What is the Marxist explanation for why Germany was richer and more powerful than France and Great Britain in the 20th century?

[Real History]

According to the Marxist version, the development of Europe depended on colonial plunder.

However, Germany had a very small and limited colonial history and yet was more powerful than France and Great Britain (probably combined) and at least as rich.

My personal research led me to the conclusion that the colonial trade of France and Great Britain, despite colonizing half the planet, was a small part of their foreign trade and an even smaller part of their overall economy.

What is usually the Marxist reply? Is there any Marxist in the room who can argue his position?

 

[octoberman]

According to the Marxist version, the development of Europe depended on colonial plunder.

Learn about the things you post before posting them. Marxist cause of the development of Europe was the opression of the workers of Europe as written in Das Kapital by Marx himself. What you posted is Leninist as written in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by Lenin himself. Better change the title.

 

[Thoresby]

However, Germany had a very small and limited colonial history and yet was more powerful than France and Great Britain (probably combined) and at least as rich.

My personal research led me to the conclusion that the colonial trade of France and Great Britain, despite colonizing half the planet, was a small part of their foreign trade and an even smaller part of their overall economy.

Also by what measure was Germany more powerful than France and Great Britain, they lost both world wars, in large part because of the economic heft of the British Empire.

 

[octoberman]

Also by what measure was Germany more powerful than France and Great Britain,

Germany had a larger industry than either France or Britain

they lost both world wars,

Neither Britain nor France could defeat Germany alone it took their alliance along with the largest country in Europe and the largest industrial power to defeat Germany

in large part because of the economic heft of the British Empire.

No. Both the British and French Empires could not sustain the scale of their war effort by the time America joined the war Just in time to save them

 

[Garrison]

According to the Marxist version, the development of Europe depended on colonial plunder.

However, Germany had a very small and limited colonial history and yet was more powerful than France and Great Britain (probably combined) and at least as rich.

My personal research led me to the conclusion that the colonial trade of France and Great Britain, despite colonizing half the planet, was a small part of their foreign trade and an even smaller part of their overall economy.

What is usually the Marxist reply? Is there any Marxist in the room who can argue his position?

Sorry but at what point was Germany as powerful or wealthy as France or Britain prior to WW2?

 

[Pax_Nihil]

because capitalism!

 

[Thoresby]

Well yes because there were 65 million Germans against 45 million Brits in 1913, so despite Britain being much richer and more industrialised on a per capita basis Germany in isolation had a larger economy. In addition after their successes at the start of the war (both times) the Germans were able to sit on the defensive for much of the war.

 

[Garrison]

Germany had a larger industry than either France or Britain

Neither Britain nor France could defeat Germany alone it took their alliance along with the largest country in Europe and the largest industrial power to defeat Germany

No. Both the British and French Empires could not sustain the scale of their war effort by the time America joined the war Just in time to save them

And all three of those claims are false. Germany's prewar industrial output was smaller than either, who were able to match and exceed German rearmament by spending 5% of their GDP while Germany was spending 20%. France and Britain could have defeated Germany in 1940, the fall of France could be largely attributed to the terrible performance of Gamelin and his HQ. And your third claim is contradicted by the relative output of Tanks and aircraft by the British alone versus Germany.

 

[Real History]

Learn about the things you post before posting them. Marxist cause of the development of Europe was the opression of the workers of Europe as written in Das Kapital by Marx himself. What you posted is Leninist as written in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by Lenin himself. Better change the title.

Although Marx focused more on slavery by a matter of chronology, the Leninist version is predominant in modern Marxism.

Or does it suggest that the Leninist version is a minority?

Sorry but at what point was Germany as powerful or wealthy as France or Britain prior to WW2?

You can look up historical GDP per capita data and at least it was very similar.

As for power, I think the performance in both world wars speaks for itself.

 

[Garrison]

You can look up historical GDP per capita data and at least it was very similar.

But GDP does not reflect wealth given the difference in population sizes. Better to look at per capita income and other measures that reflect actual living standards.

As for power, I think the performance in both world wars speaks for itself.

if you actually study the history of both World Wars it really doesn't. The imbalance between defence and offence in WW1 and the time required to build a large and effective British army accounts for most of this in WW1. In WW2, well luck with the dismal performance of their enemies prior to 1942 and the wholesale use of looting, slave labour, and the effective abandonment of the civilian economy explains most of Germany's 'success' in WW2.

 

[Real History]

But GDP does not reflect wealth given the difference in population sizes. Better to look at per capita income and other measures that reflect actual living standards.


if you actually study the history of both World Wars it really doesn't. The imbalance between defence and offence in WW1 and the time required to build a large and effective British army accounts for most of this in WW1. In WW2, well luck with the dismal performance of their enemies prior to 1942 and the wholesale use of looting, slave labour, and the effective abandonment of the civilian economy explains most of Germany's 'success' in WW2.

I know, but I am referring to GDP per capita, not total GDP.

Let's see:
WW1: Germany started a war against France, Britain and Russia at the same time, came close to defeating France, Russia collapsed and America's entry was required to achieve complete victory. France would probably have fallen quickly without Russia and Great Britain as it already did in 1870.
WW2: Defeated France in a month and a half despite having British help on her side. She subsequently expelled the British from the continent. The luck factor can hardly explain such an overwhelming defeat, the war was far from being equal.

 

[octoberman]

And all three of those claims are false.

You are making false claims and stating my claims to be false

Germany's prewar industrial output was smaller than either,

Germany had a higher industrial output than either Britain or France in both 1913[1] and 1938[2]

France and Britain could have defeated Germany in 1940, the fall of France could be largely attributed to the terrible performance of Gamelin and his HQ.

France and Britain knew they couldn't defeat Germany that was why the magniot line was built to defend France

And your third claim is contradicted by the relative output of Tanks and aircraft by the British alone versus Germany.

This is false. Britain only slightly outproduced Germany in aircraft[3] but Germany vastly outproduced Britain in tanks[4]

1. Folke H. Industrialization and Foreign Trade. Geneva, 1945. H. 13;

2. Kennedy, Paul M., The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000, New York, Vintage Books, 1987

3. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3106341?origin=crossref

4. Steven Zaloga. "Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of World War II". Stackpole Books, 15 May 2015.

 

[octoberman]

Although Marx focused more on slavery by a matter of chronology, the Leninist version is predominant in modern Marxism.

No Marx only claimed to focus on slavery but he conflated it with wage labour.

 

[Garrison]

I know, but I am referring to GDP per capita, not total GDP.

Let's see:
WW1: Germany started a war against France, Britain and Russia at the same time, came close to defeating France, Russia collapsed and America's entry was required to achieve complete victory. France would probably have fallen quickly without Russia and Great Britain as it already did in 1870.
WW2: Defeated France in a month and a half despite having British help on her side. She subsequently expelled the British from the continent. The luck factor can hardly explain such an overwhelming defeat, the war was far from being equal.

Again this just illustrates you haven't read up in depth on either, your fundamental premise is false, based a misreading of the real economic situation and the condition of the combatants during the early parts of both world wars. I would suggest 'Wages of Destruction' was a good starting point for understanding the economic situation in Germany during the Interwar period and WW2 and 'Forgotten Victory 1918' gives a good account of the realities of the First World War from the British perspective. Simply repeating the old refrain of 'the Germans held out for 4 years' doesn't convince anyone.

 

[Garrison]

This is false. Britain only slightly outproduced Germany in aircraft[3] but Germany vastly outproduced Britain in tanks[4]

Let's put that figure in context shall we?

Power​	Tanks & SPGs​	Armoured vehicles​	Other vehicles​	Artillery​	Mortars​	Machine guns​	Personnel​
British Empire​	47,862	47,420[clarification needed]	1,475,521	226,113	239,540	1,090,410	11,192,533
USA and territories​	108,410		2,382,311	257,390	105,055	2,679,840	16,000,000[9]
USSR​	119,769		1,556,199	516,648	363,012	1,477,400	34,401,807
Other​
Allies	270,041	47,420	4,054,932	1,000,151	707,607	5,247,650	61,594,000
Germany and territories​	67,429	49,777	159,147	73,484	104,864	1,000,730	14,540,835
Hungary​	973	530	5,224	447	2,700	4,583	730,000
Romania​	214	251	4,300	1,800	4,300	10,000	1,220,000
Italian Empire​	3,368	1,240	83,000	7,200	22,000	140,000	4,300,000
Japanese Empire​	4,524	2,200	165,945	13,350	49,000	380,000	8,100,000
Other​
Axis	76,385	50,028	413,316	97,281	182,864	1,395,313	28,890,800

Air forces​

Power​	Total Aircraft​	Fighters​	Attack​	Bombers​	Recon​	Transport​	Training​	Other​	Personnel​
British Empire​	177,025	38,786	33,811	38,158	7,014	12,585	46,256	415	1,927,395
USA and territories​	295,959[10]	99,465		96,872	4,106	23,900	58,085	13,531	2,403,806[11]
USSR​	136,223	22,301	37,549	21,116		17,332	4,061	33,864
Other​
Allies	609,207	160,552	71,360	156,146	11,120	53,817	108,402	47,810
Germany and territories​	133,387	57,653	8,991	28,577	5,025	8,396	14,311	11,361	3,402,200
Romania​	1,113	513	272	128	0	200	0	0
Italian Empire​	13,402	9,157	34	3,381	388	2,471	968	3
Japanese Empire​	64,484	33,405	9,558	11,943	3,709	1,073	3,420	1,376
Other​	9,849	881	4	395	318	1,880	5,145	57
Axis	222,235	98,609	18,859	44,424	11,002	14,020	22,944	12,794

Military production during World War II - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So yes you are correct the Germans built more tanks during the war, but they were outclassed by British production in almost every other category. The British could have built more tanks, they just didn't need to.

 

[prani]

Let's put that figure in context shall we?

Power​	Tanks & SPGs​	Armoured vehicles​	Other vehicles​	Artillery​	Mortars​	Machine guns​	Personnel​
British Empire​	47,862	47,420[clarification needed]	1,475,521	226,113	239,540	1,090,410	11,192,533
USA and territories​	108,410		2,382,311	257,390	105,055	2,679,840	16,000,000[9]
USSR​	119,769		1,556,199	516,648	363,012	1,477,400	34,401,807
Other​
Allies	270,041	47,420	4,054,932	1,000,151	707,607	5,247,650	61,594,000
Germany and territories​	67,429	49,777	159,147	73,484	104,864	1,000,730	14,540,835
Hungary​	973	530	5,224	447	2,700	4,583	730,000
Romania​	214	251	4,300	1,800	4,300	10,000	1,220,000
Italian Empire​	3,368	1,240	83,000	7,200	22,000	140,000	4,300,000
Japanese Empire​	4,524	2,200	165,945	13,350	49,000	380,000	8,100,000
Other​
Axis	76,385	50,028	413,316	97,281	182,864	1,395,313	28,890,800

Air forces​

Power​	Total Aircraft​	Fighters​	Attack​	Bombers​	Recon​	Transport​	Training​	Other​	Personnel​
British Empire​	177,025	38,786	33,811	38,158	7,014	12,585	46,256	415	1,927,395
USA and territories​	295,959[10]	99,465		96,872	4,106	23,900	58,085	13,531	2,403,806[11]
USSR​	136,223	22,301	37,549	21,116		17,332	4,061	33,864
Other​
Allies	609,207	160,552	71,360	156,146	11,120	53,817	108,402	47,810
Germany and territories​	133,387	57,653	8,991	28,577	5,025	8,396	14,311	11,361	3,402,200
Romania​	1,113	513	272	128	0	200	0	0
Italian Empire​	13,402	9,157	34	3,381	388	2,471	968	3
Japanese Empire​	64,484	33,405	9,558	11,943	3,709	1,073	3,420	1,376
Other​	9,849	881	4	395	318	1,880	5,145	57
Axis	222,235	98,609	18,859	44,424	11,002	14,020	22,944	12,794

Military production during World War II - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So yes you are correct the Germans built more tanks during the war, but they were outclassed by British production in almost every other category. The British could have built more tanks, they just didn't need to.

I'd say this is a really really unfair comparison cause the german war industry had this obsession over engineering and quality, resulted in problems of bottleneck in supply chain as the inputs that went into these machines could not be scaled up like the soviets did, the soviets had much smaller industrial base than the Germans but they did not do the mistake of producing a variety of equipment needed for the war, they stuck to 2 or 3 different versions of each weapon, whose performance was average but they produced them at a scale that quantity trumped quality and you are talking about different fighting philosophies, location, infrastructure etc etc , germans did not need much trucks given how dense European railways were at the time.

If you want fair comparisons that are relevant to the topic check these metrics
1. Electricity production/capacity
2. Synthetic rubber production/ Capacity
3. Chemical Production/capacity
4. Metallurgical Production/Capacity
You have to compare other manufacturing capacities and actual production

According to the Marxist version, the development of Europe depended on colonial plunder.

However, Germany had a very small and limited colonial history and yet was more powerful than France and Great Britain (probably combined) and at least as rich.

My personal research led me to the conclusion that the colonial trade of France and Great Britain, despite colonizing half the planet, was a small part of their foreign trade and an even smaller part of their overall economy.

What is usually the Marxist reply? Is there any Marxist in the room who can argue his position?

I am sorry but this question is vague, we know why Germany was richer than UK and France in the second half of the 20th century, they followed Ordo Liberalism after the end of second world war, they allowed private enterprises the freedom to operate as they wish, this was combined with a strong framework of consumer rights protection, prevention of monopolies and abuse of monopolies, strong social safety net, emphasis on building public infrastructure. These combined put the worse of capitalism under check so many of the predictions Marx made never came to fruitions which is why Germany was prosperous. Now from a Marxist perspective I do not know how this fits in but may be because the excess of capitalism was put in check made it richer than UK and France and those two did not do so and not to forget that the three countries did very different things post 2nd world war economically.

 

[octoberman]

I am sorry but this question is vague, we know why Germany was richer than UK and France in the second half of the 20th century, they followed Ordo Liberalism after the end of second world war, they allowed private enterprises the freedom to operate as they wish, this was combined with a strong framework of consumer rights protection, prevention of monopolies and abuse of monopolies, strong social safety net, emphasis on building public infrastructure. These combined put the worse of capitalism under check so many of the predictions Marx made never came to fruitions which is why Germany was prosperous. Now from a Marxist perspective I do not know how this fits in but may be because the excess of capitalism was put in check made it richer than UK and France and those two did not do so and not to forget that the three countries did very different things post 2nd world war economically.

No Germany is richer than UK and France because German labour more educated as they have the highest median years of schooling in the world

 

[wcv215]

had this obsession over engineering and quality

Funny how that resulted in a lack of quality.

 

[muddyleathers]

No Germany is richer than UK and France because German labour more educated as they have the highest median years of schooling in the world

Don't leave out having their entire industrial base rebuilt by the victors.

 

[oberdada]

Just a thought:

Just because Germany as a country was late to the colonial game, does not mean that German Capital was.

As far a I know, the descendents of Jacob Fugger are still pretty wealthy.