It's a separate argument that doesn't refute the point you were supposedly rebutting: which is that Germany had more economic productive capacity than the Soviet Union.
Capacity is irrelevant if it is being wasted in practice. Do you see the relevance yet?
Well of course shifting production from consumer goods to weapons is not going to change the total GDP, it's only going to change the composition of GDP (less consumer production and more war production).
If that were all I had said, you would have a point. However you are ignoring a fundamental point, which you actually quoted! Production didn't just shift sectors, it INCREASED, but GDP didn't increase in proportion in the period where this took place. Your continued attachment to GDP as sole production indicator is mind boggling.
Anti-aircraft guns use more ammunition than anti-tank guns
Anti-aircraft shells are generally of smaller calibre (so for example by 1942 there were few 40mm AT guns or smaller being produced), reducing the materials required per unit produced and also making it easier to produce with lighter machinery. So a change in production doesn't necessarily result in equal results.
The evidence is the production of basic materials
How cares, if every item of war production shows a significant Soviet advantage (again, suggesting wastage in the Nazi economy)? Given the Axis could draw fairly easily on the resources of much of Central and Western Europe, they would tend to have an edge in raw materials, having denied the same to the Soviets.
In the context of war, getting a comparative advantage can be seen as profiting IMO.
Congratulations, you have managed to contort your original discussion to the point where you salvaged some credibility from it. Clearly it was my fault in not seeing into the future of this discussion to see what you “really” meant.
It's obvious
Everything I’ve said is obvious too, you just refuse to accept it. To demand statistics from me without having any of your own is a double standard.
production would increase from the territories they captured from the Soviets
Production might benefit to some degree, but the question is if the economy overall didn’t suffer from the costs of extracting that advantage. If nothing else that advantage was bought at the cost of a massive invasion and maintenance of an occupation force.
if not immediately, at least eventually
If eventually means the end of the war, then naturally the full advantage may never have been achieved.
You are doubting my claims of Germany outproducing the Soviet Union even when I show statistics from reputable sources
Actually you haven’t shown me the statistics, you only referred to them and never sourced them. I at least linked my sources, those links in turn show where their data comes from. Secondly, you really should acknowledge that you only have one statistic in your favour: GDP. Too bad you fail to demonstrate its relevance or accuracy for the purpose you intend.
yet you want me to accept your unbacked speculative claim that Germany incurred a loss from the territories it captured.
This is misleading. You provided no hard evidence, backing as you put it, of overall profit from the occupied territories. If nothing else, your comparison isn’t equal. You haven’t disproven the logic of my explanations, but I have done the same to yours. You have no leg to stand on, so you insist on evidence, hoping that its absence will be mistaken for proof of your own position.
When the real situation doesn’t suit you, you cry that it’s just speculation. When I speculate, you demand hard facts.