On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:33:34 +1100, Phil McGregor
wrote:
>>> In fact, one of the reasons why Hitler was able to do France in 1940
>>> was because of the *stockpiles* he'd captured in Poland and acquired
>>> in Czechoslovakia being enough, along with the small amounts
>>> produced
>>> by both those countries, to fuel the invasion ... or so I have read
>>> over the years in a couple of places.
>>
>>Sounds credible, but that's before Rumanian oil became available, of
>>course.
>
>No. Even after. Rumanian oil was, even with supplies from the USSR,
>never enough to meet demand.
>
>Evidently German stocks declined steadily from 1941 onwards to the
>point where, by late 1944, any "surplus" that the German records
>showed were, thanks to Speer's book-keeping (lying, basically), merely
>current production in transit. There were, essentially, no reserves at
>all. Even with Rumanian oil.
>
>Losing the Ploesti fields was, of course, the last straw.
It is difficult to imagine anything the Germans would consider victory
without Ploesti firmly in German hands.
Even Ploesti glowing in the dark with the rest of Europe in German
hands doesn't feel much like Germany to me.
Certainly even with both Ploesti and the Caucasian fields in German
hands they are hardpressed to outdo a fully mobilized United States.
Again for the umpth time, it is not enough for Germany to take the
Caucasian oilfields (or the Iraqi fields for that matter). The
important goal is transporting the oil to German factories which is a
much harder job.
I know you understand this Phil - it's Al and several others who
somehow have the idea that 1000 barrels in Baku is just as good as
1000 barrels in Berlin. T'ain't so and you know it! |
