On Mar 10, 1:51=A0am, THG wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 17:32:28 -0800 (PST), Alfred Montestruc
>
>
>
> wrote:
> >> This was the major reason I say taking the Caucasian oilfields in 1942
> >> would have benefitted Germany more by hurting Russia than helping
> >> Germany since it would take a minimum of 12-18 months to get an
> >> effective means of getting Russian oil to Germany once the fields were
> >> taken.
>
> >So what?
>
> >The USSR will still collapse if you cut them off from the oilfields in
> >that area and more important if the Germans can interdict supplies
> >being shipped in via Iran and the Caspian sea. =A0 If the Germans have
> >air supremacy over the northern Caspian sea, even without getting the
> >east coast of the Caspian, they can cut that supply line to a
> >trickle. =A0If Japan declares war on the USSR and blockades Vladivostok,
> >you cannot win as the USSR with only the Murmansk route, even if they
> >had the oilfields in Baku. =A0With the loss of those fields and the loss
> >of the Caspian supply line, they will probably collapse..
>
> Which once again does not equate to Hitler being handed the keys to an
> intact Trans-Siberian railway with sufficient tanker stock to move
> sufficient oil (refined or otherwise) to Vladivostok.
>
> Even in 1991 after the fall of Yanaev it took the USSR 5 months to
> collapse!
With no invading army, , , duh! |
