Compare and Contrast the process of Industrialisation in France and Germany prior to 1914.
Compare and Contrast the process of Industrialisation
in France and Germany prior to 1914.
The rate of industrialisation of both Germany and France was at a very similar level
for much of the nineteenth century. With a few differences in the speed towards the
beginning of the twentieth century. But it is important to signify when the industrialisation
process began and ended. I believe that if it had not been for the war in 1914 that Germany
would have continued in its massive upturn and surpassed even Britain in industrial
magnitude. This was when the process ended as man power and machinery was at use for
militancy. The process can be marked as starting at the beginning of the 1800s because
although Britain had begun earlier the French and Germans had started later and continued
upon a slow road to industrial compliance. I have used three yardsticks by which to measure
the industrial development of the two countries Germany and France. The beginnings of the
industrial age, the production levels of iron, coal and steel in the second half of the century
when the real gains were made and the development of the transport systems mainly the
railways. These three categories are important as the first measures the ability of the
countries at the outset while the second measures their adaptability to a new kind of
industrialism. The railways and the transport systems are important because this can show us
the efficiency of coal transport which at this time was used in all major industries as well as
the governments efficiency in providing for the people as well as businesses, this should
improve as a country becomes more dependant on those people to keep it at the forefront
of industry.
During the first half of the nineteenth century both France and Germany experienced
a level of industrialisation which can be seen as slow and in respect of Britain, quite inferior
to it. French industries as a whole in the entire century were remodelled however it is far
from credible to say that the French had any kind of Industrial Revolution. There was a
gradual transformation of French industry along with a slow shift in the country's economic
centre from agriculture to industry. However, that shift in an entire century was by no means
as complete of that which the Germans experienced in the forty years after 1871. The
French industrial movement was hardly perceptible despite the fuss made about it except in
special circumstances when it is possible to highlight a town or an industry in which
something spectacular occurred. It is a good idea to use the growth of populations inside a
country's major cities as a measuring stick for their success in the field of industrialisation.
Take Paris as an example, at the beginning of the century it could boast a population of
548,000 and was second only in Europe to London, while the smaller major cities of Lyon,
Marseilles and Bordeaux where in the region of 75,000 to 110,000 inhabitants more than
any major city except London. That was in 1801 however, and in the fifty years that
followed these major cities doubled their populations while smaller cities grew by around
30%. Now, to give you something to weigh this up against, the British towns of Sheffield,
Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool grew in population by 30% in the single decade of
821-1831. The slow industrialisation of France is strange to me as the French Revolution
had removed all the burdens upon free trade, as the motto itself promoted liberty and
equality for all it is hard to believe that the French did not rush to the ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
followed these major cities doubled their populations while smaller cities grew by around
30%. Now, to give you something to weigh this up against, the British towns of Sheffield,
Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool grew in population by 30% in the single decade of
821-1831. The slow industrialisation of France is strange to me as the French Revolution
had removed all the burdens upon free trade, as the motto itself promoted liberty and
equality for all it is hard to believe that the French did not rush to the towns and begin the
industrial leg of their revolution. Especially as Napoleon himself had promoted the new
technologies for weaving and in machinery as soon as they had been leaked from British
shores. You could be forgiven for thinking that the future of France looked like a fast train to
success in 1801, but you would have to take into account the bloody wars which the
revolution brought with it and the extent to which the French had to catch up was immense.
Germany although having a more complete transformation was slow to industrialise
in the first half of the century also. Germany's main industrial system was that of home
working. It was a badly run, less than profitable system where home workers would work
with textiles before selling their products through a local entrepreneur. As I said it wasn't a
profitable system and these home workers were not really wage earners. In 1821 however
the glimmer of light for Germany came when the Institute of Trades was brought into
existence, the institute promoted the methods and technologies employed in the industry's of
Britain and set up colleges to promote industrial education. However, it was hard to get
water into the capitol Berlin and their was no coal for miles around so the speed of industry
was kept slow in the capitol. The areas which would have been suitable for this kind of
industrial development where hampered by the dislocations caused by years of war and
peace and so the industrial boom remained slow and small. The main development in the
upturn of German fortunes was the excellent road systems left by the French after the Rhur
was occupied and the development of other roads throughout the country. From 1815-
840 the improvement in roads transformed the speed of industrialisation but by the year
840 the Germans stood in a good position to make the most of industry. For example, in
837 Berlin reported the use of 390 h.p. of steam in use with the rest of the territories
boasting only 7,500 h.p. used in spinning, milling, mining, metallurgy and every other
purpose. By 1846 the h.p. had rose to 22,000 of which 14,000 was now employed in
mining and metallurgy.
In the second half of the century there was an upturn in industrialisation which I
believe is best measured by the steel and Iron industries as they were the chief
employment's of shipbuilding and machines and of course the need for coal was at its height
and so it also tested the coal wealth of a country. France had been brought up to modern
standards in coal by the middle of the century. However, up until this time she was still
melting iron ore in small furnaces which meant that it could not be concentrated and also the
factories needed to be near woods so as to provide power. The French output continued to
be substandard until 1869 when 1,400,000 tons of iron where produced. This was a good
figure but political difficulties and the onset of War doubled with the economic depression of
the late seventies meant that 1874 was the earliest point at which the number was improved
upon but by no means did it really establish its self as an industry till the 1890's when its
production of iron reached 2,000,000 tons. The French Steel industry suffered a similar
stagnation to iron from 1855 until 1860 where the production level stayed at 500,000 tons
with little change for almost five years. The introduction of the British designed Bessemer
converter which was employed in six major steel works raised the output considerably to
,000,000 in 1869. This left France second only to Britain in steel output at this time.
Similarly to the iron industry there was then no real improvement until the 1890's when the
rise of exports grew because of the lack of technology to turn the wealth of ore into coke.
The huge upturn from this point on signified by the rise in machine building and developments
in cutlery provides us with a glimpse of what can be seen as the 'industrial revolution' in
France.
In Germany it was a similar story except that the excellent ores that were to be
found in the coal fields of the Rhur had kept small factories ticking over at a respectable rate
up until the middle of the century. 1845 signified the beginning of the boom in German steel
and iron, as the railways developed becoming both a carrier and user of coal, but there was
still no great rush about the development and things remained slow until the 1860s. German
iron production at this point was inferior to that of both the UK and France, it produced
only 529,000 tons of pig iron while France produced almost 900,000 tons with Britain
leading the way on 3,880,000 tons of pig iron. Then came the 1870s and the industry took a
giant leap which lead to the conclusion that the German Empire was built not on blood and
iron but rather on coal and iron. The period of 1871-74 saw Germany surpass France in the
iron industry as the biggest amount of factories were opened for smelting, the number came
to more than had been opened in an entire century before that. At this point Germany stood
at 2,000,000 tons of pig iron while France produced only 1,400,000 tons. Similarly to
France Germany then suffered a slump because of imports bringing the prices down while
unemployment rose by 40%. But yet again the Germans began a new boom phase in 1880
and it saw them recover to become the only nation to improve during the depression.
Germany doubled her steel output and almost doubled her iron output during this period
while Britons steel output was left at almost exactly the same out put through out the entire
period. Germany soon brought herself into the forefront and was hailed as the leaders in the
steel and iron industries during the period from 1890 up until the war in 1914. Only America
who were a rich nation stood higher than them on the production of steel and iron.
The growth in Germany and France was accompanied by important developments
in Railway policy, orchestrated chiefly by Freycinet in France and in Germany, as with most
other major developments of that era, Bismarck. In France their had been complaints during
the last few years of the second empire that the Great companies would not open railway
lines in out of the way areas because of the belief that they would be less than profitable.
Because of this the Government were forced to subsidise smaller companies to keep the
lines open and when this wasn't viable they were left responsible for them through the public
works programme. After 1870 things became even more stressed as the government
commissioned 50% more lines than they had originally intended with the 4000 km of new
lines rising to more than 8000. This may sound like a boom for the railway industry,
however it was more of a financial burden on the state as it was left responsible for 20,000
km of railway to fund as small business went out bust and the new lines proved extremely
unprofitable. The great companies than came together to rescue the French system. Their
earlier refusal to be involved in Freycinet's third network plan was discarded, in the north ,
east and West they agreed to take over the brunt of the third network raising money,
maintaining the lines and providing man power. In the south west the state was left with its
small network of lines which it was responsible for. Because the companies now had no
need for the system of dividends run during the second empire the process of repayment
was hastened and although troubles brought a brief return to the system in the 1880s all of
the major companies were self sufficient by 1905. By 1914 the railway system was in a
healthy state with the two strongest lines paying well and the day that they would finally
share in their own profits approaching fast. While the three weaker lines were rapidly paying
off debts and the weakest line under state ownership.
In Germany Bismarck had played with the Idea that had been forced on France,
State ownership. However, he was not in power at the time and would have proved
impossible as the newly acquired state of Bavaria would never have given up their railway
independence. He had to instead content himself in 1873, with the construction of an
imperial railway office to co-ordinate the working of the systems. During the 1870s the
people of Germany grew extremely sympathetic towards the idea of an imperial railway
system as the import of Russian cheap grain on trains hurt farmers and the threat that the
French and Russians may present war on both borders after their diplomatic rapprochement
in 1875. The railways would have been able to transport soldiers to the towns quickly and
imperial railways would have meant the regulation of imports. In the thirty years between
879 and 1909 the state continued to pursue this and bought up over 37,000 km of lines
from private companies the figure had been closer to 5,000 km in 1879. The number of
private company lines were reduced from 9,000 to 2,000km by 1909. In stark contast to
the French system the German system was making money and keeping it in 1914, not in the
way it had promised but still it was successful. It had to develop taxes on imports and
exports and tariffs raised. So it is easier to say that Germany's railway system was in a more
healthy state than the French one in terms of national profit but was not encouraging for
private trade and I believe this could have harmed the wealth of the nation as a whole.
In conclusion I would say that the industrialisation process took place over an entire
century and I have chosen the three main yardsticks to measure by. However, there were
other factors. In my opinion the French Revolution had a profound effect on the slowness of
the French industrialisation. I would have believed at first that because the revolution had
removed all barriers to free trade the process would have been quicker with citizens wanting
to take advantage of their new found liberty. But, on the contrary the peasantry of France
was left owning and working its own land which in the long run meant that they were not
desperate to earn a wage in the cities as the case was in the UK. While in Germany the
medieval standards had remained and the peasantry were inferior in wage and living
standards similarly to the UK. That accompanied by the organisational skills of the Empire
meant that the German process of industrialisation was indeed quicker than the French.
Their ability to adapt to the new workings only showed fruition when the roads and railways
were improved while France lingered in slumps for far too long. It seems that the German
people were far quicker to take to the industrial education they received and this can be
seen in the rate by which their steam and steel production improved above France's. So I
would say after comparing the two nations and taking into account the social and political
situations in both countries that Germany were better equipped both socially and politically
to take advantage of the industrial revelations made by the British and therefore they were
able, despite a slow start similar to France, to forge ahead in the second half of the
nineteenth century.
Bibliography
Pollard, S. , Peaceful Conquest: The Industrialization of
Europe 1760-1970 , 1981.
Trebilcock, C. , The industrilisation of the continental powers
1780-1914 , 1981.
Caron, F. , An Econmic History of Modern France , 1978.
Henderson, W.O., The rise of German Industrial Power, 1834-1914, 1975.