Coal Figures for the Great Powers

[LWD]

What is the source of your numbers? In particular the GNP ones.

[Guaporense]

...
For some reason US data differ a lot...

Possibly due to the fact that coal wasn't as important in the US as it was in Europe. If you look at this table:
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/ann ... ?t=ptb1601
Only about half the US's energy supply came from coal after 1935. This chart also may help:
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10

Interesting, this data may allow me to produce distinct estimates of US energy consumption in tons of coal equivalent since a pound (0.453592 kg) of coal was equivalent to 13,100 btu, in 1940 it was:

Coal - 12.535
Oil - 7.760

translates in tons of coal:

Coal - 434 million tons
Oil - 269 million tons
total: 703 million tons of coal equivalent

My estimate was 685.2 million tons. A discrepancy of less than 2%, satisfactory for the purposes of this comparison.

[Guaporense]

What is the source of your numbers? In particular the GNP ones.

GNP are national account numbers available from many sources. Germany's GNP can be seem from the Axis History factbook for instance. I picked up figures for UK, France, Japan and US from other sources in national currency and converted using current exchange rates.

If you want alternative number, in 1935 the GNP figures converted at exchange rates for each country were:

USA - 73.3 billion dollars
UK - 23.6 billion dollars
Germany - 30 billion dollars
France - 16.2 billion dollars
Japan - 5.3 billion dollars

Germany + France was 46.2 billion dollars over a population of 108 million (without Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia inside Germany as it was in 1939), using rule for per capita income of Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Silesia and Czechoslovakia at around 400 dollars (slightly lower than German - French average of 430 dollars) and considering the population outside of France and Germany as 42 million yields 16.8 billion dollars hence 63 billion dollars for the "Grossraum" or 86% of US's GNP. So this area's GNP was around 80-90% of the US's GNP during the late 1930's.

So this area of 150 million people (which I used the therm "Grossraum" as used in Wages of Destruction which consisted of most of the industrialized parts of continental Europe), which was quite industrialized for example it consumed as a whole about 570 million tons of coal equivalent in energy, that's 3.8 tons of coal per person. UK's per capita consumption of coal and oil was about 4.2 tons of coal per capita equivalent. The US's per capita consumption of energy from coal and oil was 5.4 tons of coal equivalent in 1940.

Population in 1938:

"Grossraum" -- ca. 150 million
USA ------------ 131 million
UK -------------- 48 million

Again, 1935 GNP in current dollars at current exchange rates:

"Grossraum" -- 63 billion (86% of the US's)
USA ------------ 73.3 billion
UK -------------- 27.5 billion

GNP in 1938, applying same methodology (57 billion dollars for France+Germany imply in 72 billion for Grossraum considering Germany with annexed areas of Czechoslovakia and incorporation of Austria) as the two cases above in 1938 dollars:

"Grossraum" -- 72 billion (85% of US's)
USA ------------ 84.7 billion
UK -------------- 27.5 billion

For 1939 in 1939 dollars:

"Grossraum" -- 82.2 billion (91% of US's)
USA ------------ 90.5 billion
UK -------------- 27.5 billion

Compare to 1940 energy consumption in tons of coal equivalent for fossil fuels as computed in pages above:

"Grossraum" ---- 570 million tons
USA ------------ 700 million tons
UK -------------- 200 million tons

Notice that US's economy grew by 10% from 1939 to 1940 while Grossraum stagnated and UK grew a little.

Out of curiosity, in 2000, Germany consumed 495 million tons of coal equivalent, France consumed 380 million tons of coal equivalent, Japan consumed 775 million tons and the US consumed 3,420 million tons. However, the GNP of Germany+Japan+France in 2000 was 80% of the US while energy consumption was 1,650 million metric tons or 48% of the US's level, showing that energy efficiency in these countries was almost twice as the US.

Apparently, the correlation of energy consumption to GNP declined over the course of the 60 years from 1940 to 2000. In some cases we have very interesting results: in 2000, Japan consumed 775 million metric tons of coal energy equivalent, Russia consumed 940 million tons. Japan's GNP, however, was 4,731,199 million dollars while Russia was 259,702 million dollars, about 20 times less. Energy to output ratio in Japan was nearly 25 times higher than in Russia in the year 2000. Russia traditionally is extremely inefficient in converting energy into output while Japan became extremely efficient by the end of the 20th century.

Converted at the official exchange rate in 1939 it was 52 billion dollars. France's GNP in 1939 was 1/4 of Germany''s GNP in 1943 according to a book whose name I don't remember based on the occupation taxes paid by France (it was 9% of Germany's 1943 GNP or 36% of France's 1939 GNP), Germany's 1943 GNP was 17% bigger than 1939 GNP, so it translates to 25% times 1.17, or 30% of 1939's Germany GNP, that's 15.6 billion dollars, which yields 67.2 billion dollars for France and Germany together, which had a combined population of 120 million in 1939 (Germany had annexed Austria). The rest of the Grossraum had a population of 30 million (Benelux and Czechoslovakia) and it's areas had similar levels of industrialization to France and Germany so it's GNP was per capita was probably around 500 dollars as well, yielding a total GNP of 82.2 billion dollars in 1939, compared to 90.5 billion dollars for the USA in the same year (91% of US's GNP). The relevant industrial areas of Poland (i.e. Silesia) were incorporated into Germany without changing it's population that much.

Also, don't even try to say stuff like: in 1944 US's economy was twice as large as in 1938. It wasn't, Simon Kuznets computed some decent price indexes and constructed a decent GNP estimate for the US from 1938 to 1944. It grew, but not by the massive amount the official estimates appear to indicate: in 1944 it was 122 billion 1939 dollars, 1/3 larger than the GNP of 1939.

To understand why the official estimates show huge US GNP growth during WW2 imagine a country that produces 2 goods: apples and strategic bombers. Suposed there are 2 periods: period 0 and period 1, in period 0, we have peace and a bomber costs 1000 apples and the country produces 99,000 apples and 1 bomber, GDP is 99% apples and 1% bombers. In period 1, we have war and the country mobilizes, 50% of it's GDP is bombers and thanks to economies of scale the price of a bomber became 500 apples, so output in period 1 is: 1,000 bombers and 50,000 apples. At prices at period 0, the economy grew 50%, from 100,000 apples of GDP to 150,000 apples of GDP. At prices at period 1, the economy grew 0.5%, from 99,500 apples to 100,000 apples. Understanding that prices of munitions collapse when we shift from small scale production to large scale production, Kuznets corrected the GDP figures and showed that growth was overestimated from 1940 to 1944 by about 1/3 (output in 1944 was 123% of 1940, not 160% as previously estimated).

[Gooner1]

France's GNP in 1939 was 1/4 of Germany''s GNP in 1943 according to a book whose name I don't remember based on the occupation taxes paid by France (it was 9% of Germany's 1943 GNP or 36% of France's 1939 GNP), Germany's 1943 GNP was 17% bigger than 1939 GNP, so it translates to 25% times 1.17, or 30% of 1939's Germany GNP, that's 15.6 billion dollars, which yields 67.2 billion dollars for France and Germany together, which had a combined population of 120 million in 1939 (Germany had annexed Austria). The rest of the Grossraum had a population of 30 million (Benelux and Czechoslovakia) and it's areas had similar levels of industrialization to France and Germany so it's GNP was per capita was probably around 500 dollars as well, yielding a total GNP of 82.2 billion dollars in 1939,

Seems like an unimpeachable methodology there.

[LWD]

... If you want alternative number, in 1935 the GNP figures converted at exchange rates for each country were: ....

That's a serious problem though isn't it, given that the exchange rate of the Mark was subject to significant manipulation.

[steverodgers801]

Considering how much of Frances production was taken by Germany as well as equipment. For example, thousands of trucks were taken by the Heer which had a big effect of agriculture in France. You need to consider what its GNP would with out occupation.

[amcl]

Considering how much of Frances production was taken by Germany as well as equipment. For example, thousands of trucks were taken by the Heer which had a big effect of agriculture in France. You need to consider what its GNP would with out occupation.

Actually, what we want is GDP because only care about where the economic activity takes place.

Cheers,

Angus

[Guaporense]

If you want I have the orthodox Madison's GDP figures for these areas in 1938, extracted from Harrison's 1998 The Economics of WW2, pages 5-8. These are PPP figures however, not actual market values:

Germany: 351.4
Austria: 24.2
Czechoslovakia: 30.3
France: 185.6
Poland: 76.6
Denmark: 20.9
Belgium: 39.6
Netherlands: 44.5
Grossraum total: 773.3

Compared to:

UK: 284.2
US: 800.3

All the industrialized countries in the world in 1938 were the above (excluding Poland), plus Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Argentina and Uruguay. All these countries had per capita incomes of at least half of the US in 1938, two thirds or more for all except Austria and Czechoslovakia.

GDP at market exchange rates tends to be close to PPP figures when the country is industrialized, poorer economies like Poland, Japan, Italy and the USSR tend to have lower GDP at market exchange rates than at PPP, as cost of living is lower and these estimates also include estimated output of self sufficient farmers (China and India's estimated gdp figures are 90% due to self sufficient farming). Poland's GDP at market exchange rates would tend to be at 50% of that level, so that we would expect GDP in 1938 at market exchange rates to be, in 1990:

US ------------ 800.3 billion
Grossraum --- 735.0 billion
UK ------------ 284.2 billion

My figures/estimates are for 1939:

USA ------------ 90.5 billion
Grossraum ----- 82.2 billion
UK -------------- 27.5 billion

Notice that they are in current dollars. The Harrison figures are in 1990 PPP dollars. Though it's true Germany's GDP was overestimated as the mark was overvalued, it was around 420 billion in 1939 with the annexation of Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia, still 48% of the US's 1939 figure in PPP terms, but it was 57% at market exchange rates.

If you want to compare all great powers, in 1939 they GDP's were at market exchange rates:

USA ------------ 90.5 billion
Grossraum ----- 82.2 billion
UK -------------- 27.5 billion
USSR ------------ 21* billion
Italy ------------- 9.3 billion (that was 2/3 of it's estimated PPP GDP, of 14.5 billion)
Japan ----------- 8.1 billion (that was slighlty over half of it's estimated PPP GDP of 15 billion)

*done like Poland, estimated it using usual correlation between PPP per capita income and nominal GDP value, that it would be around 50-60% of it's PPP GDP value of 38 billion.

Germany conquered 38% of the USSR's population, so by 1942, the coalitions had the following GDP under their control:

Axis
Germany - 90.2
Italy ------ 9.3
Japan ----- 8.1
total ------ 107.6

Allies
US -------- 90.5
UK -------- 27.5
USSR ----- 13
total ------ 131

Axis GDP was 82.1% of the allies if we consider the European territories Germany occupied, minus Greece and Yugoslavia, which had zero warmaking potential.

[Guaporense]

... If you want alternative number, in 1935 the GNP figures converted at exchange rates for each country were: ....

That's a serious problem though isn't it, given that the exchange rate of the Mark was subject to significant manipulation.

Well, I have made a crude purchasing power parity ratio of mark to dollar with food prices of:

Bread
Potatoes
Beef
Pork
Milk
Eggs
Beer
Cigarettes
Tea
Sugar
Flour

The data is from two papers http://www.coll.mpg.de/pdf_dat/2009_18online.pdf and http://gpih.ucdavis.edu/files/Fukao_Ma_Yuan.pdf. The weights were the German basket weights and the ratio was 0.412 dollars per mark, very close to the official exchange rate. And food prices were higher in Germany than in the US in general compared to prices of other stuff, but bread and milk were subsidized in Germany.

Or if you want you can compare labor force sizes in 1939:

Germany: 39.4 million
UK: 18.5 million

German real wages (thus, expected productivity) was around 85% British level in the 30's, that means GNP in 1939 would be about 180% of the British level.

[Guaporense]

Errata: I have included only coal shipped away from mines here, but most coal not shipped from mines is sold locally, not consumed on the mines themselves. Hence, I must readjust this table here including that amount and amount used to make coke, source Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1945:

USA Total Coal Production (not consumed by at the mines), thousands of metric tons:

1937 --- 445,422
1938 --- 352,215
1939 --- 400,214
1940 --- 460,011
1941 --- 512,765
1942 --- 578,339
1943 --- 584,347

The comparable figures for the "Grossraum" (i.e. Germany+France+Low Countries+Austria+Czechoslovakia+Poland), including coal used to make coke:

1937/38 --- 420,314
1938/39 --- 425,943
1939/40 --- 425,500
1940/41 --- 426,600
1941/42 --- 430,771
1942/43 --- 448,886
1943/44 --- 448,557

USA

---------- Coal ---------- Coke
1937---- 323.202 ------ 47.5
1938 --- 263.182 ------ 29.5
1939 --- 283.751 ------ 40.2
1940 --- 339.896 ------ 51.8
1941 --- 362.245 ------ 59.1
1942 --- 426.279 ------ 64.0
1943 --- 433.297 ------ 65.0