[TitanicTeutonicPhil]

Please see this as a starting point for a discussion rather than a set opinion of mine.

Is it possible that Germany is doing well economically because the country was rather late to the colonisation
party and only managed to snatch up some 'leftovers'?

A reasoning for this theory could be as follows: Countries who were at the forefront of colonisation (Britain, France)
have had a strong influx of immigrants from their colonies in the past. These immigrants were often poorly educated
and subsequently took up professions which were creating little added value to the economy and are of less use to
the knowledge economies of these days.

Of course this effect is weakened by the increasing integration of immigrants and the higher levels of education their
European-born children achieve, but it could still have a strong effect on the overall economic performance.

Germany did have significant immigration in the 50s and 60s - particularly from Turkey and later from the Balkans - but
is overall still a much less diverse society with a high percentage of skilled knowledge workers (note that I do not assume
a general correlation between these two).

Looking forward to hearing your thought and to a fruitful discussion.

[kingsholmmad]

I don't believe immigration or diversification has done Britain any serious harm; in a lot of ways we've benefited. We've certainly benefited from, at one time, having two thirds of all the world's trade passing through our ports. I don't want this to turn into a racist discussion but, if race plays any part in this, it is through ghettoization and integration. Where colonial (or other) immigrants have been a drain on the society, it has been because they have refused to become part of that society, have set up their own little ghettoes and have then contributed nothing. This may be a problem in Britain and France but, if so, the Germans have certainly experienced the same thing with the Turks.

[anarchism101]

I wouldn't say so - Italy came just as late to the colonisation party as Germany but Germany is far stronger economically.

I'd say it has more to do with the way the Prussian, and then German government was throughout the 19th century, particularly in the latter half. Most of European states fell into one of two camps; i) the bourgeois structures of rule by the new wealthy businessmen through parliamentary structures (Britain, France in the July Monarchy and early Third Republic, Piedmont, Austria) or ii) the reactionary monarchies determined to prevent any of the ideas of the French Revolution from taking hold (France under the Bourbon Restoration, most Italian states, Russia). Prussia didn't really have either. The latter was an obvious obstacle to real economic development due to its desire to preserve the relics of feudalism, and the former was heavily prone to corruption and infighting among factions of the rich and powerful.

But Prussia had neither, it had a more 'Bonapartist' structure where the wealthy were powerful, but their infighting was controlled by a highly centralised and militaristic state structure, and this allowed Prussia to develop its economy in a very ruthless, but effective fashion.

[Snagprophet]

I thought Germany's economy is a result of British, American and Western European investment, rebuilding and the donation of equipment. The UK then had to cope with older machinery with less money because of rebuilding of Germany. I'd imagine us all to be economically stronger than Germany had they not been invading other countries.

I think Germany didn't colonise anywhere because it had very little exposure to the sea, whereas England, Scotland, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Denmark and Norway have large coastlines, have experienced fishing industries whereas Germany is almost completely landlocked.

[Felisto]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
I thought Germany's economy is a result of British, American and Western European investment, rebuilding and the donation of equipment. The UK then had to cope with older machinery with less money because of rebuilding of Germany. I'd imagine us all to be economically stronger than Germany had they not been invading other countries.

I think Germany didn't colonise anywhere because it had very little exposure to the sea, whereas England, Scotland, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Denmark and Norway have large coastlines, have experienced fishing industries whereas Germany is almost completely landlocked.

The reconstruction of the German economy after the unconditional surrender in 1945 made fast progress because the bombs mainly destroyed residential houses and not production centres. At first the Western powers did not intend to encourage the reconstruction. They dismantled many industrial facilities and removed a lot of machines. With the start of the cold war they decided to help Germany with the reconstruction to make it a strong partner against the Soviet Union. The investments into Germany increased rapidly and the removed old machines were replaced with new and better ones.

Back to the colonies:
Germany did not colonise a lot during Bismarck's period as Chancellor of the German Empire between 1871-1890 mainly because he was skeptical about the benefits of colonies. He expected only small economic advantages but significant political problems. Between 1891-1914 emperor Willhelm II. tried to catch up with the other colonial powers but it was too late to colonize large areas. After World War I Germany lost all his colonies to the winners.
Germany had colonies for a very short time period and I do not think that colonialism had a significant influence on Germany.

@TitanicTeutonicPhil
Because of that the question should maybe be: "Did the colonies harm the colonial powers economically? (directly or indirectly)"

[internetguru]

Germany is strong because they have good businesses. Look at their car industry, it is so much better than everywhere else.

[TheMJCG]

The Germans have always been very hardworking people, and they worked extra hard after the war to build up their nation to what it is today. This also probably has a bit to do with the fact that they no longer could have an army and so invested in the economy like Japan. In terms of the colonizing, the time when Europe colonized they would have to take distant lands and so this needed a strong navy as the water was the only route to these lands. The Germans didnt have much exposure to sea and I assume they did not have a strong navy, since I have never heard of the German navy anywhere before WW2 as being famous like the British, Dutch or Portuguese. Also Austria being a very powerful, didnt get far in colonization, perhaps due to the same reason. As mentioned above the Germans had some colonies, but lost them after WW1.

[No Man]

Well....

[Bonged.]

Even without the imperial past (to the same extent) Germany actually has higher levels of foreigners than here, who are arguably more collectivised and segregated than our foreigners. Honour killings, sectarian gangs etc culturally nourish Germany too.

[cl_steele]

Personally i'd put it down to the fact they have a strong work ethic and the stuff they build isnt complete crap, theres a good reason our manufacturing industry died and theres is booming ... why would you buy crappy expensive stuff from the UK when the Germans are churning out excellent quality stuff at cheaper prices?

[tehFrance]

(Original post by TitanicTeutonicPhil)
Is it possible that Germany is doing well economically because the country was rather late to the colonisation party and only managed to snatch up some 'leftovers'?

No, it is because unlike much of Europe the Germans have a strong work ethic, have had to rebuild the country twice (well three times if you include re-unification) thus they know what they are doing... if you look at Germany, Netherlands, Scandinavia and Austria... all Germanic hard workers.

[Ps3SuperSRG]

No,ww2 and the huge economic cost associated with that pretty much made colonial costs irrelevant. Germany are so strong because they concentrated on growth and industrialization after ww2, having been banned from having an army for some time after ww2 also saved costs. The US also invested heavily in Germany as a economically sound and capitalist state in central Europe during the cold war would keep the soviets in check.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100

[Maker]

(Original post by TheMJCG)
The Germans have always been very hardworking people, and they worked extra hard after the war to build up their nation to what it is today. This also probably has a bit to do with the fact that they no longer could have an army and so invested in the economy like Japan. In terms of the colonizing, the time when Europe colonized they would have to take distant lands and so this needed a strong navy as the water was the only route to these lands. The Germans didnt have much exposure to sea and I assume they did not have a strong navy, since I have never heard of the German navy anywhere before WW2 as being famous like the British, Dutch or Portuguese. Also Austria being a very powerful, didnt get far in colonization, perhaps due to the same reason. As mentioned above the Germans had some colonies, but lost them after WW1.

Germany had an extremely powerful navy during WWI. The German Grand Fleet fought the British Home Fleet at the Battle of Jutland in WWI and its U boats sank many allied ships in the Atlantic in WWI.

It was partly due to the arms race between Britain and Germany to build as many Dreadnought class battleships as they could that precipitated WWI.

[@Sam]

Forcing the natives to work and treating them like second class citizens really did it for the Germans in places like New Guinea, why do that when the British will pretty much let you do what you want and be run by your own people – at least by 1914 this was by far the norm having learned the lesson years beforehand which due to the Germans’ lack of experience they never did. The islanders did not like it, quickly accepted the British and Australians, helped them win WWII and still have the Queen today.

For all their own economic brilliance they struggled to convince relaxed islanders who did not even have the concept of time to convert to their ways and thus failed miserably at colonialism, it’s as simple as that. Had they managed to get up into Asia, somewhere like Hong Kong, they maybe they could have got things working but I guess we will never know.

[Brandmon]

Actually German society is more diverse than ours at its core. The gap between English, Scottish and Welsh society is nothing next to what the German Länders present in terms of diversity - from the centuries old differences of North and South and the recently established differences of East and West.

On top of that, you then have the immigration, which is actually more significant than what Britain ever experienced. While Britain welcomed immigrants from former colonies, thus having taken advantage of a certain degree of assimilation such as basic knowledge of the language and customs, Germany experienced immigration not that much compatible with its own culture: from Turkey, Italy, the Balkans, Poland, etc. Indeed the statistics show that non-EU immigrants in Germany by now number a good 2 million more than those in Britain. So the Germans are hardly better off, if you want to treat immigration as a negative aspect, which is the mistake we are making in the first place.

But really, the true difference between Germany and the UK is that while Germany was both practical and clever in implementing the available foreign workforce into society, the UK as a whole - both the politicians and the public - have been acting like a headless chicken for the last couple of decades in this regard.

(Original post by tehFrance)
No, it is because unlike much of Europe the Germans have a strong work ethic, have had to rebuild the country twice (well three times if you include re-unification) thus they know what they are doing... if you look at Germany, Netherlands, Scandinavia and Austria... all Germanic hard workers.

Hardly. The German work ethic is not even stereotypically hard working when compared to the rest of Europe. It is simply the system itself that actually allows for actual effort to be converted into actual productivity.

[DynamicSyngery]

(Original post by TitanicTeutonicPhil)
Is it possible that Germany is doing well economically because the country was rather late to the colonisation
party and only managed to snatch up some 'leftovers'?

A reasoning for this theory could be as follows: Countries who were at the forefront of colonisation (Britain, France)
have had a strong influx of immigrants from their colonies in the past. These immigrants were often poorly educated
and subsequently took up professions which were creating little added value to the economy and are of less use to
the knowledge economies of these days.

No.

1. Germany is not richer than other Western European countries per capita, it just has a slightly larger population.

2. Germany also has a large population of Turkish immigrants.

3. If you're referring to its relatively strong position in the Euro crisis, that is due to having a low government debt and deficit, which is nothing to do with the make-up of the workforce.

[danny111]

(Original post by DynamicSyngery)
No.

1. Germany is not richer than other Western European countries per capita, it just has a slightly larger population.

2. Germany also has a large population of Turkish immigrants.

3. If you're referring to its relatively strong position in the Euro crisis, that is due to having a low government debt and deficit, which is nothing to do with the make-up of the workforce.

3. Disagree. England for example was too dependent on the financial and services sector. Germany has a strong middle class (Mittelstand) that is comparatively non-existent in the UK. Our industry is a long stronger, too.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by danny111)
Germany has a strong middle class (Mittelstand).

Aside from everything else the Middle Class is Mittelschicht, Mittelstand is Small to Medium Enterprises.

[danny111]

(Original post by tehFrance)
Aside from everything else the Middle Class is Mittelschicht, Mittelstand is Small to Medium Enterprises.

Well its the latter that I meant.

[DynamicSyngery]

(Original post by danny111)
3. Disagree. England for example was too dependent on the financial and services sector. Germany has a strong middle class (Mittelstand) that is comparatively non-existent in the UK. Our industry is a long stronger, too.

Britain is better off than Germany with respect to the Euro crisis, having both low borrowing costs and much less exposure to Southern European debt. Why do you think that having fewer Indians results in less financial services, btw?

With respect to any other supposed problems in the British economy, the post-crash GDPPC is about the same. How long have you been living in Britain to conclude there isn't a middle class? It just has a different connotation to in places like America, where most people consider themselves middle class; in Britain people with the same jobs prefer to see themselves as working class.