Submitted by sviterochec t3_zwg08l in worldnews
Alt-One-More t1_j1v5cu9 wrote
Reply to comment by ShlongVonLong in Ukraine lessens projected GDP fall from 50% to 32% by sviterochec
How much did European countries lose during and following WW2?
Sticky_Robot t1_j1vjy1x wrote
1938 to 1945 -> Percent of 1938 GDP in 1945. Basically in 1938 they were at 100% so the following numbers represent the loss or gain by 1945.
US -> 184%
UK -> 116%
France -> 54%
Italy -> 65%
USSR -> 95% *hit 76% at the height of Barbarossa in 1942
Germany -> 88%
Japan -> 85%
Austria -> 50%
I can't find data for Romania, Hungary, Poland, China etc. Most data comes from at best 1950 so that probably says something for how bad things got.
die_a_third_death t1_j1vkfwl wrote
Germany surprisingly a lot higher than I assumed
Sticky_Robot t1_j1vktyq wrote
I think it came down to
-
WW2 bombers were notoriously inaccurate, it required hundreds of bombers to take out one factory.
-
Factories of the time period were relatively simple, and could be rebuilt or just moved somewhere else.
FROOMLOOMS t1_j1vqlko wrote
Also, most machines in that Era were all analog and built of 1000's of pounds of cast steel and plate, unless a bomb smoked the thing nose on, you could largely replace the belts and machine out the pock marks/replace a shaft or two and youre golden.
sillypicture t1_j1w3wh4 wrote
wasn't there still a ginormous amount of civilian deaths to firestorms of dresden and similar?
tsgheric t1_j1x08fg wrote
The_Milk_man t1_j1xg573 wrote
So it goes
MirrorInternal8147 t1_j1y1kjh wrote
Let it snow let it snow let it snow
Mrsod2007 t1_j1xrcqk wrote
Also, Germany was hit way worse by the great depression than almost any other country
OdinTheHugger t1_j209g7k wrote
There's also the factor of modern economies being largely services based, with production taking place at a massive and centralized scale.
That and the mass exodus of women and children into Poland and other surrounding countries.
Poland needs to be recognized in a big way after this war is over. They invited in over 2 million Ukrainian women and children, feeding, clothing, and housing them in arrangements that go from houses/apartments sharing with individual Polish families all the way up to mass government housing and relief shelters.
All while they're giving Ukraine everything they can spare in terms of war gear.
That's a HUGE penalty on any nations economy, and an even bigger risk in case of additional hardships.
And Poland took that on for Ukraine. It's must be a hell of a lot easier to fight a war when they know their families are safe and sound.
[deleted] t1_j1w9o2h wrote
[deleted]
Alt-One-More t1_j1vqoa0 wrote
Another commenter mentioned how Germany's looting and exploitation of neighboring countries helped prop up their GDP a lot.
Ycx48raQk59F t1_j1w8lcp wrote
Its easy to forget than in end if 1944/ beginning of 1945, despite long bombing campaigns and resource shortage, miltiary production was at its peak in germany.
kehaarcab t1_j1zhvoz wrote
With 1938 as base, one has to remember that until the winter 42-43, Germany was winning and had an economy that was growing. So they lost not just 12%, but 4 years of heavy, early war buildup as well. To compare, in that same timeframe, (38-42) the US GDP grew 50%.
halee1 t1_j1vr74i wrote
And according to the Maddison series (which does differ in numbers, but let's ignore that for a moment), US economy was stagnant in the 2nd half of the 1940s thanks to the demobilization, and only surpassed its 1944 maximum in 1951. The UK economy, after mostly strong 1930s and early 1940s, fell in 1944-1947, and only reached new all-time highs in 1954, thanks to rationing resulting from practical bankruptcy and repayment of its massive debts to the US (as well as paying the ones it accumulated since the late 17th century in general).
Germany's first fall was in 1945, a whopping almost 29%, but even moreso in 1946, at the height of Germanophobia among policymakers (52.6%!), forcing it to wait until 1956 before West Germany's size became the all-time high. Austria, surprisingly, only fell in 1945, but lost nearly 60% at that, and only surpassed its 1944 level in 1953.
As for Japan, it fell about 24% each in 1945 and 1946, and only went above its 1944 maximum by 1955.
Everything else is broadly correct, even though the numbers themselves differ a bit.
sillypicture t1_j1w43tv wrote
how did france and italy get shanked so bad?
Wasn't the fighting in france largely in the open fields, and the south remained more or less untouched?
what's up with italy too? did they put everything into the african campaign?
raptorgalaxy t1_j1x6dxx wrote
The Germans looted the country during the occupation, and there were a number of city fights.
Fuzzyphilosopher t1_j1xobij wrote
The port of Brest was occupied until the end of the war. And Caen wasn't the only place that got hammered into rubble. The rail lines and locomotive stock were trashed. The nazis had deported a lot of their working age men for forced labor as well. "600,000 to 650,000 French workers were sent to Germany between June 1942 and July 1944." More than 75,000 jews were deported and 72,500 of them murdered. Military and civilians deaths were 567,600
Those kind of things really hurt your GDP. There were also quite a number fighting in Free French divisions who weren't working. This is very similar in ukraine right now. They've got men and women serving at the front and in the military who are not contributing to normal economic activity. Ukraine is fighting heroically but it comes at great cost in so many ways when your country is a warzone. That's why it's so important to continue aid in not just weapons but financial support.
[deleted] t1_j1yagf6 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j1yddip wrote
[removed]
Catsingasong t1_j1z2vp9 wrote
During WW2 Germany was at 88%?
C'mon, I can't be the only one appreciating the irony.
[deleted] t1_j1x0qly wrote
[removed]
Theinternationalist t1_j1v6y7u wrote
I don't (personally) know the answer but that has to be really messy.
-
The European Empires started breaking apart at different rates, with Indonesia basically breaking off from the Netherlands immediately and thus may still have been counted "officially Dutch" even though it was de facto separated for years before independence. Even if the UK managed to somehow maintain 0% growth during the war, the loss of India would still be a huge blow.
-
Germany lost a lot of pre-Adolf land to other countries, obviously, but there were other notable landswaps such as Poland losing some to the USSR and gaining some from Germany.
-
The population transfers (between murders, deportations, and of course WAR CASUALTIES) means many of the countries weren't really the same. Ukraine actually applies well here given that many were kidnapped from their homes, some Russians were imported into the occupied territories, etc.
So while I'd confidently guess the German economy was cut by more than 2/3 and the French Hexagon might have halved, I can't personally say for sure.
wastingvaluelesstime t1_j1vfen0 wrote
There is data on this. It's not really fair to count decolonization as in reality UK and India were always separate countries, linked on a political level into an empire. War costs in the UK took the form of massive debt of 250% of GDP, with really severe austerity for several decades afterwards.
The biggest and longest lasting damage was likely just population loss, which was over 10% in a number of countries, notably Germany, Russia, and all the countries between them.
Fun-Gap4015 t1_j1v9hsm wrote
Thats a big uncited world salad to just say "idk"
ahhhhhhhhhhhhitgotme t1_j1vfj2m wrote
He said that he doesn’t know and then gave a guess that sounds way more knowledgeable than anything I could have come up with, relax
Fun-Gap4015 t1_j1wl8xz wrote
Sounds knowledgeable and being knowledgeable are two different things. I am relaxed you worry about yourself friendo
Alt-One-More t1_j1vqwxs wrote
He offers lots of other interesting and related information to help you imagine the context of their economies at the time.
Fun-Gap4015 t1_j1wlbzk wrote
Sure I can say a lot of things too that sound right. I do it everyday and people believe me
Alt-One-More t1_j1wlvwk wrote
k
nautilius87 t1_j1w1q2u wrote
For some countries, it is probably impossible to count by GDP. GDP is only one-year long indicator, when Poland lost 38% of total wealth, over 50% of industry, Warsaw reduced to rubble (85% of city, 90% of industry), over 50% of all infrastructure. Poland lost 45% of it's prewar territory to USSR and got about 33% from Germany (it was almost a desert - Red Army stole anything worthy and population fled), there were huge population loss and swap. Poland 1939 and Poland 1945 are basically two different countries.
Official number of GDP lost between 1939 and 1945 is 55%.
halee1 t1_j1vowo8 wrote
Different countries (un)developed differently in WW2, depending on the year. US and UK grew quite a lot during the war, but GDP started to falter towards the end (keep in mind a lot of that was military and foodstuff aid, and in the US that led to shortages in the stores and budget deficits reaching as high as about 27% in yearly terms, as we don't have quarterly data available), despite the highest growth rates in the history of the country, and were somewhat depressed in the first years after it. Germany also made out relatively good before 1945, thanks to the looting from the countries it occupied, slave labor and military spending in general, before it fell by 29% in 1945 and nearly 53% in 1946.
Economies like France, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Greece and obviously the USSR, were being exploited or utterly destroyed in the process, while other Nazi-occupied ones like Denmark, Norway and Belgium also suffered a lot at the beginning, but surprisingly grew during the 2nd half of the war.
That'll tell you the effect (in GDP per capita) on those countries.
pppjurac t1_j1vl4o0 wrote
Austria got it bad, half down.
Balkans was even worse.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments