Was the USSR economically stronger than Germany?

[paspartoo]

The German crude oil production was 9.5 million ton,its synthetic production was 23.2 million,imports were 16.1 million,while the Soviet crude only production was some 100 million ton.
Can one use these figures to prove that the SU was economically stronger than Germany (or the opposite) ? NO.

Well it might have had something to do with the lack of oil in Germany Which is why the had to invest in the very costly and 'high-tech' synthetic plants.

Coal, steel, aluminum are basic indicators for economic development during that era. I see you revert to the same argument 'a greater coal production than the SU,Germany produced less tanks'. My advice would be to clarify what exactly you're making a case for.

[ljadw]

Very simple : if A is saying :Germany is producing more steel,thus,its economy was stronger, B will reply : but with less steel,the SU was building more tanks,thus the SU was stronger ,C will reply : Germany produced more ammunition,D :the SU produced more oil;etc,etc.

My point :none of these should be used as argument,something I did not

GDP should not be used,raw production should not be used . .

[paspartoo]

Very simple : if A is saying :Germany is producing more steel,thus,its economy was stronger, B will reply : but with less steel,the SU was building more tanks,thus the SU was stronger ,C will reply : Germany produced more ammunition,

It has been pointed out to you over and over that more tanks came at the expense of other systems like infantry vehicles and trucks etc. Moreover a German tank and a Soviet tank did not have the same quality as can be seen in their specifications and performance in battle.
I don’t see a point in repeating the same things every day…

D :the SU produced more oil;etc,etc.

I thought that the SU extracted oil. If they know how to produce it maybe you can get the recipe. I hear oil prices are high right now!

My point :none of these should be used as argument,something I did not
GDP should not be used,raw production should not be used . .

Well in that case I don’t understand the point of the discussion. Everything people use you say should not be used.

[Sid Guttridge]

The discussion seems to come down to this:

1) The USSR had greater economic potential, but was still playing catch-up in 1940.

2) Germany was better developed and had the stronger, more diverse economy in 1940.

3) Germany with occupied Europe's resources at its disposal, was potentially economically even stronger.

4) However, Germany could not realize all of occupied Europe's potential and had to divert most of its own high-tech economic effort to countering the Western Allies.

5) By contrast, the USSR was able to devote its entire economy to defeating Germany and had many of its economic limitations made up by Lease-Lend.

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

[quote="paspartoo"][quote="ljadw"] Very simple : Moreover a German tank and a Soviet tank did not have the same quality as can be seen in their specifications and performance in battle.

This is irrelevant for the question,unless your POV is that the quality of a tank is indicating a stronger economy,something which can be defended,but also can be countered with the argument that the quantity of tanks that were built,was indicating a strong economy .
What should be used as argument : the quality of the Tiger II,or the number of Soviet light tanks ?

I am not convinced that it should be the quality of the Tiger tank .

[LWD]

...: but with less steel,the SU was building more tanks,thus the SU was stronger

Which of course is nonsensical.

... My point :none of these should be used as argument,something I did not

which is incorrect of course. None of them are very good measures in and of themselves but in aggregate especially with others they can be a very good indicator.

GDP should not be used,raw production should not be used . .

Wrong again. They are measures not perfect ones but measures non the less and much better ones than any you have used.

[paspartoo]

When I said quality I was referring to things like optics, three man turret, turret basket, quality of welding and electrical work, gun velocity and accuracy , radio in every vehicle etc etc

Not Tiger vs T-34

[RichTO90]

The GDP framework is an empty abstraction devoid of any link to the real world . (Frank Shostak);

Sorry, but what Frank Shostak complains about in 2001 is rather immaterial to the world of 1939-1945, where GDP quite adequately mirrored real world requirements. So what is Shostak really objecting to?

Mises Daily: Thursday, August 23, 2001 by Frank Shostak

By focusing exclusively on final goods and services, the GDP framework lapses into a world of fantasy wherein goods emerge because of people's desires. This is in total disregard to the facts of reality (that is, the issue of whether such desires can be accommodated). All that matters in this view is the demand for goods, which in turn will give rise almost immediately to their supply. Because the supply of goods is taken for granted, this framework completely ignores the whole issue of the various stages of production that precede the emergence of the final good.[However that is actually immaterial in a demand economy as found in a nation mobilized for total war.]

In the real world, it is not enough to have demand for goods: one must have the means to accommodate people's desires. [However that is actually immaterial in a demand economy as found in a nation mobilized for total war.] Means—i.e., various intermediate goods that are required in the production of final goods—are not readily available; they have to be produced. Thus, in order to manufacture a car, there is a need for coal that will be employed in the production of steel, which in turn will be employed to manufacture an array of tools. These in turn are used to produce other tools and machinery and so on, until we reach the final stage of the production of a car. The harmonious interaction of the various stages of production results in the final product. [However that is actually immaterial in a demand economy as found in a nation mobilized for total war.]

The GDP framework gives the impression that it is not the activities of individuals that produce goods and services, but something else outside these activities called the "economy." However, at no stage does the so-called "economy" have a life of its own independent of individuals. The so-called economy is a metaphor—it doesn't exist. [However that is actually immaterial in a demand economy as found in a nation mobilized for total war; the activities, needs, well-being, and desires of the "individuals" matters very little.]

By lumping the values of final goods and services together, government statisticians concretize the fiction of an economy by means of the GDP statistic. By regarding the economy as something that exists in the real world, mainstream economists reach a bizarre conclusion that what is good for individuals might not be good for the economy, and vice versa. Since the economy cannot have a life of its own without individuals, obviously what is good for individuals cannot be bad for the economy.[However that is actually immaterial in a demand economy as found in a nation mobilized for total war.]

The GDP framework cannot tell us whether final goods and services that were produced during a particular period of time are a reflection of real wealth expansion, or a reflection of capital consumption. [However that is actually immaterial in a demand economy as found in a nation mobilized for total war; "real wealth expansion" has little meaning in a society mobilized for war and, in fact, in World War II it only can be considered relevant to a single nation, the United States, whose civilian economy was the only one to expand during the war.]

For instance, if a government embarks on the building of a pyramid, which adds absolutely nothing to the well-being of individuals, the GDP framework will regard this as economic growth. In reality, however, the building of the pyramid will divert real funding from wealth-generating activities, thereby stifling the production of wealth. [However that is actually immaterial in a demand economy as found in a nation mobilized for total war, since "pyramid building" is exactly what is required in wartime, rather than the "production of wealth".]

Because the GDP framework completely disregards the intermediate stages of production, it can be of little help in the assessment of boom-bust cycles. It is little wonder then that mainstream economists are forced to conclude that recessions are a response to a sudden fall in consumer spending. Consequently, it is quite logical within the GDP framework to advocate loose monetary policies to revive the "economy." [However that is actually immaterial in a demand economy as found in a nation mobilized for total war; assessing "boom-bust cycles" and advocacy of monetary policy are postwar luxuries.]

The whole idea of GDP gives the impression that there is such a thing as the national output. In the real world, however, wealth is produced by someone and belongs to somebody. In other words, goods and services are not produced in totality and supervised by one supreme leader. This in turn means that the entire concept of GDP is devoid of any basis in reality. [However that is actually immaterial in a demand economy as found in a nation mobilized for total war; it would surpise many that there was no such thing as centralized control and production of goods and services during World War II.]

Like your presumptions regarding "feeding troops" your presumption regarding the validity of Shostak's opinion of the utility of GDP in modern economic theory (which, BTW, is not universally accepted other economists) is badly flawed.

[RichTO90]

Definition of the GDP (from Wiki) :GDP is the market value of all officialy recognized final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time .

1)Unless one can prove that there was a free market in the SU in WWII,GDP should not be used to measure the strength of the Soviet economy.

A "free market" is not required to define GDP...a "market value" is all that is required. Nor was the Soviet the only market that wasn't truly "free" in World War II, neither was Germany's, the UK's, the U.S.'s, Japan's...

2)The exclusion in this definition of all NOT officialy recognized goods and services is questionable

What "Not officialy recognized goods and services" do you believe were produced that were significant?

3)The exclusion in this definition of not final goods and services is questionable .

What are "not final goods"? Unfinal goods? Why is the production of these cryptic items "questionable"?

4)The claim that it is possible to establish the value of goods and services is flawed:what about unpaid jobs,underground economy,black market?

If you wish to show that the Soviet market in "unpaid jobs, underground economy, black market" was massive enough to compensate for a two-to-one ratio in GDP, then please do so... :roll:

5)What about the market value of the transformation of imported goods and of non finished exported goods ?

Um, the "import value of the transformation of imported goods" translates as "the value of goods manufactured within a country from imported resources"...if it is produced in a country then it is part of that GDP. "non finished exported goods", i.e., exported resources are part of a countries balance of payments and might be valid in this context...if you could show that the Soviets exported a significant enough volume of resources to balance the German infusion of resources that they obtained, essentially free of charge, from occupied and Allied nations?

My neighbour is growing potatos and vegetables in his garden :what is his market value ?

Sorry, but that is counted in GDP calculations as agricultural production...

What is the market value of the services produced by the US Congress?

Today? Zero. Unless you want to count shit as fertilizer...

[RichTO90]

This is a strawman :for the small ammunition (of which the bullets had a different weight) KDF used the number of rounds,while for the artillery shells,who had also a different weight,he used the weight .

I have no preference,but I am asking questions for the use of rounds for the small ammunition and the use of weight for the shells :why not weight for both,or numbers for both ?

Yes, it is a strawman - on your part. You may now say you "have no preference", but it was apparent from your objection to the figure presented what your preference was.

In any case, the figure was used that way because that is the way the figure was counted originally. Small arms ammunition production is commonly given as rounds, usually up to around 8mm, then in rounds and weight for heavier artillery ammunition. Rifle-caliber ammunition is so lightweight - typically 20-25 grams each - that weight calculations are almost meaningless in most context and simply weren't done; more frequently the packaged weight is substituted. I have found this in both production statistics for the U.S., UK, Germany, and the Soviet Union, as well as in their military logistics calculations.

And what for the aircraft : should one use the number of aircraft,or the weight,and,what about the tanks:number or weight (Soviet tanks were heavier)?

You could use the airframe weight for aircraft...if you know what it was and whether or not it includes the engine. However, the same general result can be obtained by comparing similar types of aircraft...single-engine fighters, twin-engine fighters, single-engine bombers/attack, twin-engine bombers, and etc. It simply isn't that difficult.

"Soviet tanks were heavier"? Really? Which models? How much production? If you think it is that significant, then please by all means trot out your figures. However, given that it is the manufacturing process rather than the raw weight of materials that is likely more import, it is probably safer and easier to do a more simple comparison as between the aircraft.

The same also applies to artillery and to naval production, ofwhich the Soviets may exhibit a significant shortfall.

The arbitrary use is feeding the suspicion that round/weight is used,when it is in the benefit of Germany .

That may be your assumption, but in fact the opposite is likely true as was shown by Dr. Arthur Volz years ago in the Journal of Soviet Military History. Since most readily available figures are for gross "artillery rounds" produced and since the Soviets included 20mm production and higher in most of their accounting, while the Germans counted 37mm and higher, the opposite is more likely true. Meanwhile, it is essentially meaningless to differentiate between Soviet 7.62mm and German 7.92mm production by weight - round counts are more than adequate. The same goes for Soviet 12.7mm and 14.5mm counts versus German 13mm and 15mm.

[RichTO90]

My point :none of these should be used as argument,something I did not
GDP should not be used,raw production should not be used . .

Well in that case I don’t understand the point of the discussion. Everything people use you say should not be used.

Exactly, which is why his argument has devolved to pure sophistry. The claim is that "there is no evidence that may be used to prove their point or disprove my point", thus "my point is proven". It's navel-gazing, pure and simple. :roll:

[ljadw]

...: but with less steel,the SU was building more tanks,thus the SU was stronger

Which of course is nonsensical.

... My point :none of these should be used as argument,something I did not

which is incorrect of course. None of them are very good measures in and of themselves but in aggregate especially with others they can be a very good indicator.

GDP should not be used,raw production should not be used . .

Wrong again. They are measures not perfect ones but measures non the less and much better ones than any you have used.

1)I did not say that I agreed with the "argument :"but with less steel,the SU was building more tanks,thus the SU was stronger",but,it can be used to counter the claim ;"Germany was producing more steel ,thus it was stronger" ,which also can be considered as nonsensical.

2)About the GDP : Paspartoo (an economist) wrote in his first post :"now,for the GDP,it is not a good indication in the case of closed economies."

3) your opinion that GDP and raw materials production are much better measures than the one I have used,make them not good .

[ljadw]

My point :none of these should be used as argument,something I did not
GDP should not be used,raw production should not be used . .

Well in that case I don’t understand the point of the discussion. Everything people use you say should not be used.

Exactly, which is why his argument has devolved to pure sophistry. The claim is that "there is no evidence that may be used to prove their point or disprove my point", thus "my point is proven". It's navel-gazing, pure and simple. :roll:

This is not so : it is a question of elimination

1)GDP should not be used (not a good indication in the case of closed economies:not my words)

2)Figures of production of raw materials should not be used,because there is no agreement about what raw materials should be used : has the fact that Germany produced more steel is more important than the fact that the SU produced more oil ?

[ljadw]

I also like to know why the people who are attacking me,because I am arguing that the USSR was economically stronger than Gemany,were also attacking Guaporense,when he said that Germany was economically stronger than the SU ?

[RichTO90]

1)I did not say that I agreed with the "argument :"but with less steel,the SU was building more tanks,thus the SU was stronger",but,it can be used to counter the claim ;"Germany was producing more steel ,thus it was stronger" ,which also can be considered as nonsensical.

You need to start pulling away from absolutes and start looking for nuance. The difference in steel production was small...in 1941 roughly 32-million tons of German versus 30-million tons of Soviet. However, Soviet utilization of steel was prioritized differently. And, while it is silly to just say "if the Germans only produced X fewer U-Boats or battleships they could have produced Y more tanks", there is an element of truth to it. Take a look at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1051836 for a very nuanced examination of the issue.

The Soviets benefited from a number of factors:

More investment in certain heavy industries prewar, such as tank and artillery production, than the Germans.
A more ruthless allocation of mobilization priorities initially than the Germans.
A larger and better utilized pool of manpower (and woman power; while the Germans had many women working,many were working inefficiently in peasant farms).
Better utilization and prioritization of conversion of production of civilian commodities to military commodities.
Expedient use of resources and production under the assumption that eventually shortfalls could be made good by Lend-Lease.

2)About the GDP : Paspartoo (an economist) wrote in his first post :"now,for the GDP,it is not a good indication in the case of closed economies."

Which is quite correct...for 2013 and a globalized economy. It is less correct when addressing economies partly or completely "closed" as part of an all-out mobilization of national resources for total war.

3) your opinion that GDP and raw materials production are much better measures than the one I have used,make them not good .

I'm afraid I cannot translate exactly what you are trying to say here? What makes what "not good"? Why?

My "opinion" is that a reliance on self-evident, but nonsensical in this context, "truths" ("the Germans lost the war" and "the Germans deployed fewer men on the Eastern Front" and "Soviet tanks were heavier") doesn't help matters any. However, objective measures, such total manpower mobilization, GDP, resource and production capabilities, and policy priorities, viewed holistically can give a rational measure.