Jon G. wrote:...why didn't you consult the LoN statistics. Go on, I am not gonna do it for you.
The two datasets have the same type of information: flows of the raw materials for the 1940-44 data for Germany and 1941-1945 data for the USSR. They show that Germany had usually several times the supply of these raw materials than the USSR.
And, as I told you, the two datasets were compiled at different times, by different people out to prove different things. If one would want a same-source picture of relative Soviet and German output of various things, one would have to consult League of Nations statistics, as I urged you to do.
Did you miss that?
So, it is completely invalid point
Actually, it is your point right now that is almost completely invalid.
Congratulations, Guaporense. I DID NOT WRITE THAT SENTENCE
. I am all too familiar with your warping of figures which you evidently do not understand, but I haven't seen you warp other people's posts until now.
I don't have a high opinion about the level of thought and effort you put into your posts; you are however not entitled to the same view about my
posts. If you mis-represent my posts, I will notice.
Admittedly, I wrote something rather similar ('...You've compared two very disparate secondary datasets [...]to make a totally invalid point...'
) but you are not entitled to make up or construct sentences which I didn't make and then put them in quotation fields.
I suppose you decided to misconstrue my sentence in order to avoid my question to you, namely, why did you use two seperate datasets, showing different things, rather than consult the League of Nations
statistics as I've already twice urged you to do.
So before the war the USSR produced a greater proportion of strategic minerals. But, during the war the situation changed: Germany conquered vast tracks of land, which for example doubled their coal supply, while the USSR suffered the terrible blow of Barbarossa and didn't recover their pre war supply of these industrial raw materials until the post war years. USSR's supply of coal decreased by about half.
Black Coal production:
Germany (Altreich) - 182,600,000 tons
USSR - 139,974,000 tons (76.7% of Germany's production)
These production figures are about the same as in 1938, but I don't have the exact data for the USSR. But as your table shows, in 1938 the USSR had 65.7% of Germany's coal production.
Curious that, according to you, Soviet coal production expressed as a fraction of German coal supply actually increased.
Anyhoo, there's no question that German supplies of eg. coal increased thanks to German conquests, but, by and large, the German occupation of most of Europe did not add all that many raw materials to the Grossraum. Yep, stocks of eg. oil were captured (which is also expressed by the USSBS figures), but in terms of actual production, the Germans gained very little.
That difference is not expressed thanks to your decision to use seperate sets of figures.
Germany (all occupied territories) - 338,200,000 tons
USSR - 48,951,000 tons (14.5% of Germany's production)
source: http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/SteelCo ... vprod.html
Hence, between 1939 and 1942 the balance of relative economic power swung violently agaisnt the USSR, due to the combination of German gains and Soviet territorial losses.
Would you care to outline Soviet territorial losses between 1939 and mid-June 1941 to me?
Yes, the Germans added a lot of Polish coal to their territories in the period, but all that industrial potential they got by the conquest of France didn't go hand in hand with similar increases in supplies of raw materials. Quite apart from the fact that the addition of conquered European industry to German production wasn't a smooth process: with the addition of coal supplies also came the addition of coal consumers.
Data for Altreich and Soviet production of raw materials in 1938 are almost irrelevant to compare the supply of raw materials in 1942-43.
Almost as irrelevant as comparing one country's stocks of raw materials with another country's production of raw materials.