Production of raw materials 1942-1943

[Guaporense]

The production of raw materials was a essential element of the war effort. In fact, the capacity of a nation to wage war at the time of WW2 was directly determined by their industrial capacity, and the production of industrial raw materials consisted in the most useful set of statistics to measure the industrial capacity of a nation in those times (today the picture is quite different, the production of raw materials has become a low tech-low value industry).

In the war the production of raw materials and the production of weapons were very strongly correlated, with the exception of the soviet union. In this case we can see why that lend-lease mattered, since raw materials were the most scarce resources for the soviets.

Production of steel (1943):

US - 80.6 million tons (2)
Germany - 30.6 million tons (3) (34.6 million tons for all occupied territory) (3)
UK - 13.2 million tons (2)
Canada - 1.8 million tons (2)
URSS - 8.5 million tons (3)
Japan - 6.3 million tons (4)

Axis: 40.9 million tons
Allies: 104.1 million tons

ratio (axis/allies) - 0.393

Production of aluminum (1942, 1943):

(1942)
US - 472.4 thousand tons (2)
Germany - 264.0 thousand tons (1) (309.2 thousand tons for all occupied territory)
UK - 47.6 thousand tons (2)
Canada - 309 thousand tons (2)
URSS - 51.7 thousand tons (3)
Japan - 103.1 thousand tons (4)

Axis: 412.3 thousand tons + japan's aluminum
Allies: 880.7 thousand tons

ratio (axis/allies) - 0.468

(1943)
US - 834.8 thousand tons (2)
Germany - 250.1 thousand tons (1) (296.3 thousand tons for all occupied territory)
UK - 56.6 thousand tons (2)
Canada - 450 thousand tons (2)
URSS - 62.3 thousand tons (3)
Japan - 141.1 thousand tons (4)

Axis: 437.4 thousand tons
Allies: 1403.7 thousand tons

ratio (axis/allies) - 0.312

Production of coal (1943):

US - 586.2 million tons (2)
Germany - 268.9 million tons (bituminous) (1), (net?) exports of 15.7 million tons (3), (353.6 million tons in conquered Europe) (3), 252.5 million tons (lignite) (1)
UK - 202.1 million tons (2)
Canada - 11.5 million tons (2)
USSR - 54.8 million tons (bituminous), 38.4 million tons (lignite) (3)
Japan - 55.5 million tons + 4.9 million tons of net imports (4)

Bituminous coal:

Axis: 409.1 million tons
Allies: 854.6 million tons

ratio (axis/allies) - 0.479

Production of Pig Iron (1943):

US - 55.8 million tons (2)
Germany - 24.2 million tons (3) (27.8 million tons for all occupied territory) (3)
UK - 7.3 million tons (2)
Canada - 2.7 million tons (2)
URSS - 5.6 million tons (3)
Japan - (4?, in proportion to steel) million tons

Axis: 31.8 million tons
Allies: 68.7 million tons

ratio (axis/allies) - 0.463

Sources:
(1)The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Third Reich
(2)World Economic Survey 1942-1944
(3)http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/WarEcon.html
(4)The Economics of WW2

The allies produced between 2 to 3 times the raw materials that the Axis produced. Most of this difference can be accounted by the US. Note that USSR industrial production of some materials was inferior to Japan's.

Ratios:

US vs Japan:
Steel - 12.8
Aluminum (1943) - 5.92
Coal - 9.82
Iron - 13.95

The immense economic differences between Japan and the US surely influenced the outcome of the pacific war.

UK + USSR vs Germany (without conquered territories):
Steel - 0.71
Aluminum (1943) - 0.475
Coal bituminous - 0.955
Coal all - 0.57
Iron - 0.53

Here we have a more even picture. While UK+USSR are in disadvantage against Germany, the US makes up this difference by a way larger margin (even accounting the resources allocated against Japan) than the conquered territories in Europe.

[phylo_roadking]

Posting up a list of collated statistics and THEN not citing individual figures is called peekaboo sourcing and is frowned on here. For instance -

Production of aluminum...
(1943)
Germany - 250.1 thousand tons (296.3 thousand tons for all occupied territory)

and saying your sources, plural, are -

Sources:
The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Third Reich
World Economic Survey 1942-1944
http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/WarEcon.html
The Economics of WW2

...is pointless/useless - for you are not permitting your readers to judge whether or not your quoted individual statistics are correctly replicated here.

For example - that aluminium production figure for 1943 is clearly WRONG if sourced from the World Economic Survey...and that's TWO threads and THREE times you've been given the correct WES German aluminium production figure for 1943.

Please cite where your individual entries come from.

[Jon G.]

I thought it useful to add some data to this thread since it constitutes a nice continuation of other raw material/ressource-centered threads. Note, though, that steel is not a raw material, although the production of it is strongly dependent on coal and iron, which in turn are raw materials.

Here's a table from an article by Peter Howlett Resource Allocation in Wartime Britain: The Case of Steel, 1939-45


From the Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 29, #3, 1994.

...Howlett adds that production from France and Belgium added 6.7 million tons to the German total in 1943, which can be compared to a combined French-Belgian output of 10.9 million tons in 1939.

The Sturmvogel figures seem to be a bit off - for one thing, they seem to overstate Altreich steel production a bit (as far as I can see Sturmvogel and Howlett use roughly the same denominators); but they also appear to understate occupied Europe production. Still, the Sturmvogel figures come out a bit too high compared to Howlett's numbers.

...In this case we can see why that lend-lease mattered, since raw materials were the most scarce resources for the soviets...

That is over-simplifying matters somewhat. As a starting point, the Soviets had far more raw materials than the Germans did. That was part of the reason why Hitler wanted to conquer the Soviet Union in the first place.

The Soviets suffered from the loss of raw material-rich areas to the Germans, as can be read from the drop in Soviet steel production, but, as an also be read from the table, they also managed to increase production from the 1942 low point already during the war.

[Guaporense]

The German figures are different compared to the figures in Wages of Destruction for the Altreich, with are identical to Sturmvogel figures. Well, your source doesn't include the production of the Saar. With explains the difference of 3 million tons (for all years).

The Japan figures are wrong. These are the correct ones (million tons):

1937 - 5.63
1938 - 6.15
1939 - 6.07
1940 - 5.90
1941 - 5.56
1942 - 5.67
1943 - 6.28
1944 - 4.65

Source: The Economics of WW2

Note that you source is from 1946. If it is different from a modern source, then it is probably wrong. Like the differences between the aluminum figures of Germany in World Economic Survey 1942-1944 and modern ones. You can only trust the figures for the western allies in those distant days (1945-46, etc).

And the Soviets had NATURAL RESOURCES. However, their production of industrial commodities was several times smaller. I would ask a moderator to change the name of the tread to 'Production of selected Industrial commodities'.

[Guaporense]

Annual electricity production figures (million kWh):

1939:
US --- 128,000 (1)
Germany (Altreich) --- 61,380 (4)
USSR --- 43,200 (4)
UK --- 27,733 (2)
Italy – 17,707 (2)

1943:
US --- 217,750 (1)
Greater Germany --- 90,000 (guess)
USSR --- 32,288
UK --- 38,217
Italy --- 17,894

(1) National Bureau of Economic Research, database on commodities production
(2) The Economics of WW2
(3) http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/WarEcon.html
(4) International Historical Statistics: Europe 1750-1988,” by B.R. Mitchell

Monthly steel figures for 1939 (thousand of tons):

US – 3,990 (1)
Germany – 1,980 (4)
USSR – 1,464 (4)
Britain – 1,120 (1)
Japan -- 500 (3)
Italy -- 190 (3)
Canada – 120 (1)

Sources:
(1) World Economic Survey
(2) http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/WarEcon.html
(3) The Economics of WW2
(4) International Historical Statistics: Europe 1750-1988,” by B.R. Mitchell

We can clearly see that German was the second largest industrial power in the world while the USSR was the third and Britain was the fourth. However, by 1943, Britain became the third and the USSR fell to the fourth place. That was because of Barbarossa.

[LWD]

The production of raw materials was a essential element of the war effort. In fact, the capacity of a nation to wage war at the time of WW2 was directly determined by their industrial capacity, and the production of industrial raw materials consisted in the most useful set of statistics to measure the industrial capacity of a nation in those times

Is it? At this point I'm not convinced.

[LWD]

...The Japan figures are wrong. These are the correct ones .....

And we should believe this why?

[Jon G.]

The German figures are different compared to the figures in Wages of Destruction for the Altreich, with are identical to Sturmvogel figures. Well, your source doesn't include the production of the Saar. With explains the difference of 3 million tons (for all years).

That could be. Note, though, that the Saarland for all practical purposes left the German economy as a steel- and raw material producing entity in the autumn of 1944. FWIW, steel produced in Alsace-Lorraine probably also accounts for a bit of the difference between the two sets of figures.

The Japan figures are wrong...

I'd like to stick with the term different for the steel figures for now. I know they differ from Harrison's figures - would you mind making page references in the future, rather than just book titles? - which is why I posted them. My point was showing the progression in steel production as the war went on, rather than just cherry-picking a single year as you did upthread. The development in steel production shows that the Germans never surpassed the high point in steel production attained in 1939, armaments miracles notwithstanding.

...
Note that you source is from 1946. If it is different from a modern source, then it is probably wrong. Like the differences between the aluminum figures of Germany in World Economic Survey 1942-1944 and modern ones. You can only trust the figures for the western allies in those distant days (1945-46, etc).

Perhaps that applies to figures for Soviet production, but, as a matter of straight historical methodology, you can't dismiss older figures in preference of newer numbers without first establishing if there is any source interdependence at work or not. Where do you think that authors of newer sets of historical statistics get their data from?

And the Soviets had NATURAL RESOURCES. However, their production of industrial commodities was several times smaller. I would ask a moderator to change the name of the tread to 'Production of selected Industrial commodities'.

No, Soviet industrial output was not far behind German production until 1941. The subsequent drop in Soviet production can be explained by the loss of territory caused by the German attack on the USSR. On the other hand, the Soviets weren't engaged in a full scale war, nor were they committing their industrial output to war material production pre-1941 to the same degree that the Germans were.

In other words, a larger proportion of Soviet industrial output in relative numbers (& probably also in absolute numbers) post-1941 was devoted to war material than it was pre-1941. You need to apply analysis to the numbers you post if they are going to be of any use.

Let's stick with the topic title you selected for now. If the topic begins deviating in various directions, I'll make a split-off.