whole population was in, or had recently been in, the army. The people had been brought up since the times of Frederick the Great to be obedient to the state in terms of military matters. In terms of social and religious freedom, the motto Suum cuique sums Prussia up, but when it came to the glory of the state and the empire, it was most definitely not "to each his own". They believed in a strong, ordered, central society of religious diversity, even if most of them were intolerant of Jews and Catholics. The Junkers of the east Prussian lands were particularly autocratic and snobbish, and loved making their workers go on and on for the glory of Königsberg.

In Britain, on the other hand, one must remember that England, at least, was a nation of parliamentary liberty, granted via Magna Carta. Ever since the Plague had forced everyone to become dependent on themselves instead of a local landlord, peasants basically started saying "screw you" to some of the lords. This lack of true centralization at the local level really kept Britain at a certain limit of prosperity. Also, the Manchester coal fields are drastically smaller than the coal fields of the Ruhr, Niederrhein, and Oder, and perhaps this gives you an idea of why there was such a gigantic leap forward for Germany. All they had to do was unite under Prussia, and suddenly the German states which had been held back by the constant infighting were able to explode with industry and commerce. Just imagine if the Holy Roman Emperor had been effective in keeping Germany as one from 1079-1648. That would certainly have been a sight to see.

[bushbush]

In Britain, on the other hand, one must remember that England, at least, was a nation of parliamentary liberty, granted via Magna Carta. Ever since the Plague had forced everyone to become dependent on themselves instead of a local landlord, peasants basically started saying "screw you" to some of the lords. This lack of true centralization at the local level really kept Britain at a certain limit of prosperity. Also, the Manchester coal fields are drastically smaller than the coal fields of the Ruhr, Niederrhein, and Oder, and perhaps this gives you an idea of why there was such a gigantic leap forward for Germany. All they had to do was unite under Prussia, and suddenly the German states which had been held back by the constant infighting were able to explode with industry and commerce. Just imagine if the Holy Roman Emperor had been effective in keeping Germany as one from 1079-1648. That would certainly have been a sight to see.

for britain it has a lot ot do with discovery of the new world and colonization, which resolved the bottle neck of resources for britain, enabled their population to move into cities as labor and invest heavily in coal mining.

[Monarchist]

for britain it has a lot ot do with discovery of the new world and colonization, which resolved the bottle neck of resources for britain, enabled their population to move into cities as labor and invest heavily in coal mining.

Yes! I am sorry for not remembering the New World. I always focus on the Continental affairs, as the New World, quite honestly, bores me to tears. Still, by the peak of the Industrial Revolution Britain had already lost the lucrative 13 colonies, I think. I suppose it depends on where you place the I.R. in history; is it mid-18th century, or does it truly begin with Victoria?

[bushbush]

Yes! I am sorry for not remembering the New World. I always focus on the Continental affairs, as the New World, quite honestly, bores me to tears. Still, by the peak of the Industrial Revolution Britain had already lost the lucrative 13 colonies, I think. I suppose it depends on where you place the I.R. in history; is it mid-18th century, or does it truly begin with Victoria?

sorry i didn't elaborate, what i meant was trading with the new world resolved the food and sugar and other resource bottle neck and allowed britain to focus its labor and capital into factories. Not to mention the new world and other colonies they still had provided crucial markets for the products of british factories.

[RTW Fan]

Prussia was already an industrialized state. Once they united they had a lot of resources...Coal which was one of the symbols of industry revolution. And the Protestant working ethic helped I'd say.
Manpower-discipline of society- natural resources

Yes but Britain was protestant, had lots of coal.

[konny]

Yes but Britain was protestant, had lots of coal.

Yes, it certainly had nothing to do with Protestantism: the center of industrialization was the Ruhrgebiet, what is in deep Catholic Westphalia. In return most of the Protestant regions in the east and north remained agricultural; save for Saxony - but that never was Prussian.

[Poach]

Britain only became top dog for industry because we industrialised first. It was only a matter of time until larger countries with superior populations industrialised to the same degree that we had and, by virtue of their superior population, surpassed us in industrial capacity. The Empire was ofcourse protected by the military which was quite small, we always allied with a continental power that provided the armies during a European war, the British contribution was always largely at sea. We had a huge navy very disproportionate to our size to protect the Empire and homeland. In the many wars we fought our ally's land armies did much of the fighting (see 7 Years War, WW1 for examples) whilst we fought mainly at sea and in the colonies, where we could supply and reinforce our forces better than the enemy.

As such, to answer your question, we were surpassed because Empires do not give industry, they give trade. Industry develops at home, had we industrialised our Empire we'd have simply created the ability for an armed rebellion to produce their own weaponry and such, and taken business away from British shipyards and factories, something we (or any other Empire to be fair) never wanted and thus never did.

[dogukan]

Since we got into the industrial revolution era I have a question...

Russia was a poor country and the revolution was mainly done by farmers if I'm not mistaken. However Germany of the day was an industrial power...not as much imperialist as say Britain(however was in an effort to become one), had a much better quality labors in high numbers. Wouldn't a revolution be much more succesfull there?

[Barry Ferguson]

Since we got into the industrial revolution era I have a question...

Russia was a poor country and the revolution was mainly done by farmers if I'm not mistaken. However Germany of the day was an industrial power...not as much imperialist as say Britain(however was in an effort to become one), had a much better quality labors in high numbers. Wouldn't a revolution be much more succesfull there?

Germany was always expected to go communist, at least until world war 2. The language of the early Communist Internationals was German rather than Russian. A Marxian revolution shouldn't really have happened in Russia and certainly not in China

[Poach]

The Russian revolution came about due to a wide variety of reasons, dogukan, many of which were not present in German society. As such, a revolution may have produced a more powerful Communist state in the early days (though you can't argue that the "poor" country of Russia wasn't a superpower as the USSR) but was unlikely due to the missing factors. German society between the two wars was very chaotic and may have birthed a revolution (both far left and far right tried) but was eventually taken by Hitler, in what wasn't quite a revolution but was a seizure of power through not-entirely-fair quasi-democractic means.

The peasants and farmers of Russia did provide numbers for the revolution, but sections of the Russian army also joined and the sailors based in Kronstadt were instrumental in the revolution, providing a highly disciplined force which was eventually crushed by the Red Army as their idea of Communism was at odds with Lenins.

[Mangalore]

Despite everyone longing to be an empire, being an empire actually sucks. It costs money, it forces you to spread your forces thin, your diplomatic situation becomes difficult because you are in conflict with quite a few other big guys half of the time and worst of all: All those people in the cute little colonies you gobbled up don't actually like you!

Germany actually had a head start on things because she didn't have an empire to care for (the colonies she had were worthless and of no strategic importance economically or militarily). So germany had a bigger base population, high education, high levels of entrepeneurs and inventors and no other aspects draining her power. On top of things Britain came out of the Napoleonic wars as the top dog so every other nation was equally competing to get into former English monopolies. One could say that the British economy of 1900 was bloated beyond its actual capability to sustain herself without foreign ressources while germany became the largest European country with a continuous culture and economy. The two other top dogs who were expected to challenge Great Britain were the USA and Russia. Russia failed to reform its society > revolution, turmoil and massacre. Germany could not escape its strategic situation of being in the middle of Europe > conflict, war, turmoil and massace and so only the US was left which had the fortune of being large, unmolested and having a fresh society where old conflicts didn't have to be resolved.

The great fallacy concerning any empire is the assumption that the colonial population would support this empire they had a very harsh love-hate relationship with. As the Indian army was mentioned. One should ponder where it was in both world wars because it was not out in force in support of the British. It helped in Africa in WW1 and defended the Asian holdings in WW2 but concerning the European theatre it was her dominions which pulled far more weight and effort to help Britain. Why? Because the dominions didn't have the secondary objective to get rid of British dominion. they already had autonomy! And a second reason was: India was and is a load bigger than Britain! Why would they ever elect to stay a subject nation to the Britsih empire when they got their act together??!? Their population was ten times larger than that of the British!

Russia was a poor country and the revolution was mainly done by farmers if I'm not mistaken. However Germany of the day was an industrial power...not as much imperialist as say Britain(however was in an effort to become one), had a much better quality labors in high numbers. Wouldn't a revolution be much more succesfull there?

The foundations of communism and socialism were actually formulated in germany. However germany was a half democracy with popular representation so the workers had political powers (albeit challenged and inhibited by the more autocratic elements of societies) so they had official ways to channel their interests: unions, socialist parties (even Bismarck bend to the populace's wish for those buggers). So the German state had a capability to deal with social unrest in a democratic way. In Russia the Tsardom had preserved a nearly absolutistic feudal society which greatly blockaded the forces unleashed by industrialization (aka workers demanding rights) so the conflict potential in Russia was higher. On top of things the high education and dualism of workers and burghois meant that democracy was preferred over radical communism while in russia communism was an as attractive alternative because the peasants wanted a restructuring of the assets formerly held in a few people's hands. The german welfare state already founded by Bismarck although added an alleviating factor to the German population. Overall the balance between autocrats, democrats and socialists/diehard communists was more balanced in germany than in russia but both systems suffered a breakdown due to WW1. Only germany's attempt was first the middle way.