I'd like to recommend 'The Shortist History of Germany' by James Hawes. It is remarkable how much the Roman limes still mark a border between general political attitudes. It is a fantastic book.
Since WW2, though, I think the main reason is that Germany was forced into a pretty clean break with its past. Ok, so a fair few characters of dubious allegiance did make it back into positions of power post war but the break with the past was pretty absolute. The industry and country in general had been levelled. They also embraced a moral imperative to change, to seek cooperation. The way they unified post 89 almost without question showed the desire to let bygones be bygones and move forward. Ironically the reincorporation of the East is the thing most likely to cause long term problems. The traditional Saxon mindset has been the main nursery ground for far right populism in the form of AFD.
I think, in general, Germans hold 'national responsibility' ahead of 'national pride' that intellectually backward countries like the UK prioritise. We never really stopped fighting the war in our own heads (massive generalisation but true IMO). We have also sought to mythologise our wartime experience out of all proportion to what it really was. It is in no way disrespectful to the people who fought, lived and died to be honest about what the British wartime experience really was in global terms. Basically retreating into our shell and waiting for the big lads to show up.
Germany is undoubtedly very good a making stuff. Here, we are undoubtedly good at inventing stuff.
If you had the capacity to think, you might think we should be working together more, forging closer political ties, sharing resources, removing barriers to trade and travel, that sort of thing.
There were many kings of Germany in 1918; each state had a King, or Elector, or Grand Duke.
That's what I meant - there wasn't one.
We’re more innovative, but they simply do things better and execute things in a more effective and efficient way.
I give you Berlin Bradenburg Airport. They created a firey death trap that needed rebuilt from the inside out. Currently 4bnEUR overbudget, 10 years late. Neglecting to remember that hot gases tend to want to go up, combined with horrific E&I engineering and execution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Brandenburg_Airport
I get the general drift of what you're saying though. I've worked a fair in Germany and there were more similarities than differences. A couple of things that stood out was that it was routine for companies to recruit people with 5year + plans for their development, rather than grasping for short term fixes. The works council thing is also far more collaborative. I remember having to update the works council after every visit I made, because I was an external visitor they had to be kept informed.
A large number of German companies also remain in private hands / control which means they take a long-term view on investment rather than simply being driven by share price, dividends and short-term returns for investors. You only have to look at the number of globally successful German companies in the technical fields vs British ones. From the 80s onwards, UK engineering companies tended to be run by accountants and large numbers of businesses were victims to takeovers and asset-stripping. Finally, the UK has a pitiful attitude to technical education - it's not well promoted in schools and investment in vocational training is woeful.
I did not know the Germany didnt have nuclear weapons, learn something everyday on here!
I've no idea but the impression I get is that while Britain are one of these high street shops that keep trudging along, adamant that their way is best while everyone else questions why they've not folded yet, Germany quietly became the Amazon of the world without much fuss and no relentless bleating on about empires, monarchies, sucking up to the states and how "we" would be so much better off without Europe.
okay - there may be a certain amount of semantics here
An awful lot of people would have thought the Kaiser was king of Germany in its entirety, rather than just Prussia. Just google "king of germany ww1"
And some of the other monarchs were kings IN Germany, but not kings OF Germany. But a lot were more than
loads of Dukes and associated nobles.
but let's not derail the thread.
Have you guys watched "The Mouse that Roared" (film)?
Peter Sellers explains in that exactly why Germany and Japan have both prospered after losing the Second World War.
My mum's cousin was based in Germany in the RAF. She eventually married a German.
In about 83 we went to visit (near Munich) and Uli took us to where he worked. A very modern looking,operating theatre clean, engineering firm full of modern CNC's and young people operating them.
My dad was employed in what I thought was a similar profession. The company produced what was once known as the 'Rolls Royce of lathes'. But the factory couldn't have been more different. Filthy, full of manual machines from the 50's and 60's, operated by what seemed to be very old men, to my young eyes at least.
One of my dad's favourite expressions where Germany was concerned was: 'They may have lost the war, but they've won the peace.'
despite the UKs head start Germany was out manufacturing the UK well before WWI. There’s some stat which says German manufacturing hadn’t converted to full war production until about 1944 (which is a sort of WTF? stipe stat)
By WWII, Germany was still had a large agricultural economy, a lot of it's manufacturing output had been geared up to re-arm after WWI. Hitler was fairly anti mass production and saw machinery production as skilled/craftsman work. This made it harder to repair, for example aircraft, as they were almost bespoke items so it wasn't easy fitting parts without fettling. Also by appointing cronies to oversee production a lot of internal wrangling of inept bureaucrats hindered progress.
The UK had set up shadow factories such as car factories pre war that could adapt. Staff had spent time "shadowing" the aircraft manufacturers in readiness. Where our reliance on food imports is seen as a bad thing (convoys subject to U-boat attack), our industrialisation helped us produce more armaments and mass production aided standardisation. The Nazis had a U boat design made in several sections by different manufacturers- but they didn't join up too well.
I would echo what others have said re education (the amount of engineers in a company that have doctorates), long term views taken vs UK quick return to keep shareholders happy and most companies have union representation on the board/share ownership.
My conjecture is that a lot of union unrest of the 60s & 70s stem from the 1920s depression. Older union leaders would have experienced it & the younger ones had parents who suffered. Now they had the power (as opposed to the companies in the 20s) they used it, so we just ended up in a vicious circle- there's no sense of collaboration.
The Germans have always or mostly run a positive fiscal balance whereas the UK loves to spend more than it ‘earns’.
UK can't spend more than it earns because it prints its own money. Up until the financial crisis, UK ran a much lower public debt than Germany (by 20%). This ring-wing ideology based on this idea of fiscal responsibility might apply to the average individual but it's nonsense on a national level when you take into account how money is created. It is, therefore, not a question of how much public debt there is (and there has to public debt in order for there to be private money), but how and where it is spent and the returns you get on that debt.
I think with Germany the key difference is that they are unfettered by an archaic systems of class, feudal land-systems, weird fetishmisms for Monarchy and privilidge, etc. They also effectively managed deindustrialisation where as the UK simply blamed the workforce, failed to retrain and left large swathes of the country to go to ruin. Failure to address this is mostly the reason for the discontent that drove the Brexit vote. Interestingly, the Germans said of the British in WW1 that they were 'lions led by Donkeys', and I think that's as true today as it was in the 19th century.
I for one dream to see the houses of Parliament knocked down (metaphorically), the monarchy finally kicked out, the House of "Lords" closed, land-value-tax introduced to finally reclaim our country which was stolen from us in 1066, invest heavily in education and high-tech industry, such as renewable energy, etc. decentralize wealth from the south-west, and so forth, but I think the last election result and Brexit effectively drove a stake through the heart of any chance of significant change.
Germany ... unfettered by an archaic systems of class...etc
They may not be in charge anymore, but they're still there...with a lot of money
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/22/germany-kaiser-wilhelm-hohenzollern-family-prussia/
Same as in France https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37655777
or India https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31709924
and is there any difference between an official aristocracy and America? The Kennedys, Clintons, Bushes etc. Those preppies from the North East? https://haenfler.sites.grinnell.edu/prep-preppies/
their own version of aristocracy that valued inheritance, family name, legacy, and “old-money” over all else
Spain still has an hereditary aristocracy; remember Juan Antonio Samaranch? Dodgy Olympic boss? Given a Marquessate. And all the Scandic and Low countries cope with monarchies without a class system so prevalent
The grass isn't always greener
Having spent couple of years living in Germany although many years ago, I think the German people are more disciplined. This allows for a more centralised goal for the entire population to aim for and less of the 'personal gain first' mentality seen in the populations of other countries.
This national discipline can be seen in many facets of everyday life in Germany. In the current CV health emergency Germany appears to be managing risk well with a compliant population. In business they seem to have a look term view and the entire workforce buy into that. Heck, even in sport they excel in area's where discipline is key to success. I'm sure it isn't as simple as just a little bit of extra discipline but it does go a long way IMO.
I did not know the Germany didnt have nuclear weapons, learn something everyday on here!
To be fair they didn't need them during the Cold War as everyone else put theirs there instead....
One thing nobody has mentioned, and I am not sure many will agree is this. Germany took an almighty beating. The Place was destroyed, they had to rebuild everything. Collectively they just strived to be better and not let it happen again. Britain won and people seem to of been living off that for years.
So it wasn’t that.
You and your facts!
If anything, it is our (UK) desire to keep holding out for the USA to support us, rather than looking to work well with the rest of Europe, and the world, that now holds us back.
In my opinion the discussion about whether an IT worker is an engineer illustrates the difference.
In Germany, you're not an engineer unless you're chartered. When chartered, you can command a significantly higher salary. People not in engineering would have some idea what an engineer was, and not confuse IT work or computer programming with it.
This isn't to say that IT work and computer programming isn't a valuable technical skill, but it's not being an engineer - unless you're a chartered software engineer.
This I am sure is just one example of the understanding of and value given to vital technical roles and years of professional knowledge and experience.
This isn’t to say that IT work and computer programming isn’t a valuable technical skill, but it’s not being an engineer – unless you’re a chartered software engineer.
I’m glad you added the “unless” bit there.
www.bvt-online.de
Ooooo… look at that, some obviously IT related professionals are in the hero image on the BVT website.
[img] 
[/img]
We’re more innovative, but they simply do things better and execute things in a more effective and efficient way.
I'd question the efficiency claim. I'd assumed that to be the case until I worked there. Now I think that the culture is process orientated, rather than innovation orientated. What this means is that people will create a process and stick to it. Sometimes this is good, when the process is good, but they still stick with the process even when it's bad.
UK companies on the other hand are always looking to do things better, in fact that's the majority of the management effort. This can lead to great new innovations (as suggested above) but it means that things are ALWAYS changing, and innovation also applies to cost cutting where it can be pretty negative. It's what leads us to offshoring everything, which has turned out disastrous. UK companies don't want to have to deal with a bunch of techies because they don't have any pride in techies. Whereas German society respects engineers (as said earlier) so companies want to keep hold of and develop their engineering talent. But this may be an effect of high profile industry, not a cause. It also means that in the UK there are more managers trying to improve efficiency and innovate, and not enough techies. This is a skills deficit.
It might be why engineering is successful in Germany because it's an industry where process is a good thing. But in the UK we glamourise people who 'don't play by the rules' or 'just get things done'.
People often talk about the Marshall Plan… The UK was the biggest benificiary by far, receiving 24% of all the investment, compared to Germany’s 11%. So it wasn’t that.
Could be horribly wrong about this but I’m pretty sure that France, German etc were let off repayments on this aid while Britain ended up paying every penny back (I could be getting this mixed up with the ‘lend - lease’ arrangements for military kit before the US joined the war but I believe its true). We were paying back the loans and interest at least into the late 1980s which helped to put a crimp on investment.
I guess its one of the perks of the ‘special relationship'
Sometimes this is good, when the process is good, but they still stick with the process even when it’s bad.
i agree with this, it becomes frustrating especially on a hierarchical scale, with employees not doing something until they’ve been given the absolute, 100%, bona fide, triple stamped seal of approval to do it, or at least think how they could come up with the answer themselves – very frustrating.
The street lighting in parts of Berlin however is terrible. They are obviously selling us all the Good stuff!
We’re more innovative, but they simply do things better and execute things in a more effective and efficient way.
If you look at the number of patents filed with the EPA and elsewhere, you'll see that Germany is more innovative than we are.
The UK is not realistic about its place in the world, and lives on a myth of superiority. The Germans know what they are, and know more about their past as an alliance of many small states.
We have been much more finance based than manufacturing from the 70s, with a resultant skewing of the economy. There is a disconnect between what is good for the country and what is good for companies based here, so outsourcing and lack of investment has eroded our ability to compete. The Mittelstand type of company is less powerful here,so we are less resilient. Within industry, the unions / workforce and management seem to collaborate there but compete here. The Red Robbo days of British Leyland were pathetic, small groups of workers able to sabotage a whole industry, followed by management buy-outs sucking the remnants dry.
But in the UK we glamourise people who ‘don’t play by the rules’ or ‘just get things done’.
Thats the way we sometimes like to portray ourselves but have you ever had any dealings with English government and local government bureaucracy?
The Germans might have more respect for process but, as far as I can see, if the process is impeding progress they change the process where as in Britain change on that level seems much slower.
We have one of the least research-intensive economy of any advanced industrial nation, so we're really not all that innovative right now. But in 1979 - it was was one the most.
If we're talking national psyche / character then I think we are actually fabulously creative and innovative in the UK - we certainly have that heritage. We're just afflicted with an absolute rectum of an economic structure that is now driven by financial services, a sector that produces no real innovation and is absolutely corrosive for long term investment / thinking in R&D.
Germany has nothing like this distorted economy AFAIK.
THe crowning turd of our London-centric economy is that you actually need to be clever and able to work in financial services - all those bright minds bullshitting one another over eighty different ways to trade monopoly money 🙁
We were paying back the loans and interest at least into the late 1980s which helped to put a crimp on investment.
I think a lot of the repayments were the pre US involvement lend-lease loans. IIRC the last payment was in the late 1990s or maybe even early 2000s. I also think they were interest free, hence there wasn't a rush to pay them back any time soon, so saying we were in debt for XX years can be misleading.
Germans seem to accept that if you want nice things you have to pay taxes.
We continue to believe that we can have Europpan levels of social care and investment but only pay American levels of tax. Both main parties have given up trying to be straight with us on this that as doing so just leads to getting hammered at the ballot box.
So we're constantly in debt and underfunding our long term eductation, science and industrial investment programs because any government that attempts to do so whilst balancing the books gets slung out.
Many of the points above regarding the way the British ruling class held on after WWII and the antagonism between the management and employees that contrasted with the more cooperative German industrial culture are also valid.
We get the politicians we deserve.. sadly.
all those bright minds bullshitting one another over eighty different ways to trade monopoly money
No no no, it is real money - that's why they are so rich. What they are doing is very innovative and clever, it's just that we don't get to see it. However we all benefit, because we all have pensions that they are investing for us.
To be honest I think it's a bit misleading to just complain about the lack of certain industries in the UK. Ok so we don't make washing machines, but what would be the benefit of investing heavily in washing machine manufacture now? It'd cost a fortune and we'd always be lagging behind Germany and Korea and whoever else, not least because all the supporting infrastructure is already in those countries. Let each country do what it's best at, share the benefits and work together. Like the EUooh bugger.
I agree on the woeful ability of the UK Government to support industry - I used to sit on cross industry groups consulting with Government on policy and investment particularly on technical skills. The problem was that most of the Civil Servants in Whitehall had only ever worked in Whitehall and didn't have a Scooby Doo about what went on elsewhere. Everything was very short term, targets set against what could be achieved in a parliamentary term on the whim of a minister just parachuted into a role. We'd spend years developing a proposal, securing investment (co-funded by industry to avoid state aid regs) only to just get things started to find a 5-year programme stopped after a year because the new minister wanted to do something else. Industry would put in all the effort and money up-front on the promise that Government would reimburse. I'd also spend time with directors of many SMEs and they simply wanted everything on a plate, minimal risk, no financial obligation, didn't want to invest in their workforce even though they acknowledged that skills shortages was a problem - would rather 'rob' from someone else.
One interesting theory I read is that wartime industrial middle managers had to work under massive pressure with scant resources, high output demands and with short timeframes (all coming down from Speer) - they got very good, very fast but were also young men in their 30's......who then went on to run and lead postwar German industry and still had a good proportion of their working lives ahead of them.
what would be the benefit of investing heavily in washing machine manufacture now? It’d cost a fortune and we’d always be lagging behind Germany and Korea
But we used to have a decent white goods industry, Korea didn't. We didn't invest in improvements in product and process, they did. So now we have to import, and that's a loss for everyone.
Yes, the finance industry pays for our pensions but they would pay a damn sight more if we had a strong manufacturing industry. I remember an argument with two non-engineering STW members about 10 years ago, who could not see that offshoring making stuff is bad for the country even if profitable for the companies doing it.
cf: What happened to the UK's oil money compared with how Norway spent its income.
In my opinion the discussion about whether an IT worker is an engineer illustrates the difference.
"Engineer" really should be a protected term, but it isn't. The protected terms are usually things like "[Something] Engineer," you can use Engineer on its own with impunity.
So yes, much to the chagrim of many "real" Engineers, calling someone a Systems Engineer is perfectly valid without further qualification. The protected equivalent is "Chartered IT Professional" and is regulated by the BCS.
This isn’t to say that IT work and computer programming isn’t a valuable technical skill, but it’s not being an engineer
The semantic difference between various definitions of the term 'engineer' aren't the reason Germany has a prominent manufacturing industry. You just have a been in your bonnet about it for some reason, and I have a been in my bonnet about people who have a bee in their bonnet about use of the word engineer. Your comment above sounds patronising, and you do seem to think being a software engineer is not particularly technical or difficult, but like most things being actually good at it is difficult. Calling someone who installs your washing machine an 'engineer' is devaluing the term, but software engineering isn't.
And slightly back towards your point - the existence of a protected job type can be quite limiting. For example, I have no qualifications in software engineering, I got my first job because I did a test and aced it, and that happened because I am good at it and studied it in my own time; not because I studied it at university. If I had to be a qualified and registered software engineer then many doors would be closed to me. Of course we need training and qualifications (badly) but it should not be protectionist.
Flexibility can be a good thing, but it can also mean chancers end up in jobs they can't really do well and no-one really understands that.
But we used to have a decent white goods industry, Korea didn’t. We didn’t invest in improvements in product and process, they did. So now we have to import, and that’s a loss for everyone.
Is it? Tech manufacturing has done very well for Korea; likewise it's good for us because we can all afford the tech. My parents started out in their married life without a washing machine, it cost them a big part of their annual salary to get their first one. The availability of tech driven by far eastern manufacturing is what enables the modern world. It's how you and I are talking to each other. If CPUs were really expensive then STW would not be able to afford to pay for hosting to run this site.
It's only a problem if countries with lower costs of living are exploited and not fairly paid. This obviously happens, and it happens with tech - but (AFAIK) slowly the model is moving away from exploitation and into large scale manufacturing with economies of scale.
I'll clarify that. It's a loss for the British. If we had invested in improved manufacture then we could make goods as cheaply and as well as Korea / Germany. As it is, we are payiing foreign workers' wages instead of our own. The tech you describe isn't necessarily far eastern, it just happens to be where the investment was made. We used to have a sizeable tech industry of our own but it withered.
What happened to the UK’s oil money compared with how Norway spent its income.
Current Norway Population: 5.35 Million
Current UK Population: 66.65 million
Norway proven oil reserves (in 2017) - 6,611 million barrels
UK proven oil reserves (in 2017) - 2,564 million barrels
So, in short, they have roughly 33 times more oil per head than we do.
It's also been well managed in fairness, but that's the basic maths behind why Norway has seen such benefits.
Calling someone who installs your washing machine an ‘engineer’ is devaluing the term, but software engineering isn’t.
I can understand why an Engineer might get the hump at someone else calling themselves the same thing. But there are many types of engineering, does one similarly object to Gas Engineers or Chemical Engineers? It's not the "engineer" bit that's protected, if you were to call yourself a Chartered Software Engineer then an objection would be warranted - it's the "chartered" bit you're undermining / devaluing, not the "engineer" bit. The Engineering Council don't have the monopoly on engineering titles.
slightly OT but Chartered IT Professional is in no way equivalent to any other protected chartered engineer title, it's just not the same level. I really wish there was an equivalent, but I'm not sure there ever can be, there's just no proscribed, best way to do things and it changes so fast. Also the level of rigour and professionalism (and statutory backup) required just doesn't exist amongst most software engineers. There's no support in industry either, testing and proper documentation is practically the first thing that gets cut as soon as a project has any kind of difficulty, that's not something you can get away with in civil engineering...
It’s also been well managed in fairness, but that’s the basic maths behind why Norway has seen such benefits.
But the basic idea was totally different. Norway took the money and used it for the good of the population; whereas we ended up giving it away to rich people didn't we?
If we had invested in improved manufacture then we could make goods as cheaply and as well as Korea / Germany.
Could we? I'm not so sure. Most countries specialise in certain things, rather than make everything. We specialise in stuff that you can't buy in Curry's; whereas Korea for example does. Why would we even want to take them on? You do well in business by finding a niche. The far East found theirs, we found ours (services).
The protected equivalent is “Chartered IT Professional” and is regulated by the BCS.
Not in Germany it isn’t.
Engineers of all kinds, and yes, that includes IT, as the original post about this made clear, come under the remit of the same body. The more professional regard for engineers in key fields in Germany is highly relevant to this thread.
slightly OT but Chartered IT Professional is in no way equivalent to any other protected chartered engineer title, it’s just not the same level.
Agreed. In the UK. Germany does things very differently.
If we had invested in improved manufacture then we could make goods as cheaply and as well as Korea / Germany.
It’s all relative. I had an interview in the early 90s at a place that made control valves. They were investing in new machinery to make more product and with less labour.
Their parent company had recently set up factories in former Eastern Bloc countries and weee shopping the old machinery there as labour was cheaper.
Germany (West) was on the front line from 1945 to 1989. It security was guaranteed by NATO/the 3 Western noooclear powers - Imagine the defence spending and German national politics if we had rolled the NATO boarder back to France (well, the disputed bit of France/Germany)?
An interesting side note is that the Marshall plan was the second plan - the first one was developed by the US (by a Ruski spy) and it basically hoofed the Germans in the slats.
The discussion re Engineers is, er, terribly British. The problem lies some way "up" the food chain - British workers underperform because they are poorly educated, inadequately trained and woefully managed.
Someone made the point:
"Germans seem to accept that if you want nice things you have to pay taxes."
For Britain, that becomes:
"Britains seem to accept that if you want nice things someone else has to pay taxes."
The myth of the wealth creators...
To my view, the fundamental nature of Britain seems more "individualistic" or possibly selfish.
The Germans seem to "get" that these days "everything" is almost literally connected. (How many Germans live in 'shared' apartment buildings vs occupier owned houses? What would the comparative UK figures be?).
Britain still thinks everyone is a metaphorical island, everyone lives on an island, is supplied from "an" island and we need nothing beyond the shores of the literal or metaphorical island.
How's that PPE manufacturing coming along? Dyson made them ventilators in his factory in Small Heath yet?
Britain is vain and fragile - it's trying to recreate a comfort blanket past that never actually existed. Germany looks to the present and the future because the past was, er, a bit wiffy.
Oh, there’s plenty of rose tinted looking back on the past, and people with an isolationist attitude, in Germany as well… just not about 40% of the population, more like 20%. And the rest of the country don’t pander to them in quite the same way we do here.
I think you’re all overthinking this and missing the most obvious answer
They have better beer