The ideal Axis strategy

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
ljadw
Member
Posts: 11696
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 02 Mar 2020 12:22

nota wrote:
01 Mar 2020 23:35
ljadw wrote:
01 Mar 2020 20:37
nota wrote:
01 Mar 2020 15:27
oil in 1940 was coming from russia to the euro axis nations
japan was able to buy world market oil inc from the USA and other markets
once they jump in to the war that will change quickly
but a quick knock out of england will free up mideastern and DEI oil even if the USA cuts them off
likely a near empty axis reserves short term but war is risk no risk no win
1 (oil from Russia ) is much exaggerated :its importance was only marginal
2(Japanese oil imports from the US ) : this stopped already before PH = in July 1941
3 Defeat of Britain will not free the oil of the ME and the DEI : the DEI were a Dutch colony, not a British colony .
4 If Britain was defeated, Germany would need less oil, not more oil .
1 oil is oil no matter where it is from they had sufficient oil to invade england in 1940 an excess NO but enough
2 prime time is before july 41 not after by then it is too late
3 germans were in the dutch homeland and in charge
the dutch could do nothing about any invasion of the DEI with england out there is no real defense
4 russia they need world free trade and oil to invade russia once england is out of the war
remember this is a one at a time plan NOT all at once
1 The Germans needed other thing, a lot of other things to invade Britain : more oil would not help them and less oil would not make Sea Lion impossible
2 Why would August 1941 be too late ? Besides there was no need to invade the DEI before July 1941 .
3 Britain was not needed to defend the DEI ,but the USA . The British forces in SEA were unable to prevent a Japanese invasion of the DEI.
4 If Britain was out, there was no need to invade the SU ,besides the occupation of Britain would make Barbarossa impossible .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11696
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 02 Mar 2020 12:24

nota wrote:
01 Mar 2020 15:10
the real trick to an axis victory in WW2
is to keep the USA out of the war by any mean necessary
while fighting one nation at a time england and her empire first
as in 1940 after the fall of france england is the war
getting england out of the war is JOB #1
china is not a real threat to japan and japan can pull back and try to con the USA
by starting troop withdrawals from less important areas of china rural and inland citys
and fake peace talks with china to limit USA fears and buy time
and not invade or occupy SE Asia yet

the only real quick way is to invade england
but the euro axis does not have the ships to do it

japan does have a fleet on the other side of the world
remember this is a world war
winning requires total commitment and total efforts from all axis nations at great risk
that is something the axis never planned for or even thought of doing
and why they lost WW2 with their no plans or coordinated world wide actions
by attacking too many countrys at the same time instead of a one nation at a time war
often attacking without notice to other axis members let alone joint planning beforehand
There was no mean to keep the US out of the war .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11696
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 02 Mar 2020 12:32

Even if the Japanese fleet could participate to SeaLion,SL would still fail .
SL was impossible in 1940, and it would fail after 1940 .

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1032
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Peter89 » 02 Mar 2020 21:43

ljadw wrote:
02 Mar 2020 12:15
Peter89 wrote:
01 Mar 2020 21:36
ljadw wrote:
01 Mar 2020 20:37
nota wrote:
01 Mar 2020 15:27
oil in 1940 was coming from russia to the euro axis nations
japan was able to buy world market oil inc from the USA and other markets
once they jump in to the war that will change quickly
but a quick knock out of england will free up mideastern and DEI oil even if the USA cuts them off
likely a near empty axis reserves short term but war is risk no risk no win
3 Defeat of Britain will not free the oil of the ME and the DEI : the DEI were a Dutch colony, not a British colony .
He meant that the defeat of the european colonial empires whose colonies possessed oil production would mean those colonies and their oil production will be there for taking, which is correct.

This is not correct : Japan had not the means to restart the oil production in the ME and to transport this oil to Japan .
For the DEI : in 1940 the Netherlands were occupied by the Germans , but Japan was still unable to grab the oil of the DEI .It could only do this by starting a war against the US .The defeat of the european colonial empires (UK/Netherlands ) would not help Japan as long as the US were there .
Besides, why would Japan need the oil of the ME/DEI ?
We have clashed many times before about the oil economy in 1940/1941. You should be aware that I know what was going on, like I am aware of your extensive knowledge about the Eastern Front. I just write this because I do not want to repeat myself over and over, just click on my profile, search my posts, and you'll find the answers.

Long story short, the DEI was an easy prey for the Japanese, just as easy the ME oil would be for the European axis. I think what you need to accept here is the fact that YOU ARE RIGHT, oil wasn't a deciding factor in WW2, thus any arguments that imply that it decided the outcome of the war is wrong. But it WAS an important raw material, which had countless cumulative effects too. The most important bottleneck of the Axis war economy was the oil, and thus it is obvious that a grand strategy based on oil production could lead to alternative results. I say ALTERNATIVE, not DECISIVELY DIFFERENT. The Japanese took a better approach to raw materials, thus they succeeded to hold out longer.
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3224
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Takao » 03 Mar 2020 03:12

Peter89 wrote:
02 Mar 2020 21:43
Long story short, the DEI was an easy prey for the Japanese, just as easy the ME oil would be for the European axis. I think what you need to accept here is the fact that YOU ARE RIGHT, oil wasn't a deciding factor in WW2, thus any arguments that imply that it decided the outcome of the war is wrong. But it WAS an important raw material, which had countless cumulative effects too. The most important bottleneck of the Axis war economy was the oil, and thus it is obvious that a grand strategy based on oil production could lead to alternative results. I say ALTERNATIVE, not DECISIVELY DIFFERENT. The Japanese took a better approach to raw materials, thus they succeeded to hold out longer.
Having a lot of crude oil, goes hand-in-hand with the ability to refine it, as well as the ability to transport the oil from the wells to the refineries and then from the refineries/storage depots to the front. Once Japan captured the DEI, they had the crude oil, thanks to a pre-war build up, they had the refining capacity, and this was complimented by captured refineries. Where they ran into problems, was transporting the products refined in the DEI & crude oil back to the home islands, and then from the home islands to where it was needed. It was this that dictated how the Japanese Navy fought.

Was oil a deciding factor in Europe or the Eastern Front, no it was not deciding - important - but not deciding. However, in the Pacific, it was deciding.



PS. the Japanese were the last to be defeated, not because of how well or poorly they used their resources.

They were the last to be defeated because they were the "weak sister." The one that would require the least effort to defeat.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1032
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Peter89 » 03 Mar 2020 19:07

Takao wrote:
03 Mar 2020 03:12
Peter89 wrote:
02 Mar 2020 21:43
Long story short, the DEI was an easy prey for the Japanese, just as easy the ME oil would be for the European axis. I think what you need to accept here is the fact that YOU ARE RIGHT, oil wasn't a deciding factor in WW2, thus any arguments that imply that it decided the outcome of the war is wrong. But it WAS an important raw material, which had countless cumulative effects too. The most important bottleneck of the Axis war economy was the oil, and thus it is obvious that a grand strategy based on oil production could lead to alternative results. I say ALTERNATIVE, not DECISIVELY DIFFERENT. The Japanese took a better approach to raw materials, thus they succeeded to hold out longer.
Having a lot of crude oil, goes hand-in-hand with the ability to refine it, as well as the ability to transport the oil from the wells to the refineries and then from the refineries/storage depots to the front. Once Japan captured the DEI, they had the crude oil, thanks to a pre-war build up, they had the refining capacity, and this was complimented by captured refineries. Where they ran into problems, was transporting the products refined in the DEI & crude oil back to the home islands, and then from the home islands to where it was needed. It was this that dictated how the Japanese Navy fought.

Was oil a deciding factor in Europe or the Eastern Front, no it was not deciding - important - but not deciding. However, in the Pacific, it was deciding.
I don't agree with that last notion. The Japanese didn't lose the war because of the lack of oil, or the capability to transport it.

Takao wrote:
03 Mar 2020 03:12
PS. the Japanese were the last to be defeated, not because of how well or poorly they used their resources.

They were the last to be defeated because they were the "weak sister." The one that would require the least effort to defeat.
Yes, yes. They were defeated later because of the "Europe First" strategy. I meant they held out longer as they would have without the proper resource management in early years of the war. Germany had no such depth in their war economy.
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”