Actually, it shows Germany outproducing both the UK and the USSR
Actually it doesnt. It shows the germans had greater GDP. My figures are what they got in terms of actual materiel produced. This very clearly shows the germans were outproduced by both Britain and the USSR. You need to re-read the material
The graph (Harrison, "The economics of WW2") do not show "resources", nor those absurd claims that you are making.
Why are my claims "absurd". I was responding to your claim that the germans outproduced the russians and the Brits. I said that with about 70% of the german GDP the Rusians outproduced the germans by a clear margin. I produced data that suggests the GDP of the Russians 1938-45 was about 88% that of the germans, but in certain categories the russians outproduced the germans by as much a 3.24 times. Ther is nothing silly about that. the only thing silly is that you dont know the difference between GDP and equipment deliveries
Not an exhaustive list. What about submarines? or explosives production?, just to name a few, that would show the SU way behind Germany in those categories
.
Ah yes the gernmans outproduced the russians in naval construction for the entire war, but for the period up to June 1941, it was actually the Rusians in the lead. Up to that point they had produced something like 300 submarines about 50 destroyers. they had two battleships and two battlecruisers under construction, and about a dozen cruisers. they had several hundred coastal patrol vessels. In terms of river gunboats, the germans never came close to the Soviet production levels .
In terms of explosives production, I would dispute that the germans outproduced the russians, but would be interested to see what figures you are basing that claim on. ive never seen a completely exhaustive list for either belligerent but the bits and pieces I do have are suggesting the reverse to your claim. German AT ammunition production was less than that of even Canada. The Russians laid more land mines around Kursk than the entire wartime production by the Germans. ive got some other information at home, but I seriously doubt your claims here, which remain unsubstantiated at this point. time for you to put up, or shut up i would suggest. Produce your evidence, or stop callinmg me out with flippant comments. Dont stir me up, you wont like it.
Anyway, what would that prove? That there was no LL for Germany, or that the Germans needed to expand their industrial capacity before expand the armament production, or that the soviets factories did not have to face an "around the clock" bombing, or that the Germans were facing shortages in many key resources?. That simplistic analysis is worthless.
Its only worthless if you have a preconceived agenda and the information doesnt serve that agenda. The basic facts are just that. German productive capacity was potentially much greater than its opponents, but in the finish, due to systemic innefficiencies, resource shortages and manpower shortages, along with shortages of transport and a few other factors, lagged badly behind that of its oppnents. Remember your initial claim, that german production far outstripped that of the russians. You have produced squat to support that. Despite ample opportunity to correct that omission we are all waiting with baited breath for your enlightening clarification. persoanlly i thjink I will run out of breath before that ever happening.
Incidentally, in response to your rhetorical question "what does this all prove" It shows the latent inneffieiciency of the Nazi system and that Germany, despite considerable economic resources at its disposal, failed to capitalize on that advantage. this doesnt even look at the missed opportunities they squandered with the occupied territories....