German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Discussions on the economic history of the nations taking part in WW2, from the recovery after the depression until the economy at war.
User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by bf109 emil » 13 Sep 2010 11:48

And even the superiority in oil manufacture wasn't reflected in the superiority of consumption of fuel. In 1942 the Red Army consumed 2 662 thousands tons and the Wehrmacht - 4 410 thousands.
Wehrmacht figures are these for consumption or allocation as IIRC i think they had to share with their Axis Partners...i.e. Italian navy, air force and vehicles, I also assume the Romanian, Hungarian and Italian army in the USSR all filled the tanks of their vehicles, but unsure using Wehrmacht filling stations. Along with shipping to and from Sweden/Norway and fuel consumption in occupied territories, etc.

I can see the Wehrmacht using more fuel, but IMHO the consumption for just Wehrmacht usage in Russia would not equal the amount of fuel consumed that Russia used combating Germany...just my POV

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by LWD » 13 Sep 2010 12:10

ljadw wrote:higher than the Soviet production in 1941 ? Obvious;the war started (only) at 22 june 1941.. .
Didn't the Soviets also start moving part of their production further east even before the war started? Especially if you combine this with the industry moved east in 41 then you would expect production to pick up in 42 as these plants came back on line.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9400
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by ljadw » 13 Sep 2010 14:01

LWD wrote:
ljadw wrote:higher than the Soviet production in 1941 ? Obvious;the war started (only) at 22 june 1941.. .
Didn't the Soviets also start moving part of their production further east even before the war started? Especially if you combine this with the industry moved east in 41 then you would expect production to pick up in 42 as these plants came back on line.
probably,a part of the Soviet production was moved before the warstarted,but,how much ?
whatever,normally the Soviet production in 1941 should be lower than 1942.

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004 01:12
Location: Europe

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by Jon G. » 13 Sep 2010 18:17

Much of the USSR's industrial expansion in the late 1920s and 1930s took place in the south and east of European Russia and Ukraine, close to indigenous coal sources. That is not to say that there wasn't any industry in western USSR, but the most overriding, most devastating loss associtated with losing western territories to the advancing Germans was the loss of population and farmland.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9400
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by ljadw » 13 Sep 2010 19:39

It has been claimed,and generally admitted(but I am suspicious of claims that are generally admitted 8-) ) that the SU was saved ,because a lot of the industry was moved to the east .
But,is this not exagerated ?
Was the industry in the east not sufficient ?What part of the Soviet war production was executed by the industries repatriated to the east ?I would be surprised if there was any information about available ?
And,what happened after the war with these industries ? Were they moved back to the west,or did they remain in the east ?

Paul_Atreides
Member
Posts: 542
Joined: 09 Sep 2008 08:05
Location: Russia, St. Petersburg

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by Paul_Atreides » 13 Sep 2010 20:18

bf109 emil wrote: Wehrmacht figures are these for consumption or allocation as IIRC i think they had to share with their Axis Partners...
I think your think is wrong.
Source of figure for Wehrmacht - Russian edition of Die deutsche industrie im kriege 1939-1945
page.jpg
I can see the Wehrmacht using more fuel, but IMHO the consumption for just Wehrmacht usage in Russia would not equal the amount of fuel consumed that Russia used combating Germany...just my POV
I try to show that the superiority in oil recovery didn't give the superiority in consumption of oil products.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
There is no waste, there are reserves (Slogan of the German Army in World Wars)

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009 02:35
Location: USA

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by Guaporense » 01 Oct 2010 19:17

ljadw wrote:It has been claimed,and generally admitted(but I am suspicious of claims that are generally admitted 8-) ) that the SU was saved ,because a lot of the industry was moved to the east .
But,is this not exagerated ? Was the industry in the east not sufficient ?What part of the Soviet war production was executed by the industries repatriated to the east ?I would be surprised if there was any information about available ?
And,what happened after the war with these industries ? Were they moved back to the west,or did they remain in the east ?
Based on the statistics that I have studied I came to the conclusion that the survival of the USSR depended on the direct help of the western allies, mostly the US. Without that intervention the USSR was bound to be defeated by the much superior material resources that Germany had. Without the help of the western allies the USSR wouldn't be able to survive a full scale invasion for a indeterminate period. That help came in the form of LL and the military intervention of the Allies, that defeated the luftwaffe, the kriegsmarine and about 1/3 of the army.

I have changed my position considerably. In the past I thought that the USSR could have won without any allied help, now I see that I was wrong.
Last edited by Guaporense on 01 Oct 2010 19:37, edited 1 time in total.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009 02:35
Location: USA

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by Guaporense » 01 Oct 2010 19:34

Jon G. wrote:As for his other comparisons, they are fully as misleading as we've come to expect from Guaporense: he is comparing German stocks and captures of selected strategic materials with Soviet production & L-L deliveries of the same materials. Which, in practical terms, amounts to comparing your savings with my income, i.e. apples and oranges.
No, I compared the actual supplies of each country in terms of the total ammounts produced and imported. The USSR didn't have millions of tons of aluminium and 1 billion tons of coal in stocks when the war started, so even if I were comparing apples to oranges (German stocks+production+imports vs Soviet production+imports) the German supplies of pretty much every type of raw material were much greater.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by LWD » 01 Oct 2010 19:39

Guaporense wrote: ... Based on the statistics that I have studied I came to the conclusion that the survival of the USSR depended on the direct help of the western allies, mostly the US.
That's nice. Most of us are not so certain.
Without that intervention the USSR was bound to be defeated by the much superior material resources that Germany had.
Germany had much superior mateiral resources? In some areas perhaps but overall that's in some doubt.
Without the help of the western allies the USSR wouldn't be able to survive a full scale invasion for a indeterminate period.
Obviously true but then Germany couldn't sustain a full scale invasion for an indeterminant period either. The question is who would run out of steam first. As LL and the west made little impact in late 41 and 42 when the Soviets stopped the Germans it's not at all clear that the Germans could outlast the Soviets. Indeed wasn't their whole campaign based on defeating the Soviets in 41?

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004 01:12
Location: Europe

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by Jon G. » 06 Oct 2010 11:24

Guaporense wrote:No, I compared the actual supplies of each country in terms of the total ammounts produced and imported. The USSR didn't have millions of tons of aluminium and 1 billion tons of coal in stocks when the war started, so even if I were comparing apples to oranges (German stocks+production+imports vs Soviet production+imports)
No you haven't. You've compared two very disparate secondary datasets - namely, one intended to show the effects of strategic bombing upon the German war economy, and another to show the impact of Lend-Lease on the Soviet war effort - to make a totally invalid point.

But then I've grown to expect nothing less from you; why didn't you consult the LoN statistics. Go on, I am not gonna do it for you.
the German supplies of pretty much every type of raw material were much greater.
Hold that thought while you crunch this table:

Image

(From The Journal of African History, vol. 26 no. 4)

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009 02:35
Location: USA

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by Guaporense » 07 Oct 2010 02:15

Jon G. wrote:
Guaporense wrote:No, I compared the actual supplies of each country in terms of the total ammounts produced and imported. The USSR didn't have millions of tons of aluminium and 1 billion tons of coal in stocks when the war started, so even if I were comparing apples to oranges (German stocks+production+imports vs Soviet production+imports)
No you haven't. You've compared two very disparate secondary datasets - namely, one intended to show the effects of strategic bombing upon the German war economy, and another to show the impact of Lend-Lease on the Soviet war effort - to make a totally invalid point.

But then I've grown to expect nothing less from you; 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.
So, it is completely invalid point
Actually, it is your point right now that is almost completely invalid.
the German supplies of pretty much every type of raw material were much greater.
Hold that thought while you crunch this table:

Image

(From The Journal of African History, vol. 26 no. 4)
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:
1940
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.

1942
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. By the 4 quarter of 1942, at the time of the Battle of Stalingrad, Germany was allocating at a yearly rate 17.7 million tons of steel to the service of the armed forces while the USSR produced 8 million tons of steel in the same year (so, if they allocated half to the armed forces it would be 4 million tons, or about 22.6% of Germany's supply).

Data for Altreich and Soviet production of raw materials in 1938 are almost irrelevant to compare the supply of raw materials in 1942-43.
Last edited by Guaporense on 07 Oct 2010 03:39, edited 1 time in total.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009 02:35
Location: USA

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by Guaporense » 07 Oct 2010 02:31

LWD wrote:
Guaporense wrote: ... Based on the statistics that I have studied I came to the conclusion that the survival of the USSR depended on the direct help of the western allies, mostly the US.
That's nice. Most of us are not so certain.
Yep, the myth that the USSR had some kind of industrial superiority over Germany is deeply entrenched.
Without that intervention the USSR was bound to be defeated by the much superior material resources that Germany had.
Germany had much superior mateiral resources? In some areas perhaps but overall that's in some doubt.
In some areas Japan had more material resources than the US. However, the US produced 10 times the coal, 12 times the steel and about 8 times the aluminium that Japan produced. Germany's proportions against the USSR were 5-6 times the coal, 4 times the steel, 6 times the aluminium.

If the US's industrial production were 10 times Japan's during WW2, Germany's industrial production was 5 times USSR's.

The fact is that Germany controlled most of Western Europe, which was one of the two cores of the world economy. The USSR in 1942-43 was only a poor rump state occuping some peripheric areas of Europe and siberia.

The only country that controlled comparable resources was the US.
Without the help of the western allies the USSR wouldn't be able to survive a full scale invasion for a indeterminate period.
Obviously true but then Germany couldn't sustain a full scale invasion for an indeterminant period either. The question is who would run out of steam first. As LL and the west made little impact in late 41 and 42 when the Soviets stopped the Germans it's not at all clear that the Germans could outlast the Soviets. Indeed wasn't their whole campaign based on defeating the Soviets in 41?
The Germans never focused their entire warmaking potential agaisnt the USSR. Their plans were to consolidate their holding over Europe by annexing the USSR as a colony to provide raw materials to the German war effort agaisnt the Western Allies.

They planned to defeat the USSR in a fast war that would cost less than the returns over the occupied territory. If they understood the difficulties involved in a invasion of the USSR, they would never have invaded it.

Yes, the USSR managed to stop the German invasion before the Allies became a factor in the battlefield in the winter of 1942-43. However, the Germans never focused their entire warmaking potential in 1941-42 to produce weapons for the eastern front, they allocated millions of tons of steel for the construction of the atlantic wall for example, while they always keept dozens of divisions out of the eastern front. The luftwaffe also suffered the majority of their losses outside of the eastern front.

After the defeat of France, German resources were always allocated to a multi front war. They never focused all their energy into a single front.

As a example of this is the fact that when they failed to defeat the USSR in 1941,them by early 1942 they increased steel allocations to ammunition production, which were the primary factor in the start of Speer's armaments miracle. So, they could have easily increased production of tanks, guns, ammunition and other army items before 1942, but they didn't. Why? Because they underestimated the USSR.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9400
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by ljadw » 07 Oct 2010 07:18

Guaporense wrote:
LWD wrote:
Guaporense wrote: ... Based on the statistics that I have studied I came to the conclusion that the survival of the USSR depended on the direct help of the western allies, mostly the US.
That's nice. Most of us are not so certain.
Yep, the myth that the USSR had some kind of industrial superiority over Germany is deeply entrenched.
Without that intervention the USSR was bound to be defeated by the much superior material resources that Germany had.
Germany had much superior mateiral resources? In some areas perhaps but overall that's in some doubt.
In some areas Japan had more material resources than the US. However, the US produced 10 times the coal, 12 times the steel and about 8 times the aluminium that Japan produced. Germany's proportions against the USSR were 5-6 times the coal, 4 times the steel, 6 times the aluminium.

If the US's industrial production were 10 times Japan's during WW2, Germany's industrial production was 5 times USSR's.

The fact is that Germany controlled most of Western Europe, which was one of the two cores of the world economy. The USSR in 1942-43 was only a poor rump state occuping some peripheric areas of Europe and siberia.

The only country that controlled comparable resources was the US.
Without the help of the western allies the USSR wouldn't be able to survive a full scale invasion for a indeterminate period.
Obviously true but then Germany couldn't sustain a full scale invasion for an indeterminant period either. The question is who would run out of steam first. As LL and the west made little impact in late 41 and 42 when the Soviets stopped the Germans it's not at all clear that the Germans could outlast the Soviets. Indeed wasn't their whole campaign based on defeating the Soviets in 41?
The Germans never focused their entire warmaking potential agaisnt the USSR. Their plans were to consolidate their holding over Europe by annexing the USSR as a colony to provide raw materials to the German war effort agaisnt the Western Allies.

They planned to defeat the USSR in a fast war that would cost less than the returns over the occupied territory. If they understood the difficulties involved in a invasion of the USSR, they would never have invaded it.

Yes, the USSR managed to stop the German invasion before the Allies became a factor in the battlefield in the winter of 1942-43. However, the Germans never focused their entire warmaking potential in 1941-42 to produce weapons for the eastern front, they allocated millions of tons of steel for the construction of the atlantic wall for example, while they always keept dozens of divisions out of the eastern front. The luftwaffe also suffered the majority of their losses outside of the eastern front.

After the defeat of France, German resources were always allocated to a multi front war. They never focused all their energy into a single front.

As a example of this is the fact that when they failed to defeat the USSR in 1941,them by early 1942 they increased steel allocations to ammunition production, which were the primary factor in the start of Speer's armaments miracle. So, they could have easily increased production of tanks, guns, ammunition and other army items before 1942, but they didn't. Why? Because they underestimated the USSR.
1) There was no Speer armaments miracle,unless one is believing Speer's claimings 8-)
2)The German's could not easily increase the production of tanksguns,etc before 1942,because there wasalready a second front :the quadruplication of the luftwaffe,the airdefense of the Reich,the cobnstruction of UBoats ....were absorbing a big part of the German war production;54 % of the aluminium was reserved for the Luftwaffe .
The fact that Germany controlled Western Europe is irrelevant :Western Europe depended on overseas trade for the supply of raw materials .

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004 01:12
Location: Europe

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by Jon G. » 07 Oct 2010 07:36

Guaporense wrote:
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:
1940
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.
...
1942
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.

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 14:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by mescal » 07 Oct 2010 09:04

Guaporense,

I remain convinced that the point you're trying to make is of great interest - trying to assess the 'actual' economic power of USSR relative to Germany is an important factor in the understanding of the war in the East
But, whatever the 'objective truth' (in a super-short summary: was USSR really that poor ? or was it a superpower-in-being ?), your methodology remains flawed, and as such, any conclusion you reach cannot be regarded as logically sound.

Guaporense wrote: The fact is that Germany controlled most of Western Europe, which was one of the two cores of the world economy.
The important word here is "was".
Yes, before 1940, it was.
But once Germany occupied the Netherland, Belgium & France - it wasn't anymore.
That's mainly because this occupation severed the strong preexisting links between those economies and the rest of the world. cf. the evolution of the French GDP over the 1940-1944 time period. By 44, France was hardly a significant economic power.

Moreover (umpteenth repeat), the deficits (in oil, especially) created by this severence from the rest of the world added to the preexisting German deficit.
Guaporense wrote: However, the Germans never focused their entire warmaking potential in 1941-42 to produce weapons for the eastern front, they allocated millions of tons of steel for the construction of the atlantic wall for example,
No, not in 1941.
The Atlantic Wall did not take any substance until the Soviet counterstrike in December 41 proved that war in the East would be longer than anticipated.
And most of the resources were not allocated until 1943.
Guaporense wrote: So, they could have easily increased production of tanks, guns, ammunition and other army items before 1942,
At the cost of less investment - and hence a lower future production of tanks, guns ...
Olivier

Return to “Economy”