German GNP vs US GNP, exchange ratios of RM to Dollars

[Guaporense]

1939 GDP (stated in millions of 1990 American dollars)
862,995. USA. Still in depression. GDP will double by 1944.
430,314. USSR.
374,577. Germany. Does not include Austria, which is listed separately.
300,539. U.K.
288,653. China (1938 data).
256,924. India. It's easy to see why Britain was determined to keep India. It was a colonial cash cow.
203,781. Japan.
200,840. France
154,470. Italy

You should note that these statistics are based on international dollars, with distort the value of less developed countries upwards. That's because less developed countries have a lower cost of living. For example, China, India and the Soviet Union would have smaller GDPs if measured by dollars converted by exchange rates.

[LWD]

...The thousands of merchant ships made to supply Britain and the invasion of the European mainland surely cost more than any naval force in the pacific.....

I'm not at all sure that's true. First of all a lot of merchat ships were used in the Pacific as well. Wiki states that ~2,700 liberty ships were built. If we look at just Essex calss CVs 22 were built. Given the ancilary equipment, as well as addtional steel, crew, etc it's not at all clear to me that, since most of the Essex class CVs operated mostly against Japan that the cost of them alone may have out weighted the Liberty ships used against Germany. Indeed without a descritption of how the number was developed it's of little or no value.

I did find some price comparisons.
From http://www.liberty-ship.com/html/yards/oregonsb.html
A Liberty ship cost ~1.34M
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class_battleship
An Iowa class BB cost ~125M

[Guaporense]

...The thousands of merchant ships made to supply Britain and the invasion of the European mainland surely cost more than any naval force in the pacific.....

I'm not at all sure that's true. First of all a lot of merchat ships were used in the Pacific as well. Wiki states that ~2,700 liberty ships were built. If we look at just Essex calss CVs 22 were built. Given the ancilary equipment, as well as addtional steel, crew, etc it's not at all clear to me that, since most of the Essex class CVs operated mostly against Japan that the cost of them alone may have out weighted the Liberty ships used against Germany. Indeed without a descritption of how the number was developed it's of little or no value.

I did find some price comparisons.
From http://www.liberty-ship.com/html/yards/oregonsb.html
A Liberty ship cost ~1.34M
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class_battleship
An Iowa class BB cost ~125M

First, the US spent 180 billion dollars in military expenditures between 1941 and 1944 (in 1939 dollars). Lend-Lease was about nearly 50 billion (about 40 billion in 1939 dollars), so, thats roughly 25% of the American military expenditures spent against Germany. Of the 75% that remains, well, 400.000 americans died in ww2, 100.000 agaisnt japan and 300.000 agaist germany, so thats 75 divide into 56.25% agaist germany and 18.75% agaisnt japan. That gives 56.25% + 25% = 81.25%.

Lets see, the per ton cost of an Essex carrier must have been less than an Iowa, if they are the same and Essex would cost 80 M. So we have 1.9 billion in the 24 Essex ships and 3.6 billion in 2700 liberty ships.

* 90 Liberty ships for an Iowa? Well, that's cheap. A Bismarck class BB cost 200 million reichmarks, a class VII U-Boat cost 2.5 million Reichmarks. Anyway, at an exchange rate of 0.45 dollars per Reichsmark means that a Liberty ship cost 3M and a Iowa, 280M RM.

[Guaporense]

Hi the German GNP as I promised

source: Rezessionen in historischer Betrachtung, Dr. Norbert Räth, VOLKSWIRTSCHAFTLICHE GESAMTRECHNUNGEN

Year/ Base/ adjusted for deflation
1930/ 82.4/ 69.2
1931/ 69.0/ 63.9
1932/ 56.7/ 59.1
1933/ 58.4/ 62.8
1934/ 65.5/ 68.2
1935/ 73.1/ 74.6
1936/ 81.2/ 81.2
1937/ 90.9/ 90.0
1938/ 100.2/ 99.2
1939/ 109.3/ 107.2

I can add to these numbers from the book The Economics of WW2:

adjusted in 1939 dollars

1939/ 129 B RM in Greater Germany (109 from your data set, with means it is for pre-war germany)
1940/ 129 Greater Germany
1941/ 131 Greater Germany
1942/ 136 Greater Germany
1943/ 150 Greater Germany

[LWD]

...
First, the US spent 180 billion dollars in military expenditures between 1941 and 1944 (in 1939 dollars). Lend-Lease was about nearly 50 billion (about 40 billion in 1939 dollars), so, thats roughly 25% of the American military expenditures spent against Germany.

Not really. Most of the Lend Lease went to the British commonwealth and they were engaged in the Pacific as well. Indeed late in the war so were the Soviets and from what I've read at least part of the tanks they used vs Japan were Shermans.

Of the 75% that remains, well, 400.000 americans died in ww2, 100.000 agaisnt japan and 300.000 agaist germany, so thats 75 divide into 56.25% agaist germany and 18.75% agaisnt japan. That gives 56.25% + 25% = 81.25%.

But personel losses don't neccarily equate to dollars spent.

Lets see, the per ton cost of an Essex carrier must have been less than an Iowa,

Why? Indeed when fully outfittted I would expect the CV to be more costly per ton but could be wrong there.

if they are the same and Essex would cost 80 M. So we have 1.9 billion in the 24 Essex ships and 3.6 billion in 2700 liberty ships.

And what percentage of the Liberty ships are also working in the Pacific? Almost all the CVL's and I suspect the majority of the CVE's were also allocated to the Pacific.

* 90 Liberty ships for an Iowa? Well, that's cheap. A Bismacrk class BB cost 200 million reichmarks, a class VII U-Boat cost 2.5 million reichmarks. Anyway, at an exchange rate of 0.45 dollars per Reichsmark means that a Liberty ship cost 3M and a Iowa, 280M RM.

Looks like another indicator that the RM was held artificially high. I'd expect the costs of the Bismarck and Iowa to be about the same.

[Guaporense]

...
Looks like another indicator that the RM was held artificially high. I'd expect the costs of the Bismarck and Iowa to be about the same.

1- Well, if you would expect that, then, well, them you imply that the RM was held artificially low.

2- Anyway, the PPP conversion rates utilized by economic historians are quite similar to the market exchange rates that prevailed in the 30's between the two currencies.

3- The 85% number was a number that I saw quite often in books dealing with WW2, in fact, it was the number that.

[LWD]

...
2- Anyway, the PPP conversion rates utilized by economic historians are quite similar to the market exchange rates that prevailed in the 30's between the two currencies.

Wages of Destruction goes into some detail on how the exchange rates were manipulated/controled for political reasons during this period.

3- The 85% number was a number that I saw quite often in books dealing with WW2, in fact, it was the number that.

It may indeed appear in many books but what is its source and is it accurate. Many books also state that the Japanese CVs at Midway had their decks full of aircraft when they were hit. That's been pretty clearly proven fallacious. Is this 85% numer in the same catagory?

[bf109 emil]

It is said the 85% of the american military expenditures were spent against germany, with were about $66.98 billion in 1944, against germany's $18.85 billion slack off the eastern front, 4 to 1 outnumbered in expenditures.

Note how these data are correlated with the 1.5 million men Germany had against the 5.41 million anglo-american forces (of which 4.5 million were american).

where does this source of 1.5 million men come from? as opposed to 5.41 million anglo-american forces?

Germany alone had over a 1 million men manning flak batteries vs. anglo-american air forces alone?

This suggests in battle the Allies had a 3-1+ numerical superiority over German troops...in which battle if any did Anglo-forces outnumber German 3-1+ in numbers?

[Guaporense]

It is said the 85% of the american military expenditures were spent against germany, with were about $66.98 billion in 1944, against germany's $18.85 billion slack off the eastern front, 4 to 1 outnumbered in expenditures.

Note how these data are correlated with the 1.5 million men Germany had against the 5.41 million anglo-american forces (of which 4.5 million were american).

where does this source of 1.5 million men come from? as opposed to 5.41 million anglo-american forces?

Germany alone had over a 1 million men manning flak batteries vs. anglo-american air forces alone?

This suggests in battle the Allies had a 3-1+ numerical superiority over German troops...in which battle if any did Anglo-forces outnumber German 3-1+ in numbers?

Comes from Wikipedia page on the western front:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Fr ... rld_War_II)

It is true that the allies didn't have 4 to 1 numerical superiority in the specific battles, but that was because they had a much larger proportion of men in logistical/service functions and of course, their inefficiency in managing manpower. Overall they had 2 to 1 numerical superiority at the front (about 2 million men versus 1 million Germans).

From where your 1 million number manning flack batteries comes from?

[LWD]

...and of course, their inefficiency in managing manpower. ...

Care to elaborate on this a bit? Or is it just another OT throwaway comment.

[bf109 emil]

From where your 1 million number manning flack batteries comes from?

using the same wiki as sourced to Germany having but only a million men...By 1944 it operated 39,000 flak batteries staffed with a million people in uniform, both men and women. from conservapedia and not wiki sorry

Overall they had 2 to 1 numerical superiority at the front (about 2 million men versus 1 million Germans)

so Germany never had any troops in the western front as simple math shows that Germany surrendered in Italy/Austria on May 2 a 1,000,000 troops opposing the Allied forces by Gen. Heinrich von Vietingenhoff

but the problem with wiki and using as a source also show in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWGermany surrender to Britain over 3.6 million troops and USA close to 3.1 million and to France (i'm guessing in North Africa and Europe late 44/45) 900,000 totaling some 7 million forces along with the known surrender of a million on May 2 of a million German military personnel equals over 8.5 million German troops facing 2 million allied as Guaporense kindly referred to or a German superiority of 4 to 1 over western forces

[Meyer]

where does this source of 1.5 million men come from? as opposed to 5.41 million anglo-american forces?

Germany alone had over a 1 million men manning flak batteries vs. anglo-american air forces alone?

It is worth noting that a high % of the flak personal were either civilians or auxiliary:
By the autumn of 1944, the ground-based air defense force numbered 1,110,900 persons, with 448,700, or 40 percent, coming from outside the Luftwaffe. The non-Luftwaffe personnel
included 220,000 Home Guard, Labor Service, and male high school auxiliaries; 128,000 female auxiliaries; and 98,000 foreign volunteers and prisoners of war. By the end of the war, the number had risen to 1,200,000 persons, and the % of auxiliaries and civilians to 44 percent.
Furthermore, of the regular service personnel serving with the flak, 21 percent were between the ages of thirty-nine and forty-eight, and a further 35 percent were older than forty-eight or medically exempted from combat duty.

Also, not all those forces were engaging anglo-american forces, I would say that, in 1944, 20% of the flak batteries were facing the soviets.

Source: Flak,German Anti-aircraft Defenses 1914-1945, Edward B. Westermann