Paul Kennedy's 1987 work, "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers," is arguably one of the most influential works I have ever read and is mandatory reading in most collegiate international studies courses today. The author uses economic data to explain the rise and fall of (you guessed it) Great Powers from the 1500s up to today, explaining how European powers and later, the United States, rose to global dominance, supplanting China, the Mughals and Indian Princely States, and the Ottoman Caliphate.

The part of his work concerning the 20th century is engrossing, and I return to it again and again for enlightenment, peppering many of my online historical arguments with the statistics contained therein. For your reading and analytical pleasure, I present the following selected graphs from said work. I hope you find them as interesting as I do.

The thing that stands out is just how powerful the Soviet Union was on the verge of WW2. This is important, because in WW1, industrialized Germany annihilated Czarist, agrarian Russia. When the Bolsheviks came to power, they negotiated a separate peace with Germany, the Treaty of Brest Litovsk. By 1941, Russia's industrialization far surpassed Germany's.

Also, despite what many "new age" economic talking heads say, WW2 shows just how important manufacturing and industrial capability is during a time of warfare. The British, lulled into the doctrine of free and open trade, had decentralized their agricultural and industrial production to such a degree by 1939, that the vast majority of their food and key raw materials (which they had once produced domestically, albeit at higher cost) were sent overseas. On the one hand, this spared them from German bombs during the Blitz. On the other hand, it meant that everything needed to be transported by sea. Hitler's U-Boat campaign against Britain (which he never fully understood, was never fully committed to, and was never very enthusiastic about, despite the pleas of unorthodox admirals like Doenitz) almost brought Britain to her knees. After the war, Churchill said it was the only thing that really, truly worried him during the war. He knew Hitler would never be able to invade. He knew Hitler would not prevail in the Blitz. But he didn't know how long Britain's civilians could last if they were being starved of food, gas and key commodities from overseas. A service economy, even a high tech economy, count for nothing unless you can "make stuff."

Before WW2, Luftwaffe chief Hermann Goering said "America excels at making automobiles, but they cannot make fighter planes." History shows us that the industrial base to wage global war is largely dependent upon a strong, pre-existing peacetime industrial foundation. During wartime, these peacetime industries are merely "re-tooled" or converted from the production of consumer goods, to the production of weapons of war. One doesn't really have the ability to "industrialize" during wartime. Today, China is making enormous strides in this regard, and if we ever have a war with her, they may very well astound the world with their capacity for high-tech military production, on a scale never seen in world history. No doubt some old timers here will disagree with me, but old timers sometimes refuse to see the truth, blinded by the clouds of nostalgia.

Another interesting thing to note is how the Soviets, due to their utilization of a different economic system, were able to outproduce the Germans without spending as much. That said, the quality of what the Soviets produced in the 1930s was inferior to what the Germans produced, generally speaking. However, because the Soviets produced so many different things, they were able to see what worked, such that they stuck with the most successful tank, tank destroyer, fighter plane, and interceptor designs and these came to predominate in all Soviet production, easily accomplished due to high levels of economic centralization. The Germans, by contrast, actually produced an ever-increasing variety of things by the end of the war, due to the fact that their industry was increasingly decentralized by war's end---a conscious effort to minimize the destruction wrought by the Anglo-American aerial industrial bombing campaign. 

This chart is actually rather amazing. It shows how much Germany and Russia suffered as a result of WW1, and how  much they surpassed their pre-1914 industrial levels by the advent of WW2. I'm still amazed at what Stalinization did to Russia, and horrified when I realize how many people undoubtedly died to achieve these numbers.

One thing that these graphs also show, is that if the Axis Powers had any hope of victory, it had to be a quick victory. They had to clean-up at the table by the end of 1941 at the latest, before the Allies could fully re-tool their industry, and mobilize their economy and populations for total war. The sheer size of the Allied Powers, in terms of industrial capacity, population and the like gave them far more military potential than anything the Axis Powers could even dream of.

And I suppose a similar principle would have to guide any policy we would have in a possible future war with China. We would need a fast, lightening victory. If the war lasted too long, China would outproduce us, and get to a point where she could utilize and leverage her vastly superior population.

Views: 67

Comment by Jonathan Wolfman on July 31, 2017 at 12:33pm

These stats and conclusions assume the decision not to use nuclear weapons and assume further that Germany would not have used them had they developed the capacity in time.

Comment by Rob Wittmann on July 31, 2017 at 1:20pm

I'm not quite following you

Comment by Jonathan Wolfman on July 31, 2017 at 4:07pm

Had Germany been able to speed up its nuclear program successfully, the fact that these stats show it banked on a swift win may not have mattered. 

Comment by Rob Wittmann on July 31, 2017 at 5:55pm

nuclear weaponry did not enter into Hitler's calculations in1938/1939; It was still considered scifi. Germany's program only got the funding it required once they started losing the war. Hitler wanted his panzers to win the war quickly. 

Comment by koshersalaami on July 31, 2017 at 8:00pm

I had no idea the Allies had that much better production 

Comment by Rob Wittmann on August 1, 2017 at 3:40am

Kosh---Once Hitler failed to get a quick knockout against the UK in 1940, and USSR in 1941, the war was basically over. The Allies could just wear out the Germans with attrition. And they did. 

Comment by Rob Wittmann on August 1, 2017 at 7:53am

Terry----you are correct. Russia did start to rapidly industrialize during the first decade of the 20th century. But the Boyar class was impeding modernization and an effective system of taxation and governmental administration, and was preventing the Russian middle class from emerging. The mercantile class was very hostile toward the Boyars during this time and appealed to the Czar to change the tax policy (which hit the middle, mercantile classes the hardest, but spared the nobility). This is similar to what we saw in France in the late 18th century, with many of the same results.

Stalin industrialized Russia at a rate never seen in Russian history. Even at a greater rate than currently seen in China. The problem, though, is that he did this at the expense of everything else, particularly food production. Millions of Russians starved, due to the collectivization of agriculture, which was done to complement mass industrialization----and to free up people for work in factories through the centralization of food production on the communes. It didn't work and millions died.

Another thing of note about industrialization in the USSR was that much of it was done very deep in the hinterland, far away from Russia's borders with foreign countries. By 1941, Russian industry was far beyond the range of any long range bomber in existence.

Comment by Rob Wittmann on August 1, 2017 at 7:59am

Terry----I'm reading lots of books about modern naval power from the U.S. Navy, as well as committee transcripts from Congress. It seems the age of the aircraft carrier is quickly coming to an end. We need to re-tool our naval policy. Our carrier approach relies too much on short-range fighter aircraft and having air and naval bases in forward deployment posture, which is now within easy reach of GPS guided long-range tactical missiles. The Chinese have made great strides in Anti Access Area Denial (A2/AD) technology, and this really puts a hamper on our carrier-based approach. Long-range bombers and escort fighters (or fighter-bomber combos) are a good way to neutralize that threat, and the navy knows that and is currently trying to re-tool. It is now rather easy for a first-rate military power to knock out an aircraft carrier fleet, using guided missiles. Basically, its the same thing as Japan's Kamikaze approach, but without the suicidal pilots and far better targeting.


You need to be a member of Our Salon to add comments!

Join Our Salon


Trump trusts his gut

Posted by Dicky Neely on July 21, 2018 at 2:11pm 0 Comments

Apartheid Version 2.0

Posted by Safe Bet's Amy on July 21, 2018 at 7:32am 4 Comments

Dreaming at My Age

Posted by Ben Sen on July 20, 2018 at 7:00pm 0 Comments


Posted by Ben Sen on July 20, 2018 at 11:14am 2 Comments

Off With His Head!!!!!

Posted by Safe Bet's Amy on July 20, 2018 at 7:03am 11 Comments

Birth of a New Day

Posted by Ron Powell on July 19, 2018 at 3:30am 11 Comments

© 2018   Created by lorianne.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service