British government takes an 'Audit of war'

[birdy]

A popular explanation for Britain's postwar decline seems to be that flush with victory- the British ignored the fundamental problems in its industry etc, while their future competitors rebuilt.

Since i suspect they were aware of various flaws- especially given that they had been dependant on the US for many exports etc, and seemed to imagine a shiny new Britain emerging postwar. What if the postwar government or even Churchill's during the last months of the war, had taken an 'Audit' of Britains performance etc

dives behind chair.

 

[Calgacus]

A popular explanation for Britain's postwar decline seems to be that flush with victory- the British ignored the fundamental problems in its industry etc, while their future competitors rebuilt.

Since i suspect they were aware of various flaws- especially given that they had been dependant on the US for many exports etc, and seemed to imagine a shiny new Britain emerging postwar. What if the postwar government or even Churchill's during the last months of the war, had taken an 'Audit' of Britains performance etc

dives behind chair.

I'd always understood that while European countries saw a lot of their heavy industry destroyed, and replaced it with new efficient plants paid for by Marshall plan money, the British ones largely survived, meaning the British had to continue postwar with outdated and worn out equpment, falling behind their rivals. Maybe that's wrong though.

 

[birdy]

I'd always understood that while European countries saw a lot of their heavy industry destroyed, and replaced it with new efficient plants paid for by Marshall plan money, the British ones largely survived, meaning the British had to continue postwar with outdated and worn out equpment, falling behind their rivals. Maybe that's wrong though.

thing is, Britain had nearly a quarter of the total share of Marshall aid, so we should have been able to replace that plant.

Or so i hear.

 

[Bry]

I don't know about Britain ceasing it's decline in 1945 or even later... I think that the only manner in which the British Empire could have survived is if;-

a) Britain allies/ stays neutral with Hitler/ maybe is even beaten by Hitler in WW2- there is some evidence that he believed that Britain was the rightful ruler of territory outside of Europe, whilst Germany that in Europe.

b) The British Empire federalises, perhaps around WW1, but to be successful, possibly some time before.

Speaking ecomomically, who knows? In 1950, Great Britain actually held it's highest ever position on the GDP (PPP) rankings (third, after the USA and USSR- not too far behind the Soviets, and far ahead of the fourth country) yet few would argue that this was the Golden Age of the British economy.

Let's face it though, even the countries who did improve their industry after the war have not fared brilliantly... Britain is the regional power of Europe, after all, and not France or Germany, the more industrially- based...

 

[Calgacus]

I don't know about Britain ceasing it's decline in 1945 or even later... I think that the only manner in which the British Empire could have survived is if;-

a) Britain allies/ stays neutral with Hitler/ maybe is even beaten by Hitler in WW2- there is some evidence that he believed that Britain was the rightful ruler of territory outside of Europe, whilst Germany that in Europe.

b) The British Empire federalises, perhaps around WW1, but to be successful, possibly some time before.

Speaking ecomomically, who knows? In 1950, Great Britain actually held it's highest ever position on the GDP (PPP) rankings (third, after the USA and USSR- not too far behind the Soviets, and far ahead of the fourth country) yet few would argue that this was the Golden Age of the British economy.

Let's face it though, even the countries who did improve their industry after the war have not fared brilliantly... Britain is the regional power of Europe, after all, and not France or Germany, the more industrially- based...

Well that's debateable. But however you look at it, France and Germany did overtake Britain in the 50s-80s and it's only recently that Britain has regained some momentum (largely through our more liberal economy and labour laws). If Britain had done better post-WW2, would we be further ahead today? Or would we have hit a wall at some point?

 

[Kit]

thing is, Britain had nearly a quarter of the total share of Marshall aid, so we should have been able to replace that plant.

Or so i hear.

Yes, we should have. Unfortunetly we spent it on the creation of the NHS and maintaining our imperial and military commitments.

 

[birdy]

I don't know about Britain ceasing it's decline in 1945 or even later... I think that the only manner in which the British Empire could have survived is if;-

a) Britain allies/ stays neutral with Hitler/ maybe is even beaten by Hitler in WW2- there is some evidence that he believed that Britain was the rightful ruler of territory outside of Europe, whilst Germany that in Europe.

b) The British Empire federalises, perhaps around WW1, but to be successful, possibly some time before.

Speaking ecomomically, who knows? In 1950, Great Britain actually held it's highest ever position on the GDP (PPP) rankings (third, after the USA and USSR- not too far behind the Soviets, and far ahead of the fourth country) yet few would argue that this was the Golden Age of the British economy.

quote]

To be honest i'm speaking more of the British economy rather tne the Empire surviving, although if Britain was richer and therefore probably decided to remain a larger military power, maybe some Commonwealth countires would develop closer alliances with her.

 

[Kit]

I'd always understood that while European countries saw a lot of their heavy industry destroyed, and replaced it with new efficient plants paid for by Marshall plan money, the British ones largely survived, meaning the British had to continue postwar with outdated and worn out equpment, falling behind their rivals. Maybe that's wrong though.

That's basically the reason.

Of course it goes deeper as well.

The UK was the first country to industrialise and thus in many ways was left with an inadequate industrial infrastructure. We had all the prototypes.

The French, Germans, Americans etc, had the finished models.

Take railways for example. We built ours first, with the early narrow gauges. These are less efficient because you can't carry as much, as cheaply, with large locomotives on wide gauges. Everyone else, who industrialised later on, were able to invest in national network of wide gauge tracks.

The same sort of process can be seen in virtually every other industry.

We also had a serious management problem. The industrial revolution had been started by ambitious entrepreneuers with little or no formal training. They created dynamic family buninesses and then, as often as not, retired to their country estates, leaving their business to their Eton educated sons.

France, Germany, America et al, when confronted with an industrialsed Britain that was hugely wealthy and threatening to dominate them forever had to play catch-up, quickly. And they did that by planning carefully. Large firms, special management training programmes, professional bodies, often government support.

By 1945 the UK had a serious management defecit. Our firms were small, family owned, fragmentary compared to the large corporations in our competitors.

We had owners who were more interested in shooting pheasants than merging and growing their businesses.

We had managers who were not professionally trained in mangement, but had a wonderful classics education.

In fact, we had another problem. The only people who were trained in a profession involved in running business, were the accountants. This meant that when in came to business strategy, the people who tended to be regarded as 'those who knew best', were the bean counters.

Accountants are not well known for being aggressive, ambitious risk-takers. And during the decades they basically guided British business, we found ourselves consistently out-maneurvered in terms of international competition with foreign firms.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Well, mutiple gauges, early on. By WWII Britain was entirely Standard gauge.

I think beyond the issue of older equipment, the main reason for Britain's relative decline was reorientation of the economy from imperial metropol to regional European, coupled with the enormous financial drain of the empire and withdrawal from it.

That's basically the reason.

Of course it goes deeper as well.

The UK was the first country to industrialise and thus in many ways was left with an inadequate industrial infrastructure. We had all the prototypes.

The French, Germans, Americans etc, had the finished models.

Take railways for example. We built ours first, with the early narrow gauges. These are less efficient because you can't carry as much, as cheaply, with large locomotives on wide gauges. Everyone else, who industrialised later on, were able to invest in national network of wide gauge tracks.

The same sort of process can be seen in virtually every other industry.

We also had a serious management problem. The industrial revolution had been started by ambitious entrepreneuers with little or no formal training. They created dynamic family buninesses and then, as often as not, retired to their country estates, leaving their business to their Eton educated sons.

France, Germany, America et al, when confronted with an industrialsed Britain that was hugely wealthy and threatening to dominate them forever had to play catch-up, quickly. And they did that by planning carefully. Large firms, special management training programmes, professional bodies, often government support.

By 1945 the UK had a serious management defecit. Our firms were small, family owned, fragmentary compared to the large corporations in our competitors.

We had owners who were more interested in shooting pheasants than merging and growing their businesses.

We had managers who were not professionally trained in mangement, but had a wonderful classics education.

In fact, we had another problem. The only people who were trained in a profession involved in running business, were the accountants. This meant that when in came to business strategy, the people who tended to be regarded as 'those who knew best', were the bean counters.

Accountants are not well known for being aggressive, ambitious risk-takers. And during the decades they basically guided British business, we found ourselves consistently out-maneurvered in terms of international competition with foreign firms.

 

[Rasputin]

The UK was the first country to industrialise and thus in many ways was left with an inadequate industrial infrastructure. We had all the prototypes.

The French, Germans, Americans etc, had the finished models.

...

We also had a serious management problem. The industrial revolution had been started by ambitious entrepreneuers with little or no formal training. They created dynamic family buninesses and then, as often as not, retired to their country estates, leaving their business to their Eton educated sons.

France, Germany, America et al, when confronted with an industrialsed Britain that was hugely wealthy and threatening to dominate them forever had to play catch-up, quickly. And they did that by planning carefully. Large firms, special management training programmes, professional bodies, often government support.

By 1945 the UK had a serious management defecit. Our firms were small, family owned, fragmentary compared to the large corporations in our competitors.

We had owners who were more interested in shooting pheasants than merging and growing their businesses.

We had managers who were not professionally trained in mangement, but had a wonderful classics education.

I entirely agree with this, but I have to say that it definitely helped in the case of Germany and Japan that they had basically gone through a process of 'creative destruction'. Rebuilding from scratch meant that they were unencumbered with inhibitions to growth from vested interests.

On the basis of this very theory I once conceived of a (fairly implausible) scenario involving Mosley coming to power in the mid '30s, Britain getting dragged into war with America thanks to Nazi Germany, getting carpet-bombed and occupied by US forces and being forced to rebuild from the ground up.

It would've been the best thing that ever happened to this country. We'd have the Hollywood elite driving Rover hybrids and young 'uns button-mashing Sinclair games consoles instead of doing their homework.

 

[MarkA]

The obvious answer is the class system held everybody, except the very wealthy, back.

Britain attracted lots and lots of the very brightest and best from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa all through the fifties and sixties. It was a vibrant place in the fringe areas where the class system was less important or even unimportant - intellectual life and the arts in particular.

Industry was moribund because of the management class. People got jobs exclusively through their contacts, the 'old boys network.' This still happens of course except we call it simply networking. Today there are considerable numbers of people who get jobs because of their ability rather than solely their contacts or who their daddy was.

I think the vitality of the intellectual contribution to British society at all levels from the Commonwealth 'invasion' of the sixties is the key to change in post-war thinking in the UK.

 

[Rasputin]

I think the vitality of the intellectual contribution to British society at all levels from the Commonwealth 'invasion' of the sixties is the key to change in post-war thinking in the UK.

The sixties sounds a bit late though. The decline was already well-advanced at that point, and de Gaulle was still adamant on that "non" keeping Britain out of the EEC.

Come on! You know you want to see fleets of B39s levelling the Bank of England and reducing the playing fields of Eton into a soggy mess. Do not deny it!

 

[Riain]

A good idea would have been to look at where Britain was ahead of others, and ride these for all they were worth. The Comet and other jet aircraft could have been a goldmine for Britain in the first postwar decade. Britain had virtually no competitor to the Comet, and could have held a good chunk of the jet combat aircraft market. Radars, and other electronics, were another areas where Britain had little competition and could take great strides in a vacum. By the time others had caught up Britian would be surfing a wave, and ready to enter the next cutting edge economic sector.

 

[MarkA]

The sixties sounds a bit late though. The decline was already well-advanced at that point, and de Gaulle was still adamant on that "non" keeping Britain out of the EEC.

Come on! You know you want to see fleets of B39s levelling the Bank of England and reducing the playing fields of Eton into a soggy mess. Do not deny it!

How would the US do it?

When Britain in 1941 handed over ALL its secret technology work to the Americans and sold its best and most profitable businesses to the Yanks for a fraction of their real value, US military technology was way behind Britain.

 

[Ramp-Rat]

Kit one small point with regard to railways. Britain and the rest off Europe, as does much off the rest off the world have for all practical purposes the same rail gauge. What does differ is the loading gauge, this is the space a train can take up as apposed to the distance between the rails. So while British rolling stock can be run on most European rails, though at much reduced weight loads, continental trains having a lower axel loading than British.

RR.

 

[Rasputin]

When Britain in 1941 handed over ALL its secret technology work to the Americans and sold its best and most profitable businesses to the Yanks for a fraction of their real value, US military technology was way behind Britain.

*sigh* And so I keep dreaming...

 

[The Dean]

The gauge of our railway tracks in the UK was taken as standard by every country in the world in the 19th century apart from Russia in an uncharacteristic burst of good sense on their part. This remains the case to this day.
The narrow gauges you speak of were the lines inside factories and quarries that were originally man, winch or gravity powered.Once you moved to horse power what is known of as narrow gauge was inoperable the horses did not fit between the lines. The standard gauge of 4ft 8in came about as it was the best width for a horse to fit between the rails.
When mechanical, steam, power arrived it was used on standard gauge for no other reason than the lines were there. Brunel did not feel obliged to restrict himself to the limitations of horse drawn transportations and always refered to standard gauge contemptuously as "that cart track". Consequently the Great Western Railway used broad gauge but had to fit a third rail to interface with the other rail companies. After Brunels death his broad gauge was phased out in favour of the standard gauge adopted by the Stevensons. This was the triumph of profit over practicality.
The problem with the railways and all of the transport infrastructure in the UK spring from decisions made after the post war Attlee government left power. They had nothing to do with using a prototype gauge as that is used today by SNCFs TGVs and Japans "bullet" trains.
This is a subject that an audit would have been well advised to look at very seriously as it is the cause of a lot of the problems we have today in the UK with transport. If you want to know more about this look at "Green and Pleasant Land"https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=57544

 

[Wozza]

The obvious answer is the class system held everybody, except the very wealthy, back.

Britain attracted lots and lots of the very brightest and best from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa all through the fifties and sixties. It was a vibrant place in the fringe areas where the class system was less important or even unimportant - intellectual life and the arts in particular.

Industry was moribund because of the management class. People got jobs exclusively through their contacts, the 'old boys network.' This still happens of course except we call it simply networking. Today there are considerable numbers of people who get jobs because of their ability rather than solely their contacts or who their daddy was.

I think the vitality of the intellectual contribution to British society at all levels from the Commonwealth 'invasion' of the sixties is the key to change in post-war thinking in the UK.

The problem with this class based analysis is it implies that the upper classes are somehow stupider than everyone else. A state of affairs no more true than that they are cleverer than everyone else.

In practice meritocracy does not always improve things. The best example of this is British army officers in WW2. Officer recruitment was democratised in 1942 and the quality of officers did not improve (it did not get worse either). In fact training and what people learnt was more important than their background.

The problem with this "too much networking" analysis, and Kit's "no proper management" thesis is that entirely subjective and actually quite hard to make a meaningful comparison with other countries.

On the other hand we do know that Britain had highly militant trade unions, very high defence spending and extremely distorted currency arrangements.

It is worth noting that the entire notion of post-war British economic decline has been challenged (for much the reasons Calgacus suggests - what "should" growth have been?) and some of its alleged symptoms, such as a more cyclically variable economy than elsewhere in Europe found to be suspect.

 

[Kit]

The problem with this "too much networking" analysis, and Kit's "no proper management" thesis is that entirely subjective and actually quite hard to make a meaningful comparison with other countries.

I was waiting for you to turn up in this thread Wozza!

The study of corporate history is quite a popular academic field of study. And it is possible to compare the presence of management training at different times, in different companies. It's possible to compare corporate structure, levels of takeovers and rate of corporate growth. It's also possible to compare the rising and falling shares certain countries had of international trade. It's possible to compare the number of patents that were turned into marketable, mass-produced goods.

Studies have also been done comparing the top firms in different industries, with different countries, in terms of how they operated and how they performed.

All these are highly revealing of British management practices.

 

[Wozza]

I was waiting for you to turn up in this thread Wozza!

I like to molest your posts!

I am wary of broad cultural generalisations. Businesses in particular are quite tricky to pin down - there are thousands of them, and of course vast variation within as well as between economies. Also great variation within larger firms.

I would have thought that the top firms were fairly good by international standards with a lot of family owned firms in the middle less so. But I really do have no expertise in this area!