Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Ammunition production, total tons


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#26 Guaporense

Guaporense

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts

Posted 23 November 2009 - 10:03 PM

The US military didn't lose the war, the civilian leadership (Congress & SecDef) did.


Sure. So the US bombed Vietnam to pieces, killed a million of them and they retreated... Well, sure, they could have killed the entire population of north Vietnam, just let 20 times more American boys die.

So, do you think that it is impossible to win against an enemy with 3-4 times superiority in resources? Well, Germany produced 4 times more steel and 5 times more coal and 5 times more aluminium than the USSR (sources: World Economic Survey, 1942-1944 and Economics, Production and Logistics) and still lost the war with the soviet union. In fact, WW2 proved, with the USSR, that you can be economically inferior and still win.
"German army was a superb fighting organization. In point of morale, elan, unit cohesion, and resilience, it probably had no equal among twentieth century armies." Van Creveld

#27 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,876 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 24 November 2009 - 04:05 PM

There are various things that germany produced more than the US during the war:

2- Artillery ammunition
....
4- Rifles

sources please

5- SP guns
...

What are you including in this? I'd like to see sources as well. Looking at:
American armored fighting vehicle production during World War II at AllExperts
and
German armored fighting vehicle production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your conclusions appear suspect

...
7- Jet planes

Only marginally more relevant than "ballistic missiles".
Does the V-2 qualify as such?

#28 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,876 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 24 November 2009 - 04:31 PM

Total energy consumption of the belligerent powers for the year of 1943:

A ton of coal has the energy equivalent of 0.612 tons of oil.

US: 586.2 million tons of coal + 200 million tons of oil = 558.75 MT tons of oil equivalent

Germany: 554.6 million tons of coal + 7.6 million tons of oil = 347.01 MT tons of oil equivalent

USSR: 93.1 million tons of coal + 18 million tons of oil = 74.98 MT of oil equivalent

Britain: 202.1 million tons of coal + 10 million tons of oil = 133.7 MT of oil equivalent...


And your point is? Note that at least some of the German coal production went into synthetic oil produciton which is very inefficient. You also left off other forms of energy generation.

#29 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,876 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 24 November 2009 - 04:35 PM

Because the US+Britain+USSR would have produced more everything (except submarines and heavy tanks and jet aircraft and ballistic missiles).

What ballistic missiles?
Should experimental aircraft even be a consideration? Rliability of the German jets was so low they wouldn't even have been considered for operational status by the US or Britain.
According to:
German armored fighting vehicle production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Germans produced something less than 2,000 heavy tanks.
however according to:
Soviet armored fighting vehicle production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Soviets produced around 9,000 so how did the Germans produce more than the Soviets+British+US?

#30 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,876 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 24 November 2009 - 04:38 PM

Maybe because they had only 100 divisions while Germany had 350...
...

You keep saying things like this and it's very misleading. A US division with all it's attachments in 44 or 45 was signficantly stronger on paper than a German division of that time. If you looked at combat power of actual units the average US division was probably worth several German average German divisions.

#31 Devilsadvocate

Devilsadvocate

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,194 posts

Posted 24 November 2009 - 05:18 PM

[quote name='Guaporense']
Well, if you take the soldiers out of the front and put them into factories they will produce more.
[/QUOTE]

That's a non-sequiter.

In a war-effort situation, labor is a zero-sum game; drain off manpower from the military in order to produce more material, and you reduce the manpower available to utilize that material against your enemies.

For example, my mother was employed at Curtiss-Wright in Ohio from 1939 to late 1942. Then, after receiving the news that her first husband, a B-17 pilot, had been killed in action, she joined the Navy. The Navy had been actively recruiting women to fill non-combatant positions in order to free up men to man the combatant ships which were being constructed as part of a massive Navy expansion. But her friends at Curtiss-Wright wrote and informed her that she had been replaced there by a man. The total labor force cannot be increased except as children mature to the point where they can be employed productively.


[quote name='Guaporense']Friedman, M. and Schwartz, A.J.: A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960.[/QUOTE]

The link you have provided in no way constitutes refutation of my assertion that the US was the only belligerent country during WW II in which consumer spending increased.

It links to a page of the the Princeton University Press website which lists for sale, a book by Milton Friedman. Nowhere in this link is any authoritative refutation of the claim that US consumer spending increased during WW II.

Apparently, in your desperation to disprove my claim, you have resorted to randomly listing scholarly sounding titles and hoping I would neglect to check them. My statement stands.

[quote name='Guaporense']Yes it is. Because germany greatly increased her warmaking potential from 1937 (the date when the index was made) to 1943, coal production increased by 75%.[/QUOTE]

No, Germany's increased coal production does not change her war making potential.

You need to understand that the term "potential" refers to a future state; i.e. what may be possible for an entity to achieve in the future. Since Germany was obviously NOT at peak production of coal in 1937, the future expansion of coal production falls under general term of "potential".

And once again, I must point out, you are taking a single statistic and jumping to a conclusion that is in no way justified by the data you represent.

[quote name='Guaporense']They put steel and coal production capacity and took the average out, that's it.[/QUOTE]

That certainly does not describe Kennedy's methodology as I understand it. Perhaps you could cite the source for your information on how the war-making potential was calculated? And please, if you are citing a publication, please include the page numbers where the data is to be found.


[quote name='Guaporense']It changes from 3 to 1 to 2.5 to 1. A significant change.[/QUOTE]

Well, it seems you are fabricating numbers again. The initial ratio calculated in Kennedy's book against the Axis is 3.43:1. Assuming that what you say is true, the Allies war-making potential would fall from 70.1% to 63.1%. If the total Axis war-making potential remains at 20.4%, the new ratio will be 3.09:1, not 2.5:1 as you claim. I do NOT consider the actual change in the ratio significant change in favor of the Axis.

[quote name='Guaporense']Sure, and that's 7% that remained in the USSR were more important than the 42% of the US to determine the outcome of the war. [/QUOTE]

Obviously, you have no grasp of the historical situation. The USSR's war-making potential did not decline after Barbarossa, it increased. With the aid the Soviets began to receive, and the ramp-up in their own productive capacity. What you do not seem to understand is that the US, though technically neutral, was already throwing the weight of it's productive capacity behind the Western Allies.

[quote name='Guaporense']Second to the book the economics of ww2, Axis Europe had a GDP of 1.07 trillion, while the US had a GDP of 800 billion. [/QUOTE]

Again, a non-sequiter; occupied Europe's combined GDP is irrelevant as Germany was unable to take immediate advantage of the productive capacity of occupied Europe. In any case, you are leaving out the GDP of the British Commonwealth. The numbers you pick and choose are meaningless unless you are comparing them on a consistent basis, a concept you seem to have trouble with.
[quote name='Guaporense']Show me a paper that shows that the entire continent of Europe had less war making capacity than the US.[/QUOTE]

No problem. I refer you to "The Rise and Fall of The Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy. In that book he lists a table showing that the US had 41.7% of the world's war-making potential in 1937. The only significant war-making potential held by any European countries was Germany with 14.4%, France with 4.2%, and Italy with 2.5%. Britain is excluded because it became an ally of the US, and The Soviet Union is also excluded because, in this scenario, it remained neutral. That's a total of 21.1% for Europe and 41.7% for the US, a ratio, in favor of the US, of 2.02:1.

[quote name='Guaporense']The USSR was more powerful than the US in many aspects of the conventional military sphere.[/QUOTE]

A larger, but certainly less capable, army and that's about it. Of course, that varied over the the course of the 72-year life-span of the Soviet Union, as the US de-militarized in the 1930's. In any case, it's pretty much irrelevant as only proxy wars were fought.

[quote name='Guaporense']And the USSR fell because of its own internal problems.[/QUOTE]

And your point is?

[quote name='Guaporense']That war showed that even with massive advantage in men and matériel you can still lose.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that's often the case with asymmetrical warfare which is why it has become so popular. World War II proved that symmetrical warfare gives an enormous advantage to countries with more material and manpower and that country, since WW I, has been the US. That why Germany was so foolish to plan, and engage in symmetrical warfare.

Edited by Devilsadvocate, 24 November 2009 - 06:19 PM.
Edited for clarity

  • brndirt1, LRusso216, luketdrifter and 1 other like this

#32 Slipdigit

Slipdigit

    Good Ol' Boy

  • Administrators
  • 14,219 posts
  • LocationAlabama

Posted 24 November 2009 - 08:43 PM

Sure. So the US bombed Vietnam to pieces, killed a million of them and they retreated... Well, sure, they could have killed the entire population of north Vietnam, just let 20 times more American boys die.

You still missed the point of my statement. The military didn't lose the war, the civilian leadership did. You cite the bombing campaign, which came from the civilian leadership.

So, do you think that it is impossible to win against an enemy with 3-4 times superiority in resources?

No I do not think it is impossible. The war in the British North American colonies in the late 18th century comes immediately to mind as an example.

It links to a page of the the Princeton University Press website which lists for sale, a book by Milton Friedman. Nowhere in this link is any authoritative refutation of the claim that US consumer spending increased during WW II.

Apparently, in your desperation to disprove my claim, you have resorted to randomly listing scholarly sounding titles and hoping I would neglect to check them. My statement stands.

And once again, I must point out, you are taking a single statistic and jumping to a conclusion that is in no way justified by the data you represent.

That certainly does not describe Kennedy's methodology as I understand it. Perhaps you could cite the source for your information on how the war-making potential was calculated? And please, if you are citing a publication, please include the page numbers where the data is to be found.

Well, it seems you are fabricating numbers again. The initial ratio calculated in Kennedy's book against the Axis is 3.43:1. Assuming that what you say is true, the Allies war-making potential would fall from 70.1% to 63.1%. If the total Axis war-making potential remains at 20.4%, the new ratio will be 3.09:1, not 2.5:1 as you claim. I do NOT consider the actual change in the ratio significant change in favor of the Axis.


Again, a non-sequiter; occupied Europe's combined GDP is irrelevant as Germany was unable to take immediate advantage of the productive capacity of occupied Europe. In any case, you are leaving out the GDP of the British Commonwealth. The numbers you pick and choose are meaningless unless you are comparing them on a consistent basis, a concept you seem to have trouble with.


No problem. I refer you to "The Rise and Fall of The Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy. In that book he lists a table showing that the US had 41.7% of the world's war-making potential in 1937. The only significant war-making potential held by any European countries was Germany with 14.4%, France with 4.2%, and Italy with 2.5%. Britain is excluded because it became an ally of the US, and The Soviet Union is also excluded because, in this scenario, it remained neutral. That's a total of 21.1% for Europe and 41.7% for the US, a ratio, in favor of the US, of 2.02:1.

A larger, but certainly less capable, army and that's about it. Of course, that varied over the the course of the 72-year life-span of the Soviet Union, as the US de-militarized in the 1930's. In any case, it's pretty much irrelevant as only proxy wars were fought.


Guaporense, You need to accurately address DA's accusations. A lot is riding on it.

Best Regards,  
JW :slipdigit:

SlidigitAxe.png


#33 Guaporense

Guaporense

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts

Posted 25 November 2009 - 01:20 AM

It links to a page of the the Princeton University Press website which lists for sale, a book by Milton Friedman. Nowhere in this link is any authoritative refutation of the claim that US consumer spending increased during WW II.


Well, in that book, cited in The Economics of WW2, they calculate that consumer spending dropped by 10% between 1940 and 1945.
"German army was a superb fighting organization. In point of morale, elan, unit cohesion, and resilience, it probably had no equal among twentieth century armies." Van Creveld

#34 Slipdigit

Slipdigit

    Good Ol' Boy

  • Administrators
  • 14,219 posts
  • LocationAlabama

Posted 25 November 2009 - 01:38 AM

Well, in that book, cited in The Economics of WW2, they calculate that consumer spending dropped by 10% between 1940 and 1945.


<using my best Valley Girl accent> Well ye-ah, because there were few consumer goods to purchase.

My grandfather said they had money, but very little to buy because the factories were making war goods.

Edited by SlipdigitBK, 25 November 2009 - 02:03 AM.

Best Regards,  
JW :slipdigit:

SlidigitAxe.png


#35 LRusso216

LRusso216

    Graybeard

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 9,719 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 25 November 2009 - 01:57 AM

In The Library of Congress World War II Companion, p.xviii is this statement "Meanwhile, the United States achieved on the home-front something that few societies at war have ever managed to accomplish: it grew its civilian economy even while fighting history's most costly conflict."

Edited by LRusso216, 25 November 2009 - 02:50 AM.

  • Slipdigit likes this

image001.png

Lou


#36 Guaporense

Guaporense

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts

Posted 25 November 2009 - 02:05 AM

[quote name='Devilsadvocate']That's a non-sequiter. In a war-effort situation, labor is a zero-sum game; drain off manpower from the military in order to produce more material, and you reduce the manpower available to utilize that material against your enemies.[/QUOTE]

My point is that without the 10 million soldiers lost or put in the Eastern front, much more resources would be available to Germany.

[quote]No, Germany's increased coal production does not change her war making potential.[/quote]

Yes, It does. Coal is the basic resource from were industrial production came, before the 1960's, when oil became the main energy resource.

[quote]You need to understand that the term "potential" refers to a future state; i.e. what may be possible for an entity to achieve in the future. Since Germany was obviously NOT at peak production of coal in 1937, the future expansion of coal production falls under general term of "potential". [/quote]

That depends on the fact that this increase of more than 2/3 in coal production came from an increase in CAPACITY.

Also, production of MACHINE TOOLS increased from 1936 to 1942 by about 100% in Germany.
Machine tools are future state oriented goods.

Source: war and economy in the third reich

[quote]And once again, I must point out, you are taking a single statistic and jumping to a conclusion that is in no way justified by the data you represent.[/quote]Energy represents the single most important statistic in a country capacity to wage war for the time period considered.

And at that period, COAL was the main source of energy. Germany's energy came in 90% from coal.

Today it is quite different.

[quote]Well, it seems you are fabricating numbers again. The initial ratio calculated in Kennedy's book against the Axis is 3.43:1. Assuming that what you say is true, the Allies war-making potential would fall from 70.1% to 63.1%.[/quote]It would fall to 53%, without the USSR and France.

[quote]If the total Axis war-making potential remains at 20.4%, the new ratio will be 3.09:1, not 2.5:1 as you claim. I do NOT consider the actual change in the ratio significant change in favor of the Axis.[/quote]From 67% to 53%? It is indeed. Considering the strategic position.

[quote]Obviously, you have no grasp of the historical situation. The USSR's war-making potential did not decline after Barbarossa, it increased. With the aid the Soviets began to receive, and the ramp-up in their own productive capacity. What you do not seem to understand is that the US, though technically neutral, was already throwing the weight of it's productive capacity behind the Western Allies.[/quote]1- The warmaking capacity of the USSR declined after Barbarossa.

Take a look at that:

Soviet Industrial Production 1940-1945

2- Lend-Lease did not influence the war before 1943 (source: The Handbook of the Eastern Front).

[quote]Again, a non-sequiter; occupied Europe's combined GDP is irrelevant as Germany was unable to take immediate advantage of the productive capacity of occupied Europe.[/quote]

No. Germany did tax the occupied Europe's.

[quote]In any case, you are leaving out the GDP of the British Commonwealth.[/quote]

I am only showing that the material superiority of the western allies is not that great.

[quote]The numbers you pick and choose are meaningless unless you are comparing them on a consistent basis, a concept you seem to have trouble with.[/quote]

Maybe it is you that does not understand what I am saying.


[quote]No problem. I refer you to "The Rise and Fall of The Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy. In that book he lists a table showing that the US had 41.7% of the world's war-making potential in 1937. The only significant war-making potential held by any European countries was Germany with 14.4%, France with 4.2%, and Italy with 2.5%. Britain is excluded because it became an ally of the US, and The Soviet Union is also excluded because, in this scenario, it remained neutral. That's a total of 21.1% for Europe and 41.7% for the US, a ratio, in favor of the US, of 2.02:1.[/quote]

1- Considering that Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Finland, Czech Republic and other countries are not included, and considering that Germany's increased her warmaking potential between 1937 and 1943 (source: war and economy in the third reich, the economics of WW2), that figure you cite is worth nothing.

2- Second to the book, the economics of WW2, the total product of Axis Europe was 1.07 trillion, while the US had 800 billion and UK had 280 billion.
The entire British empire had ~550 billion.

[quote]A larger, but certainly less capable, army and that's about it.[/quote]

In WW2 the Red Army was way more powerful than the combined armies of all western allies. Prof?

1- Read any decent book about the eastern front.

2- Read that:

"Operation Unthinkable: 'Russia: Threat to Western Civilization,'" British War Cabinet, Joint Planning Staff [Draft and Final Reports: 22 May, 8 June, and 11 July 1945], Public Record Office, CAB 120/691/109040

[quote]Of course, that varied over the the course of the 72-year life-span of the Soviet Union, as the US de-militarized in the 1930's. In any case, it's pretty much irrelevant as only proxy wars were fought. And your point is?[/quote]

You say:

Richer country = militarily more powerful country

I say:

Richer country =/= militarily more powerful country

Facts:

1- The USSR was poorer than the US.

2- The USSR was at least equal to the US in the military sphere (at least equal).

[quote]Yes, that's often the case with asymmetrical warfare which is why it has become so popular. World War II proved that symmetrical warfare gives an enormous advantage to countries with more material and manpower and that country, since WW I, has been the US. That why Germany was so foolish to plan, and engage in symmetrical warfare.[/quote]

Well. Germany was not defeated by the US, but by USSR. And the USSR did not have more material resources than Germany.

Second to Richard Overy:

"Economic size as such does not explain the outcome of wars... If we qualify the explanation to cover only the product of industrial powers then there remains the awkward evidence that Germany had greater industrial capacity than Britain in 1940, and access by 1941 to a good deal more than Britain and the Soviet Union together, and yet was unable to bring either power to defeat."

"The history of war is littered with examples of smaller, materially disadvantaged states defeating a larger, richer enemy."


source: Why the allies won.

Germany was not foolish to plan and engage in symmetrical warfare with the US, since the US inflicted about 4% of the combat casualties suffered by the Wehrmacht
. The main direct contribution of the US to the war was strategic bombing, with did not have a great impact on the outcome.

Source for the 4% number: Feldgrau.com - The German Armed Forces 1919-1945
"German army was a superb fighting organization. In point of morale, elan, unit cohesion, and resilience, it probably had no equal among twentieth century armies." Van Creveld

#37 Guaporense

Guaporense

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts

Posted 25 November 2009 - 02:10 AM

In The Library of Congress World War II Companion, p.xviii is this statement "Meanwhile, the United States achieved on the home-front something that few societies at war have ever managed to accomplish: it grew its civilian economy even while fighting history's most costly conflict."


Second to the book, The Economics of WW2:

United States real personal consumption: estimates based on alternative deflators:

Friedman, Schwartz:

$ and 1939 prices,

1941 - 555
1942 - 533
1943 - 529
1944 - 537


A modest decrease.

However, second to the same book, the potential decrease in consumption was massive:

"the result of this computation, the sum of the last coluumn in table 3.17, is a cost of the war amounting to about $148 billion at 1940 prices, or about 2.27 years of consumption in 1941."
pp. 115
"German army was a superb fighting organization. In point of morale, elan, unit cohesion, and resilience, it probably had no equal among twentieth century armies." Van Creveld

#38 LRusso216

LRusso216

    Graybeard

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 9,719 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 25 November 2009 - 02:28 AM

Real Value Consumer Spending




YEAR
1937 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
Japan 100 107 109 111 108 99 93 78
Germany 100 108 117 108 105 95 94 85
USA 100 96 103 108 116 115 118 122

Source: Jerome B Cohen, Japan's Economy in War and Reconstruction (1949) p 354

Home front during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The chart (though poorly formatted, my fault) shows a 22% increase in US consumer spending from 1937 to 1945. Check the web link for the correctly formatted chart.

image001.png

Lou


#39 Guaporense

Guaporense

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts

Posted 25 November 2009 - 08:26 AM

The chart (though poorly formatted, my fault) shows a 22% increase in US consumer spending from 1937 to 1945. Check the web link for the correctly formatted chart.


In reality you can make consumption increase or decrease depending on the set of prices that you use to compute consumption.
"German army was a superb fighting organization. In point of morale, elan, unit cohesion, and resilience, it probably had no equal among twentieth century armies." Van Creveld

#40 Guaporense

Guaporense

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts

Posted 25 November 2009 - 08:56 AM

The Balance of Economic Power in Europe in 1942:

1- In 1942 the axis countries in Europe controlled a GDP of pre war level of 1,034 billion dollars (the 1,07 trillion that I cited before include Sweden, with was neutral). However, with the territory of occupied USSR, this GDP increased to 1,181 billion dollars.

2- However, we need to compute the current GDP of these countries, for 1942, not the pre war data. I have current data only for France, Germany, Italy and Austria, with shows an agregate increase of 2% for the total GDP of all these countries. So, extrapolanting, this means increasing total Axis Europe's GDP by 2% we get 1,055 billion dollars. With occupied USSR territories, we get 1,205 billion dollars.

3- While the GDP of the USSR in 1942 was: 274 billion dollars (a 34,3% decrease from 417 billion in 1940). The Lend-Lease aid was about 9% of the USSR GDP's, or 24.6 billion dollars. Total GDP of the USSR + Lend-Lease = 298.6 billion dollars.

4- In 1942 the USSR was facing the combined armies of Germany (with had soldiers of other nationalities), Finland, Italy, Rumania and Hungary. Britain and the US weren't a factor in the European theater (I would say that they were never a factor in the European theater, but, only to not disagree by much with you guys...). So, the total Axis/Allies ratio of GDP is: 1,055/298.6 = 3,533 to 1 for the axis in Europe. With increases by 4,035 to 1 considering the GDP of occcupied USSR.

5- For comparison, in 1940 the US's GDP was 943 billion (a massive increase from 800 billion in 1938, due to recovery from the depression), while Japan's GDP was 192 billion. A ratio of 4,91 to 1.

As you can see, the USSR managed to defeat an enemy with much more economic resources than itself. In fact, the ratio of steel production in Europe, 1942 was about ~40 million tons for all occupied europe (~30 million tons for Germany only) vs 8.1 million tons for the USSR. Coal production ratio was about ~650 MT for the axis (~500 MT for Germany only) vs 75.6 MT for the USSR.

Sources:

The Economics of World War 2

The USSR and total: Why didn't the soviet economy colapse in 1942?

Economics, Production and Logistics

World Economic Survey: 1942-1944

Economic Mobilization for World War 2

Edited by Guaporense, 25 November 2009 - 09:02 AM.

"German army was a superb fighting organization. In point of morale, elan, unit cohesion, and resilience, it probably had no equal among twentieth century armies." Van Creveld

#41 Devilsadvocate

Devilsadvocate

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,194 posts

Posted 25 November 2009 - 07:30 PM

Guaporense,

The only issue I will reply to is the one of the US civilian economy in WW II. The rest of your responses are descending into the realm of absurdity. You just cannot seem to grasp the concept that isolated statistics and partial numbers do not prove your case.

As for, the growth of the US civilian economy, others have cited numerous sources indicating that Americans spent more on consumer items and that consumer "output" increased. But you claim that was because of inflation and differences in the value of the "dollar" over the period of the war.

So I have found sources which assert that the consumption of civilian goods also increased, thus proving that, despite changes in the purchasing value of the dollar (inflation), Americans did enjoy an increasing standard of living during WWII;

"Despite higher prices and sporadic shortages, consumers upgraded the quality and quantity of food in their diets during the war years. The number of pounds of food consumed per capita by the civilian population during the war rose from 1,548 pounds in 1939 to 1,646 pounds in 1946, a record that remains."

HyperWar: The Big 'L'--American Logistics in World War II [Chapter 3] Page 182

"But the budget expansion was such that civilians truly did not suffer because of the war, and when one considers that unemployment had all but disappeared and what joblessness remained was usually only temporary, the home front prospered. In terms of calories people were generally fed better than they had been before the war, and they consumed more meat, shoes, clothing, and energy."

HyperWar: The Big 'L'--American Logistics in World War II [Chapter 1] Page 57-58
  • brndirt1 likes this

#42 LRusso216

LRusso216

    Graybeard

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 9,719 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 25 November 2009 - 08:54 PM

In reality you can make consumption increase or decrease depending on the set of prices that you use to compute consumption.

Not really. If you use 1940 as the constant for the US, the increase by 1945 is still 18%. All the base year does is give a constant for comparison. If I chose 1935, for example, the increase would be even larger since I suspect that consumption in 1935 was significantly lower than 1937 or 1940.

image001.png

Lou


#43 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,423 posts

Posted 25 November 2009 - 09:44 PM

My point is that without the 10 million soldiers lost or put in the Eastern front, much more resources would be available to Germany.



Yes, It does. Coal is the basic resource from were industrial production came, before the 1960's, when oil became the main energy resource.



That depends on the fact that this increase of more than 2/3 in coal production came from an increase in CAPACITY.

Also, production of MACHINE TOOLS increased from 1936 to 1942 by about 100% in Germany. Machine tools are future state oriented goods.

Source: war and economy in the third reich

Energy represents the single most important statistic in a country capacity to wage war for the time period considered.

And at that period, COAL was the main source of energy. Germany's energy came in 90% from coal.

Today it is quite different.

It would fall to 53%, without the USSR and France.

From 67% to 53%? It is indeed. Considering the strategic position.

1- The warmaking capacity of the USSR declined after Barbarossa.

Take a look at that:

Soviet Industrial Production 1940-1945

2- Lend-Lease did not influence the war before 1943 (source: The Handbook of the Eastern Front).



No. Germany did tax the occupied Europe's.



I am only showing that the material superiority of the western allies is not that great.



Maybe it is you that does not understand what I am saying.



1- Considering that Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Finland, Czech Republic and other countries are not included, and considering that Germany's increased her warmaking potential between 1937 and 1943 (source: war and economy in the third reich, the economics of WW2), that figure you cite is worth nothing.

2- Second to the book, the economics of WW2, the total product of Axis Europe was 1.07 trillion, while the US had 800 billion and UK had 280 billion.
The entire British empire had ~550 billion.



In WW2 the Red Army was way more powerful than the combined armies of all western allies. Prof?

1- Read any decent book about the eastern front.

2- Read that:

"Operation Unthinkable: 'Russia: Threat to Western Civilization,'" British War Cabinet, Joint Planning Staff [Draft and Final Reports: 22 May, 8 June, and 11 July 1945], Public Record Office, CAB 120/691/109040



You say:

Richer country = militarily more powerful country

I say:

Richer country =/= militarily more powerful country

Facts:

1- The USSR was poorer than the US.

2- The USSR was at least equal to the US in the military sphere (at least equal).



Well. Germany was not defeated by the US, but by USSR. And the USSR did not have more material resources than Germany.

Second to Richard Overy:

"Economic size as such does not explain the outcome of wars... If we qualify the explanation to cover only the product of industrial powers then there remains the awkward evidence that Germany had greater industrial capacity than Britain in 1940, and access by 1941 to a good deal more than Britain and the Soviet Union together, and yet was unable to bring either power to defeat."

"The history of war is littered with examples of smaller, materially disadvantaged states defeating a larger, richer enemy."

source: Why the allies won.

Germany was not foolish to plan and engage in symmetrical warfare with the US, since the US inflicted about 4% of the combat casualties suffered by the Wehrmacht. The main direct contribution of the US to the war was strategic bombing, with did not have a great impact on the outcome.

Source for the 4% number: Feldgrau.com - The German Armed Forces 1919-1945

That the soviet army was more powerfull than the allies is unprooved,
1What is powerfull
2If you look at Krivosheev,you will see the Russian losses ,maybe they are a proof for a powerfull army :P ?

#44 Guaporense

Guaporense

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts

Posted 26 November 2009 - 12:49 AM

That the soviet army was more powerfull than the allies is unprooved,
1What is powerfull
2If you look at Krivosheev,you will see the Russian losses ,maybe they are a proof for a powerfull army :P ?


Well, the Russian army was the most powerful in the world by 1944. Second to Glantz, in his handbook of the Eastern front.
"German army was a superb fighting organization. In point of morale, elan, unit cohesion, and resilience, it probably had no equal among twentieth century armies." Van Creveld

#45 Guaporense

Guaporense

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts

Posted 26 November 2009 - 12:51 AM

Not really. If you use 1940 as the constant for the US, the increase by 1945 is still 18%. All the base year does is give a constant for comparison. If I chose 1935, for example, the increase would be even larger since I suspect that consumption in 1935 was significantly lower than 1937 or 1940.


What I meant was that depending on the price index that you use, them you can cook the index the way you like.
"German army was a superb fighting organization. In point of morale, elan, unit cohesion, and resilience, it probably had no equal among twentieth century armies." Van Creveld

#46 Guaporense

Guaporense

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts

Posted 26 November 2009 - 12:52 AM

Guaporense, The rest of your responses are descending into the realm of absurdity. You just cannot seem to grasp the concept that isolated statistics and partial numbers do not prove your case.


Well, do you know that you are quite an idiot?

I have assembled a quite collection of numbers plus citation with famous historian with proves how wrong you are, and you doesn't even try to understand anything, just passes your eye over, shouts some offending sentence directed to me and that's it.

Edited by Guaporense, 26 November 2009 - 01:05 AM.

"German army was a superb fighting organization. In point of morale, elan, unit cohesion, and resilience, it probably had no equal among twentieth century armies." Van Creveld

#47 Devilsadvocate

Devilsadvocate

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,194 posts

Posted 26 November 2009 - 03:57 AM

Well, do you know that you are quite an idiot?

I have assembled a quite collection of numbers plus citation with famous historian with proves how wrong you are, and you doesn't even try to understand anything, just passes your eye over, shouts some offending sentence directed to me and that's it.


I'm sorry you feel that way.

You claim to be an economist; I hope that as you gain more experience in that profession, you'll come to realize that while numbers can be manipulated, there are solid realities behind those numbers which can't be denied no matter how much one makes the numbers dance.

The US and The British Commonwealth simply had too many economic, military, geographic, and technological advantages over Germany for Hitler to prevail. While the German Army was a decent fighting force, the fact is that it wasn't that much better than any of it's major opponents, and in the end, it was defeated. The outcome of WW II was predictable for anyone who was well enough informed of the true state of the world.

#48 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,423 posts

Posted 27 November 2009 - 12:23 PM

I'm sorry you feel that way.

You claim to be an economist; I hope that as you gain more experience in that profession, you'll come to realize that while numbers can be manipulated, there are solid realities behind those numbers which can't be denied no matter how much one makes the numbers dance.

The US and The British Commonwealth simply had too many economic, military, geographic, and technological advantages over Germany for Hitler to prevail. While the German Army was a decent fighting force, the fact is that it wasn't that much better than any of it's major opponents, and in the end, it was defeated. The outcome of WW II was predictable for anyone who was well enough informed of the true state of the world.

That (the outcome ....)is a non sequitur :):it is to deterministic

#49 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,423 posts

Posted 27 November 2009 - 12:33 PM

Well, the Russian army was the most powerful in the world by 1944. Second to Glantz, in his handbook of the Eastern front.

If I had a bad character (what I don't ;) ),I should say that Glantz is parroting his Russian sources .
If the Russian army was the most powerfull (it had more tanks,aircraft and artillery than the Germans ),why was its performance not in agreement ? It lost 5685000 men in 1944 against 2 million Germans,and its losses were relatively heavier in 1945 .
And if itswas the most powerfull,how was it possible,if the SU was economically weaker than Germany ? (see you former posts ) Something of a contradiction,don't you think ?

#50 Devilsadvocate

Devilsadvocate

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,194 posts

Posted 28 November 2009 - 04:56 AM

That (the outcome ....)is a non sequitur :):it is to deterministic


I disagree.

The overwhelming disparity in industrial and economic power between the Axis and the Western Allies virtually guaranteed the Allies eventual victory. And this was not something that couldn't possibly have been foreseen. I believe it was Admiral Stark who, speaking in early 1941, with the Japanese special ambassador to Washington, quite accurately predicted that the US would ultimately crush the Japanese Empire.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users