The ideal Axis strategy

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
HistoryGeek2019
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 06 Aug 2019 03:55
Location: America

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by HistoryGeek2019 » 27 Nov 2019 20:34

ljadw wrote:
27 Nov 2019 13:58

German oil production
1940 : 4.8 million ton
1941 : 5,7 million ton
1942 : 6,6 million ton
1943 : 7,6 million ton
1944 : 5,6 million ton
Imports not included
And now Romania :Source : Krieg um Öl (Eichholtz )
1940 :6,6 million
1941 :5,8 million
1952 : 5.6 million
1943 :5,3 million
1944 : 3,5 million
German total : 30,3 million
Romanian total :26,8 million
Germany was the second oil producer in Europe,behind the SU and before Romania .
What else was there in the ME that could interest Germany ?
I've read elsewhere on this forum (viewtopic.php?t=78524) that Romania exported less than half of its own oil production to Germany. So it seems that if oil really was essential to Germany's war effort, the smart thing to do would have been to take 100% of Romania's oil by force.

That would have made a lot more sense than driving into the Caucasus.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12136
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 27 Nov 2019 21:41

Plans do not mean intention : US had plans for war with Britain after WWI and plans for war with the SU after WWII .
No plans does mean : no intention,but plans do not mean intention . One can not use the existence of plans to prove the intention to attack . Operation Anatolien does not prove a German intention to invade Turkey . Operation Anatolien was a contingency plan,to be ready and to be used if the political leadership had the intention to invade Turkey .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12136
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 27 Nov 2019 21:57

HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
27 Nov 2019 20:34
ljadw wrote:
27 Nov 2019 13:58

German oil production
1940 : 4.8 million ton
1941 : 5,7 million ton
1942 : 6,6 million ton
1943 : 7,6 million ton
1944 : 5,6 million ton
Imports not included
And now Romania :Source : Krieg um Öl (Eichholtz )
1940 :6,6 million
1941 :5,8 million
1952 : 5.6 million
1943 :5,3 million
1944 : 3,5 million
German total : 30,3 million
Romanian total :26,8 million
Germany was the second oil producer in Europe,behind the SU and before Romania .
What else was there in the ME that could interest Germany ?
I've read elsewhere on this forum (viewtopic.php?t=78524) that Romania exported less than half of its own oil production to Germany. So it seems that if oil really was essential to Germany's war effort, the smart thing to do would have been to take 100% of Romania's oil by force.

That would have made a lot more sense than driving into the Caucasus.
Yes and no : The aim of Blau was not to use the oil of the Caucasus, but to deprive the Soviets of the Caucasus .
It would also be impossible to take all Romanian oil,as Romania supplied also Italy with 2 million of oil .
Romanian oil exports to Germany ( source Krieg um Öl )
1940: 1177000
1941 : 2963000
1942 : 2192000
1943 : 2406000
1944 : 1043000
Romania exported between 1940-1944 some 11,5 million ton of oil to Germany and Italy and produced some 25.7 million ton . How much more could it export without that its economy would collaps ? And if the Germans would take everything, this would mean that Romania would no longer be an ally and should have to be occupied wich would cost the Germans a lot of divisions .

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by MarkN » 27 Nov 2019 22:08

ljadw wrote:
27 Nov 2019 21:41
Operation Anatolien does not prove a German intention to invade Turkey .
Nobody said it did. :roll:

It is evidence that Germany was ready to cross Turkey with or without Turkish consent. It undermines your claim/belief "The Germans needed the consent of Turkey,...".

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013 01:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by JAG13 » 27 Nov 2019 22:10

pugsville wrote:
27 Nov 2019 02:14

You have a source for the Turkish-German negotiations?
Found this, contradictory versions...

https://books.google.com.ec/books?id=_x ... ds&f=false

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by T. A. Gardner » 27 Nov 2019 23:27

pugsville wrote:
24 Nov 2019 22:34
I do not think any of the political leadership would betaken in by such a transparently fictitious declaration of war. Nor do i think public opinion would be swayed much. Lean Lease was running already. It would take a republican party willing to do anything to oppose FDR. Topday maybe not in 1940s.

Is Germany evacuating France, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, The Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Greece?
What if Hitler offered to send say several squadrons of aircraft to help the US in the Pacific? Or, he offers on of his battleships figuring it's better off there than sitting in some fjord doing nothing? Or, says he'll send a division of troops if the British will allow it-- after all they'd be going to the Pacific.
He could easily send some U-boats.

pugsville
Member
Posts: 911
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by pugsville » 28 Nov 2019 00:52

JAG13 wrote:
27 Nov 2019 22:10
pugsville wrote:
27 Nov 2019 02:14

You have a source for the Turkish-German negotiations?
Found this, contradictory versions...

https://books.google.com.ec/books?id=_x ... ds&f=false
Thank you. Interesting.

The Soviets wanted bases on the striats and Bulgaria to enter into the Soviet Sphere , quite beyond mere passage, Soviet bases on the striaghts to control any German force in Turkey.

Turkey only allowed trains with small arms through from Vichy Syria to Iraq.

Page 87 " In Negotiations with the Germans in June [1941] Turkey refused German demands for an agreement allowing the dispatch of an unlimited quantity of German arms to Iraq and a defined number of troops across Turkish territory"

pugsville
Member
Posts: 911
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by pugsville » 28 Nov 2019 00:55

T. A. Gardner wrote:
27 Nov 2019 23:27
pugsville wrote:
24 Nov 2019 22:34
I do not think any of the political leadership would betaken in by such a transparently fictitious declaration of war. Nor do i think public opinion would be swayed much. Lean Lease was running already. It would take a republican party willing to do anything to oppose FDR. Topday maybe not in 1940s.

Is Germany evacuating France, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, The Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Greece?
What if Hitler offered to send say several squadrons of aircraft to help the US in the Pacific? Or, he offers on of his battleships figuring it's better off there than sitting in some fjord doing nothing? Or, says he'll send a division of troops if the British will allow it-- after all they'd be going to the Pacific.
He could easily send some U-boats.
It's transparent ruse without any real commitment. No one is going to believe that Hitler's Germany was suddenly devoted to the interests of the US. Hitler had shown he was unequivocal lair no one was going to believe his statements on the matter.

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013 01:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by JAG13 » 28 Nov 2019 02:31

pugsville wrote:
28 Nov 2019 00:52
JAG13 wrote:
27 Nov 2019 22:10
pugsville wrote:
27 Nov 2019 02:14

You have a source for the Turkish-German negotiations?
Found this, contradictory versions...

https://books.google.com.ec/books?id=_x ... ds&f=false
Thank you. Interesting.

The Soviets wanted bases on the striats and Bulgaria to enter into the Soviet Sphere , quite beyond mere passage, Soviet bases on the striaghts to control any German force in Turkey.
Not only that, they wanted Kars and other areas back and tried to force the Turks, same with the Bulgarians, and then stood bye when they simply joined the Axis. Well, the soviets actually tried to join the Axis as well.

The Germans could always play the card of telling the Turks the SU wanted in the Axis and were asking for choice parts of Turkey as part of the deal and claim they preferred the Turks in instead...
Turkey only allowed trains with small arms through from Vichy Syria to Iraq.

Page 87 " In Negotiations with the Germans in June [1941] Turkey refused German demands for an agreement allowing the dispatch of an unlimited quantity of German arms to Iraq and a defined number of troops across Turkish territory"
True, but that was already way against their obligations to the UK and were negotiating for more... of course, they had little choice, they had no friends, no allies, no weapons, no safe trade routes even, had the Germans forced the issue the Turks would have had to yield or die.

A good read:

http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/R/?fu ... EN01-MCG02

As a corollary, Stalin offered the Turks an alliance... void if Germany was the aggressor, mind you. Stalin might have not gotten in the way of the Germans, specially if he had received a bone or two.

pugsville
Member
Posts: 911
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by pugsville » 28 Nov 2019 04:38

JAG13 wrote:
28 Nov 2019 02:31
True, but that was already way against their obligations to the UK and were negotiating for more... of course, they had little choice, they had no friends, no allies, no weapons, no safe trade routes even, had the Germans forced the issue the Turks would have had to yield or die.

A good read:

http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/R/?fu ... EN01-MCG02

As a corollary, Stalin offered the Turks an alliance... void if Germany was the aggressor, mind you. Stalin might have not gotten in the way of the Germans, specially if he had received a bone or two.
Thanks for the like. I'm read a bit about Spain and Vichy, not not got a handle of the Turks as yet, hard to find stuff.

As for threats of destruction of the nation, I just don't see that as a particular successful strategy. Roll over or we crush you is an all of nothing strategy, and more likely to be nothing.

Without the Help of the Turks, the Germans could achieve nothing.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12136
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 28 Nov 2019 12:39

MarkN wrote:
27 Nov 2019 22:08
ljadw wrote:
27 Nov 2019 21:41
Operation Anatolien does not prove a German intention to invade Turkey .
Nobody said it did. :roll:

It is evidence that Germany was ready to cross Turkey with or without Turkish consent. It undermines your claim/belief "The Germans needed the consent of Turkey,...".
There is NO evidence that Germany was ready to invade Turkey : there is no evidence that Germany had the needed manpower,tanks,etc, supplies to do it and that the railway system could afford this .
There is also no evidence that Germany could do it with the consent of Turkey .

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 691
Joined: 22 Jan 2014 03:16

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by thaddeus_c » 28 Nov 2019 14:20

a quote from another thread

" Sealing off the "roof"of the Caucasus from the remainder of the Soviet Union, along with the existing possession of the Ukraine would have lost Stalin 70% of his coal,85-90% of his oil, and 50-60% of his food supply, along with large iron and manganese deposits ! He was SUNK! And the germans would have had a river based defense line they could hold. That this was THE WAR WINNER" viewtopic.php?f=66&t=78524&start=90

this was part of my point about clearing the Soviets from the Baltic and Black Seas, it relieves their own transportation problems, but also puts them right on top of key points.

in the north they would be on top of the major Lend Lease route for the critical first year.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by MarkN » 28 Nov 2019 15:30

ljadw wrote:
28 Nov 2019 12:39
MarkN wrote:
27 Nov 2019 22:08
ljadw wrote:
27 Nov 2019 21:41
Operation Anatolien does not prove a German intention to invade Turkey .
Nobody said it did. :roll:

It is evidence that Germany was ready to cross Turkey with or without Turkish consent. It undermines your claim/belief "The Germans needed the consent of Turkey,...".
There is NO evidence that Germany was ready to invade Turkey : there is no evidence that Germany had the needed manpower,tanks,etc, supplies to do it and that the railway system could afford this .
There is also no evidence that Germany could do it with the consent of Turkey .
:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013 01:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by JAG13 » 28 Nov 2019 16:17

thaddeus_c wrote:
28 Nov 2019 14:20
a quote from another thread

" Sealing off the "roof"of the Caucasus from the remainder of the Soviet Union, along with the existing possession of the Ukraine would have lost Stalin 70% of his coal,85-90% of his oil, and 50-60% of his food supply, along with large iron and manganese deposits ! He was SUNK! And the germans would have had a river based defense line they could hold. That this was THE WAR WINNER" viewtopic.php?f=66&t=78524&start=90

this was part of my point about clearing the Soviets from the Baltic and Black Seas, it relieves their own transportation problems, but also puts them right on top of key points.

in the north they would be on top of the major Lend Lease route for the critical first year.
+1

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013 01:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by JAG13 » 28 Nov 2019 16:29

pugsville wrote:
28 Nov 2019 04:38
JAG13 wrote:
28 Nov 2019 02:31
True, but that was already way against their obligations to the UK and were negotiating for more... of course, they had little choice, they had no friends, no allies, no weapons, no safe trade routes even, had the Germans forced the issue the Turks would have had to yield or die.

A good read:

http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/R/?fu ... EN01-MCG02

As a corollary, Stalin offered the Turks an alliance... void if Germany was the aggressor, mind you. Stalin might have not gotten in the way of the Germans, specially if he had received a bone or two.
Thanks for the like. I'm read a bit about Spain and Vichy, not not got a handle of the Turks as yet, hard to find stuff.

As for threats of destruction of the nation, I just don't see that as a particular successful strategy. Roll over or we crush you is an all of nothing strategy, and more likely to be nothing.

Without the Help of the Turks, the Germans could achieve nothing.
Well, the roll over wouldnt have been such, it gained Turkey allies, protection form the USSR plus some Greek islands and other perks such as weapons, it was a sweet deal, the other option was to be attacked by the two largest European armies of the time with several minorities waiting for the chance for payback due to past bloodshed...

It wasnt a hard choice, but they werent forced to make a decision because the Iraqis folded and the Germans were off to Russia anyways, otherwise it was a very simple choice...
Last edited by JAG13 on 28 Nov 2019 18:35, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “What if”