Strategic minerals and their global distribution

[Jon G.]

I recently read an article by Raymond Dumett from The Journal of African History, vol. 26 no. 4. The article gives some very sobering insights into the world-wide distribution of essential strategic minerals during WW2.

It's old news that the Allies had access to far more natural resources than the Axis did. The chronic German shortage of oil is well known, for example. If we widen the horizon to include other minerals, the German (and to a lesser extent Japanese) shortage of strategic minerals is exacerbated which the tables below hopefully illustrate. For example it has been stated that German armour quality began dropping during the war due to Germany's stocks of molybdenum running out.

What is perhaps less known is the large proportion of strategic minerals which came from Africa. More than 90% of the world's industrial diamonds came from Africa, for example. Most of the uranium for the Manhattan Project came from the Belgian Congo. The mining of Africa's minerals was stepped up due to the increasing demands of war, sometimes ruthlessly, with forced labour conscription etc. It can be read from the tables, below, that the mining of Africa's resources was at its max during the war, which is why Africa's share of mineral production expressed as percentages tapers off again after the war in the 1950 columns.








All tables from Dumett's article. Posted under fair use.

[CB1]

Hi,

In 1938 German contribution to Nickel production is nil. Still, in 1943 Germany not only makes into the top six, it even takes over USSR and USA. Interesting... Was there a big discovery in Germany during those years, I wonder.

In 1943 top supplier of Bauxite is the USA, whereas this 29NOV41 document here:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/411124awp.html
clearly states that Surinam (third place) supplies 60 percent of Bauxite used by US industry. That implies that Surinam surpassed the USA by 50 percent (40 to 60), assuming that the USA was not stockpiling or exporting its own Bauxite and simultaneously importing all of Surinam's output.

I thought that Turkey was a major contributor of Chrome, first to France/Britain then to Germany.

Bye,
Krisz

PS: if one looks at the figures in the British Empire columns clearly understands why FDR wanted to sign the Atlantic Charter ("fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity") and why Churchill was so upset about it. Maybe not this upset http://www.prouty.org/coment11.html but still...

[Bronsky]

In 1938 German contribution to Nickel production is nil. Still, in 1943 Germany not only makes into the top six, it even takes over USSR and USA.

The USA wasn't a major Nickel producer, Canada was much more important. Germany becoming the world #1 source of Nickel means that you either read the wrong table, spilt coffee on your source, or that the author of the source you got that from was smoking something really strong.

In 1943 top supplier of Bauxite is the USA, whereas this 29NOV41 document here:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/411124awp.html
clearly states that Surinam (third place) supplies 60 percent of Bauxite used by US industry. That implies that Surinam surpassed the USA by 50 percent (40 to 60), assuming that the USA was not stockpiling or exporting its own Bauxite and simultaneously importing all of Surinam's output.

Bauxite production, US / Surinam (metric tons):
1940: 441,600 / 613,900
1941: 952,100 / 1,116,100
1942: 2,691,000 / 1,228,000
1943: 6,391,000 / 1,663,000

The memo was using 1940 figures (which are the figures that the author would know about). In 1940, Bauxite production between Surinam / USA was roughly 60/40. Later on, US output picked up.

I thought that Turkey was a major contributor of Chrome, first to France/Britain then to Germany.

Most of the world Chrome production was located outside Europe, i.e. out of reach of Germany.

1939 Chrome production of European countries (thousand metric tons):
USSR: 95 (est)
Turkey: 96
Yugoslavia: 28
Greece: 22
Bulgaria: 1.6
Norway: 0.2

So the Germans needed Turkish Chrome, whereas the Allies could gain access to e.g. African sources.

[CB1]

Hi,

Nickel: Yes, the USA was apparently an underdog there. 1938 figures (Table 1) show 0.4 percent. USSR fares only a bit better at 2.3 percent. Germany has a dash, I suppose it means 0.0 percent. In 1943 (Table 3) however, Germany comes up to fifth place, according to the list, on which neither the USA nor the USSR can be seen. How come? New discoveries, old uneconomical mines reopened or what?

Bauxite: Wow, thanks for this table!!!! Aw... Kinda off-topic... Could you recommend me a a source (online or book) in which I could find loads of figures and tables (raw materials, production, export, import, capital exports, shipping capacities etc.) just like those for pre-WW1/WW1/interwar/WW2 periods?

Chrome: Yep, you say USSR 95K mt, Turkey 96K mt and Yugoslavia 28K mt for 1939. That puts Turkey in the same league with the USSR (both between 15-20 percent of World output based on the 1938 figures (Table 1), assuming of course that production volumes has not changed too much) and way above Yugoslavia. The USA is also an underdog here with its 3.6 percent (so probably Yugoslavia or even Greece beats it). Yet, in the 1943 list (Table 3) Turkey does not appear among the first six, whereas the USSR, USA and Yugoslavia do. It is possible that production increased dramatically in the USA and Yugoslavia (well, we have just seen a similar phenomenon in the case of Bauxite) or indeed the table is faulty.

Bye,
Krisz

[Bronsky]

Nickel: Yes, the USA was apparently an underdog there. 1938 figures (Table 1) show 0.4 percent. USSR fares only a bit better at 2.3 percent. Germany has a dash, I suppose it means 0.0 percent. In 1943 (Table 3) however, Germany comes up to fifth place, according to the list, on which neither the USA nor the USSR can be seen. How come? New discoveries, old uneconomical mines reopened or what?

I don't know where the Table 1 and Table 3 are from nor what they show, making it difficult to comment. Same remark regarding your comments on Chrome.

Could you recommend me a a source (online or book) in which I could find loads of figures and tables (raw materials, production, export, import, capital exports, shipping capacities etc.) just like those for pre-WW1/WW1/interwar/WW2 periods?

The statistical yearbook of the League of Nations covers the interwar and early WWII periods, other sources cover pre-WWI and WWI though I'm not aware of one that is as complete. Meanwhile, this should keep you busy for a while

http://www.library.northwestern.edu/gov ... /stat.html

[CB1]

Hi,

First of all, thank you for the link. You are quite right, that will keep me occupied for some time...

The tables I was talking (writing?) about can be found right on the top of this topic, in the very first post and they come from "an article by Raymond Dumett from The Journal of African History, vol. 26 no. 4." according to Jon G. Chrome figures come from your post compared to the figures in the tables mentioned above.

Bye,
Krisz

[Bronsky]

How stupid of me not to have remembered to check these articles. Ok, the answer is that I don't know, and the article looks strange. On the other hand, the League of Nation tables are incomplete as well e.g. the latest ones miss out on Finland's nickel production entirely despite Petsamo being the only significant source in Europe IIRC.

[jpmuikku]

In 1938 German contribution to Nickel production is nil. Still, in 1943 Germany not only makes into the top six, it even takes over USSR and USA. Interesting... Was there a big discovery in Germany during those years, I wonder.

I think that it rather just refer to the fact that the Finnish nickel production in Petsamo was under German control? That would explain sudden "German" nickel production.

[CB1]

Hi,

Look at 1943 top six for Nickel: Canada, FINLAND, New Caledonia, Indonesia, GERMANY and Norway. Finland and Germany appear separately. What more, Norway was also under German rule.

Szia,
Krisz

[Jon G.]

It is a bit strange that Germany suddenly appears as a nickel supplier in the 1943 table. Particularly when Norway and Finland are mentioned seperately. However, Germany's place in the 1943 table could refer to nickel stockpiles rather than production (unlikely, I admit), or it could simply be a typo. As far as I know, most Soviet nickel deposits were in the far east, so German-occupied parts of the USSR can't justify Germany's sudden emergence as a nickel-supplying country. The Germans captured some Soviet manganese deposits in the Ukraine, but Germany doesn't appear as a manganese supplying country in the 1943 table - yet Germany has 8.3% of world manganese output in the 1938 table 1.

Note how the USSR is listed as producing 2.3% of the world's nickel in table 1, but is not mentioned under the nickel header in table 3. Were there any Soviet nickel deposits in the far north?

My vote goes to the typo And at any rate, Dumett's article clearly has African minerals and their importance to the Allied war effort as its main focus. I think he can be forgiven a few glitches regarding the distribution of non-African minerals.