“Economically strong countries were always successful in war” How far do you agree with this
view of the period, 1792-1945?
Across the whole period economic strength plays a varying role in determining the outcome of war.
It is worth noting that economic strength is seen in numerous ways across the period, which do not
always equate to success in war; while industrial and colonial economic strength is advantageous,
agricultural strength has limited impact, and due to a lack of industrial strength it can often be
considered a disadvantage. Economically strong countries are generally successful in areas such as
industry, strategy and the ability to maintain wars for long periods, which enable the success of
countries in war across the period. However, I would argue that economic strength across the
period does not directly enable success in war, instead economics play a facilitating role enabling
factors such as generalship and alliances to be decisive. Therefore, the statement cannot be
considered an accurate judgment of the whole period.
One advantage of economically strong countries is their benefits in terms of industry. In the latter
part of the period this appears fundamental to success, however this is not reflected in the 19 th
century, where although industrial strength is advantageous, it does not always directly equate to
success. The wars of unification in many ways mark a turning point and recognition for the
advantages of industrial supremacy. The Prussians combined improved transport, with 5 new
railways to move 280,000 men, improved weaponry with the dreyse needle gun, along with an
increase in mass production, this change in attitudes is further marked by the fact that Prussia had
doubled her shares in industrial output. However, it could be argued that genralship and
organisation is the key factor in harnessing industrial output, as Austria’s and Prussia’s economy
were fairly evenly matched. Consequently, a strong economy only facilitates industrial strength, and
does not necessarily mean that a country will be successful, as the Austrian economy was just as
strong but it was not harnessed in the right way in terms of industry, contributing to their loss.
Similarly the southern economy before the American Civil war was not weak, in fact if the
confederate states were classed as a independent nation they would have ranked fourth-richest
country of the world in 1860. However, the crucial difference is that the southern economy was
based on agriculture and slave labour, which is not advantageous in war. The reliance on agriculture
to fund their economy meant that the south had very little capacity to mass produce weaponry and
infostructure, with a lack of technically skilled men (a mechanic was six times more likely to come
from the north.) Therefore, it is clear that it is not economic strength alone that means countries
are successful in 19th century wars, instead it is due to the organisation of the state in harnessing
industrial strength, and the nature of the existing economy. In contrast the economic strengths of
countries in 20th century total wars and the subsequent combination of allied industrial strengths
suggest that economic strength is fundamental to success. There is a significant difference between
the German economy and the combined allied economy in World War Two, illustrating how
economic strength can translate into industrial advantages, which in turn help countries to be
successful in war. By 1942 the USA out-produced all the axis powers combined, which enabled
industrial developments such as the landing crafts that transported 156,000 men across the channel
on D-day in less than 24 hours. In comparison 80% of German army transport was reliant on horses,
with technological developments only in elite unites. This is dissimilar to industrial development in
Napoleonic wars which were minimal and did not contribute greatly to success in war. Any mass
production was on a fairly small scale and limited to the workshops of St. Etienne which produced
97,000 handguns a year. However many of napoleon’s wars were won with battles that used fixed
bayonet charges rather than mass produced advanced weaponry. Therefore, overall the statement
that economically strong countries always win wars comes across as unconvincing, as economic
strength must be harnessed in the correct industrial manner in order for this success to occur.
view of the period, 1792-1945?
Across the whole period economic strength plays a varying role in determining the outcome of war.
It is worth noting that economic strength is seen in numerous ways across the period, which do not
always equate to success in war; while industrial and colonial economic strength is advantageous,
agricultural strength has limited impact, and due to a lack of industrial strength it can often be
considered a disadvantage. Economically strong countries are generally successful in areas such as
industry, strategy and the ability to maintain wars for long periods, which enable the success of
countries in war across the period. However, I would argue that economic strength across the
period does not directly enable success in war, instead economics play a facilitating role enabling
factors such as generalship and alliances to be decisive. Therefore, the statement cannot be
considered an accurate judgment of the whole period.
One advantage of economically strong countries is their benefits in terms of industry. In the latter
part of the period this appears fundamental to success, however this is not reflected in the 19 th
century, where although industrial strength is advantageous, it does not always directly equate to
success. The wars of unification in many ways mark a turning point and recognition for the
advantages of industrial supremacy. The Prussians combined improved transport, with 5 new
railways to move 280,000 men, improved weaponry with the dreyse needle gun, along with an
increase in mass production, this change in attitudes is further marked by the fact that Prussia had
doubled her shares in industrial output. However, it could be argued that genralship and
organisation is the key factor in harnessing industrial output, as Austria’s and Prussia’s economy
were fairly evenly matched. Consequently, a strong economy only facilitates industrial strength, and
does not necessarily mean that a country will be successful, as the Austrian economy was just as
strong but it was not harnessed in the right way in terms of industry, contributing to their loss.
Similarly the southern economy before the American Civil war was not weak, in fact if the
confederate states were classed as a independent nation they would have ranked fourth-richest
country of the world in 1860. However, the crucial difference is that the southern economy was
based on agriculture and slave labour, which is not advantageous in war. The reliance on agriculture
to fund their economy meant that the south had very little capacity to mass produce weaponry and
infostructure, with a lack of technically skilled men (a mechanic was six times more likely to come
from the north.) Therefore, it is clear that it is not economic strength alone that means countries
are successful in 19th century wars, instead it is due to the organisation of the state in harnessing
industrial strength, and the nature of the existing economy. In contrast the economic strengths of
countries in 20th century total wars and the subsequent combination of allied industrial strengths
suggest that economic strength is fundamental to success. There is a significant difference between
the German economy and the combined allied economy in World War Two, illustrating how
economic strength can translate into industrial advantages, which in turn help countries to be
successful in war. By 1942 the USA out-produced all the axis powers combined, which enabled
industrial developments such as the landing crafts that transported 156,000 men across the channel
on D-day in less than 24 hours. In comparison 80% of German army transport was reliant on horses,
with technological developments only in elite unites. This is dissimilar to industrial development in
Napoleonic wars which were minimal and did not contribute greatly to success in war. Any mass
production was on a fairly small scale and limited to the workshops of St. Etienne which produced
97,000 handguns a year. However many of napoleon’s wars were won with battles that used fixed
bayonet charges rather than mass produced advanced weaponry. Therefore, overall the statement
that economically strong countries always win wars comes across as unconvincing, as economic
strength must be harnessed in the correct industrial manner in order for this success to occur.
