Which means that U.S. workers were far more productive than German workers, and simply throwing more workers into German industry would not have enabled Germany to compete with the economic might of the United States, as I explain here:KDF33 wrote: ↑05 Jul 2021 21:01The table seems about right for the Anglo-Americans and Germany, but is most definitely wrong for the USSR. Harrison himself shows that the Soviet workforce (including military) averaged 57.1 million persons in 1943, of which 9 million (15.8%) were employed in industry, of which the so-called 'Group I' constitutes but a part.historygeek2021 wrote: ↑04 Jul 2021 23:36I found this chart online, the underlying source being Harrison. It suggests that the U.S.A. had a relatively low percentage of its population employed in war industry or serving in the armed forces, which shouldn't be too surprising. Even with a far lower mobilization percentage than other countries, the U.S.A. vastly outproduced them all.
After Britain, the U.S. devoted the largest share of its labor force to 'Group I', namely what the USSBS defines as the 'Metal, chemical and allied industries'. A better, ranked table would look like this:
'Group I' + military share of total working population, 1943:
1. United Kingdom: 23.0 + 22.3 = 45.3
2. Germany: 14.2 + 23.4 = 37.6
3. United States: 19.0 + 16.4 = 35.4
4. Soviet Union: 15.8* + 20.8 = 36.6* (recalculated from the Harrison PDF - No data for 'Group I', so overall industry is used instead, thus inflating the overall figure)
The Soviet share of 'Group I' + military was the smallest, which makes sense given how almost half of its working population worked in agriculture. It was, after all, the least developed of the four belligerents.
The U.K. came first because it employed virtually no one in agriculture. The U.S. and Germany are within each other's margin of error, with the U.S. tilted toward industry and Germany toward the military.