Not the resources used to make munitions.RichTO90 wrote:Then you would be correct since they did.Guaporense wrote:I had the impression that many people think that the USSR and UK had superiority in material resources over Germany.
Steel (1942):
UK - 12.9 million tons (http://books.google.com.br/books?id=RxF ... el&f=false)
USSR - 8 million (http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/sovprod.html)
total: 20.9 million
compare to:
Germany - 31.9 million (http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/SteelCoal.html)
Pig Iron (1942)
UK - 7.7 million tons (http://books.google.com.br/books?id=RxF ... el&f=false)
USSR - 4.8 million tons (http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/sovprod.html)
total: 12.5 million tons
compare to:
Germany - 24.9 million (http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/SteelCoal.html)
Machine tool production (1940-1944)
UK: 374,000 (The Economics of WW2, page 59)
USSR: 115,400 (http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/SovLendLease.html)
total: 489,400
Germany: 813,400 (http://wwiiarchives.net/servlet/document/149/234/0)
Well, maybe these statistics are useless for determining the relative resources of these countries. Maybe not.
Also, note that UK had perhaps more resources than the USSR. After Barbarossa, the USSR was reduced to a rump state and their industrial capacity was smaller than before the invasion.
They didn't have the natural resources, like florests and rivers, that USSR and the British empire had. Nor they had more illiterate peasants. They only had more machines and factories. You know, the things that make weapons. And more people with education, you know, people that design, make and and operate weapons.No Germany did not.When in fact, Germany had more material resources than both powers combined.
I understood that the sentence "materials resources" in relation to World War Two would probably mean "resources necessary to make munitions".Really? Which ones? Where did they come from? How do "industrial commodities" differ from "material resources"?I based them on the statistics about steel, coal, iron, & other industrial commodities.
Since people confuse material resources with natural resources, which are a small part of "material resources".
No. Human resources includes the human capital of the population. Germany controlled the population that produced 67% of the nobel prizes in physics, chemistry and medicine between 1918 and 1938. Germany itself produced 30% of these nobel prizes, France, Netherlands, Belgium, etc, produced the other 37%. The US produced 12% of these prizes. USSR didn't produce anybody.Er, so "population" must not equate to "human"?
UK controlled the illiterate population of India, which consisted of self suficient subsistence farmers. That was pretty much 65% of the population of the British empire: Illiterate peasants, at the margin of the global economy and society. Germany controlled nearly 200 million people of western europe, that was at the time most of the core of western civilization itself.
People usually don't understand that in the 1940's, the most important part of the world was western europe, and Germany controlled the bulk of it (3/4 of western europe GDP).