|
warspite1 -> RE: OT:German imports from Spain/Turkey? (7/5/2021 9:10:09 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
When talking to you there are two discussions - one is the one we're actually having digitally, and the other seems to be the one going on in your head.
My response, (post #107) was:
That's demonstrably not the case. The synthetic oil plants provided much of the heavy lifting for the German war effort.
Your claim, which is "No Romanian oil, no war." is not quite as simple as you seem to think, was demonstrably not the case for the following reasons:
1. Synthetic oil made up a significant part of German oil production.
2. The loss of Ploesti did not bring about a complete collapse of the German war machine. In fact, 279 days passed (or nine months) between the fall of Ploesti (taking 1st August 1944) and May 8th.
Does the absence of Ploesti production impact German operations? Absolutely.
Does no oil = no war? Demonstrably not.
To repeat, At no point did I say "the loss of Ploesti would not even be noticed". It would be helpful to have a conversation about what was actually said rather than what you think was said.
warspite1
I am not having any conversations in my head. Why would I? I am trying to have a sensible grown up discussion with you – not play stupid games. But as usual, you have made yourself look rather silly with increasingly off the wall ideas, you’ve backed yourself into a corner, refused to answer my reasonable questions, and so have tried to deflect with “[discussions] going on in [my] head. Nice.
You added, “To repeat, at no point did I say "the loss of Ploesti would not even be noticed". It would be helpful to have a conversation about what was actually said rather than what you think was said”.
Nice word play there M_M but I’m afraid as usual you are twisting things. So let’s stop the stupid games and for the avoidance of doubt, let’s just be completely clear on who is saying what here. No you didn't say the loss of the oil wouldn't be noticed, but you have effectively implied this as you believe you've demonstrated that the war continued without it. You have also said that Romanian oil is not of sufficient importance that Hitler would base his strategy around it.
I have said, no Romanian oil – no war. For the avoidance of doubt I am not saying Romanian oil is Germany’s only source of oil, but I AM saying that it makes up such a proportion of German requirements that one can safely say “No Romanian oil, no war”.
To which, you said:
“That is demonstrably not the case”.
You then provided a source (that you believe supported your case?) and sought to support your comment with:
1. “Synthetic oil made up a significant part of German oil production”
2. “The loss of the Ploesti did not bring about a complete collapse of the German war machine”
So who is it having conversations in their head and who is it that has understood the actual situation? I’ll come to your second point at the end. I will comment on your first point first, although sorry, this point, about synthetic oil production, doesn’t actually demonstrate anything.
In 1939 Romanian oil made up 60% of Germany’s oil requirement. This is the year that Germany decided to invade Poland. 60%. Now, take that 60% out of Germany’s hands. Let’s say that again. Let’s remove 60% of Germany’s oil supply.
Yes, synthetic oil production rose as the war went on, but (if we use Zorch’s chart) in the last meaningful year – 1943 - synthetic production was never more than just over 50% of consumption. So we are still talking about the removal of just under 50% of Germany’s oil consumption.
But despite these pretty serious numbers, what you are saying is that I am wrong to say no Romanian oil, no war?? You said:
Does the absence of Ploesti production impact German operations? Absolutely.
Does no oil = no war? Demonstrably not.
By way of further background, you do know that in 1940 Germany required 60,000 tons of oil per month from the Soviet Union just to maintain its own stocks? You know that right? And that is WITH Romanian oil. So WITH Romanian oil the Germans need Soviet help just to keep oil reserves where they are (for your benefit we shall ignore that your ridiculous invasion of Turkey threatens those Soviet oils supplies, and just go with the Stalin does nothing about the straits approach).
If you believe war was possible, just what sort of war do you envisage Germany fighting? (You appear to have left Italy out of this, and as Italy relied 100% on German/Romanian oil, I can see why you’ve done that……best keep that one out of sight, out of mind eh?).
Have a look at Zorch’s graph. What do you notice? Yes, synthetic production was increasing as the war went on, BUT look at the % of mostly Romanian oil within that number. Despite this, you believe that war is still possible, and that operations would be simply ‘impacted’ with no Romanian oil available to Germany?
Okay, so let me ask you this. Can you tell me what sort of impact that would have had then? Instead of using words like demonstrably without any meaning, why not actually support that comment with some evidence.
As per my quotes above we know that WITH Romanian oil, the largest German truck factory was closed for a time, the air force was not able to train its pilots to the extent necessary, we know that naval operations were curtailed and stocks had to be built up for many operations that did take place. So please, remove the Romanian oil and tell me what Barbarossa would look like – how many panzer divisions, or indeed any motorised units would be supportable? What the defence of the Reich would look like? What the raids into the Atlantic would look like? How would troops in North Africa be supplied? How would Weserubung have happened? What the impact on industry would be? I say again, 60% (or at best by 1943 just under 50%).
Remember in this fantasy world of yours, you now have the Germans invading Spain and Turkey too – so what would those operations have done to those oil stocks? The Germans would have spent a lot on both operations but Spain had no oil to plunder and you’ve said Germany wouldn’t need to conquer Turkey so there is no oil to be gained there. You also have the Italian navy sailing off into the Atlantic and the Black Sea (while also somehow protecting convoys to North Africa). So just where is all this oil coming from? Remember, these are additional operations to the real life ones that have been ‘impacted’ by the loss of 60% of their oil (and 100% of Italy’s). But let’s ignore your fantasy invasions and just go with the historical.
Saying you have ‘demonstrably’ shown something doesn’t mean you actually have. So instead of insulting me, why not actually provide some evidence. Let’s see those questions answered.
Oh and by the way, coming to your second point now. In order to try and further support your comment you bizarrely pointed to 1944 and beyond as ‘evidence’ that the Germans could survive, and continue the war, without Romanian oil (note the Italians are out of the war by then so fortunately you don’t need to explain that one…..). You said:
The loss of Ploesti did not bring about a complete collapse of the German war machine. In fact, 279 days passed (or nine months) between the fall of Ploesti (taking 1st August 1944) and May 8th.
Again, have a look at Zorch’s chart. What do you notice about 1944? How many naval operations were being conducted in 1944? How many German aircraft were in the skies? How many panzer divisions were roaming freely across the Steppe? How many panzer divisions were involved in ‘The Bulge’ – oh and did even that small number of divisions have sufficient fuel? That was a rhetorical question.
You see, saying that German oil usage in 1944 could withstand the loss of Ploesti to prove that German military operations in 1941/42 would be able to continue (but with some ‘impact’) is simply embarrassing. The two situations bear no relation to one another.
For all intents and purposes, and by any sensible measure, no Romanian oil = no war.
|
|
|
|
