Discussion:
meta: countries in the sea of time
(too old to reply)
Dan Goodman
2013-04-13 23:56:50 UTC
Permalink
A country is sent back several thousand years into the past. (Occupying
the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?

I suspect Nazi Germany would manage to get itself defeated in war.

From our time into the past? Don't know.

From several thousand years in the future into our time?
--
Dan Goodman
Phil McGregor
2013-04-14 00:18:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Goodman
A country is sent back several thousand years into the past. (Occupying
the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?
I suspect Nazi Germany would manage to get itself defeated in war.
By *whom*, exactly?

"Several thousand years" (say 3000+) "occupying the same area" ... in
1000 BC the people(s) surrounding 1933-39 Germany are so deficient in
both techology *and* population that it would, literally, be a
walk-over.

The would be no contest whatsoever. The C20th Germans would win hands
down.

The onlyy thing(s) preventing them from doing *anyything* they damn
well please would be the less obvious economic consequences of the
shift ...

* Starvation. Germany was barely self-sifficient in food and planned
to starve the Poles in 1939+ and the Russians in 1941+ by stealing
*their* food for Germany, and starve them in *massive* numbers (IIRC
at least a third of the Poles and 2/3rds of the Russians) in order to
feed themselves and their army, and to make the needed "lebensraum"
for the good Aryans.

In 1000 BC there simply aren't enough surrounding peoples, and their
methods of agriculture are so pathetically unproductive (about 1:1.5 -
barely enough to have seed crop for the next harvest and still have
"enough" to eat themselves (if hunger 8+ years of 10, of which 2+ are
typically famine, and large scale starvation or starvation related
deaths *anyway* are *your* idea of "enough") that the Germans aren't
gonna get enough food from them even if they take it *all* ... and
that assumes they'd be able to transport it all back home on the
nonexistent railroads, roads or through nonexistent ports ...

Sure, they can introduce better farming practices, better (and new)
crops, and better agricultural machinery ... but that will all take
time. Time I am not sure they'd have.

In short, the first year(s) would make "turnip winter" look like a
plethora ...

* Disruption of resource supplies. Germany went to war because, apart
from food (see above) she had to import all sorts of vital industrial
supplies ... and, suddenly, they're all gone. Oil and Iron Ore being
the two most obvious (sure, they're still "there" ... but completely
undeveloped ... and developing t6he Mines/Wells and transport
infrastructure will be a nontrivial task).

There's lots more, but you get the idea, I hope.

Still, I suspect the German state would survive and prosper ... and
that that wouldn't be good for the rest of Europe, circa 1000 BC. The
1000 Year Reich would have a decent chance of surviving that long
simply because there is no competition (though not necessarily a 1000
year NAZI Reich).

YMMV
SolomonW
2013-04-14 08:09:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
* Starvation. Germany was barely self-sifficient in food and planned
to starve the Poles in 1939+ and the Russians in 1941+ by stealing
*their* food for Germany, and starve them in *massive* numbers (IIRC
at least a third of the Poles and 2/3rds of the Russians) in order to
feed themselves and their army, and to make the needed "lebensraum"
for the good Aryans.
In 1000 BC there simply aren't enough surrounding peoples, and their
methods of agriculture are so pathetically unproductive (about 1:1.5 -
barely enough to have seed crop for the next harvest and still have
"enough" to eat themselves (if hunger 8+ years of 10, of which 2+ are
typically famine, and large scale starvation or starvation related
deaths *anyway* are *your* idea of "enough") that the Germans aren't
gonna get enough food from them even if they take it *all* ... and
that assumes they'd be able to transport it all back home on the
nonexistent railroads, roads or through nonexistent ports ...
Fishing would be logical. The German ports are in the right position
already and the fishing areas such as Iceland and Russia then would be full
of fish. Since its going by sea transport, much of the problem of lack of
railways and roads are solved.
Phil McGregor
2013-04-14 08:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Phil McGregor
* Starvation. Germany was barely self-sifficient in food and planned
to starve the Poles in 1939+ and the Russians in 1941+ by stealing
*their* food for Germany, and starve them in *massive* numbers (IIRC
at least a third of the Poles and 2/3rds of the Russians) in order to
feed themselves and their army, and to make the needed "lebensraum"
for the good Aryans.
In 1000 BC there simply aren't enough surrounding peoples, and their
methods of agriculture are so pathetically unproductive (about 1:1.5 -
barely enough to have seed crop for the next harvest and still have
"enough" to eat themselves (if hunger 8+ years of 10, of which 2+ are
typically famine, and large scale starvation or starvation related
deaths *anyway* are *your* idea of "enough") that the Germans aren't
gonna get enough food from them even if they take it *all* ... and
that assumes they'd be able to transport it all back home on the
nonexistent railroads, roads or through nonexistent ports ...
Fishing would be logical. The German ports are in the right position
already and the fishing areas such as Iceland and Russia then would be full
of fish. Since its going by sea transport, much of the problem of lack of
railways and roads are solved.
And that would *ameliorate* the problem, but not change the facts of
another turnip winter.

The cost would be high, relatively speaking, as you'd need to use
diesel powered fishing boats and that presupposes the availability of
diesel fuel ... with the obvious problem(s).

Those being that the Synthetic Oil plants didn't produce diesel,
afaiui and, even if they did, they didn't produce enough of any fuel
to replace the major shipments coming from Ploesti (and the USSR) ...
and, as I noted, though the Germans know where this fuel came from,
they'd have to produce all the drilling rigs, move them over
nonexistent roads or rail lines, or through nonexistent ports, to the
virgin wilderness, then drill the wells ... then ship the oil back to
the refineries in Germany over the self-same nonexistent transport
infrastructure.

Like I said, turnip winter ... which is *not*, you might note, the
same as "mass starvation and cannibalism" ... hard times, for years,
perhaps decades, but slowly improving.

And not good for the locals, crazy racial policies notwithstanding.

(In fact, come to think of it, the Nazis might decide to send an
Expeditionary Force to Israel and wipe out the Jews root and branch!
Or not.)

Phil
SolomonW
2013-04-15 08:50:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by SolomonW
Post by Phil McGregor
* Starvation. Germany was barely self-sifficient in food and planned
to starve the Poles in 1939+ and the Russians in 1941+ by stealing
*their* food for Germany, and starve them in *massive* numbers (IIRC
at least a third of the Poles and 2/3rds of the Russians) in order to
feed themselves and their army, and to make the needed "lebensraum"
for the good Aryans.
In 1000 BC there simply aren't enough surrounding peoples, and their
methods of agriculture are so pathetically unproductive (about 1:1.5 -
barely enough to have seed crop for the next harvest and still have
"enough" to eat themselves (if hunger 8+ years of 10, of which 2+ are
typically famine, and large scale starvation or starvation related
deaths *anyway* are *your* idea of "enough") that the Germans aren't
gonna get enough food from them even if they take it *all* ... and
that assumes they'd be able to transport it all back home on the
nonexistent railroads, roads or through nonexistent ports ...
Fishing would be logical. The German ports are in the right position
already and the fishing areas such as Iceland and Russia then would be full
of fish. Since its going by sea transport, much of the problem of lack of
railways and roads are solved.
And that would *ameliorate* the problem, but not change the facts of
another turnip winter.
Initially, as most of the German fishing fleet would be at sea, so I
suppose much of this is lost in this POD immediately.
Post by Phil McGregor
The cost would be high, relatively speaking, as you'd need to use
diesel powered fishing boats and that presupposes the availability of
diesel fuel ... with the obvious problem(s).
I am not so sure much of the German fishing fleet used coal until the early
1950s.
Post by Phil McGregor
Those being that the Synthetic Oil plants didn't produce diesel,
afaiui and, even if they did, they didn't produce enough of any fuel
to replace the major shipments coming from Ploesti (and the USSR) ...
and, as I noted, though the Germans know where this fuel came from,
they'd have to produce all the drilling rigs, move them over
nonexistent roads or rail lines, or through nonexistent ports, to the
virgin wilderness, then drill the wells ... then ship the oil back to
the refineries in Germany over the self-same nonexistent transport
infrastructure.
Like I said, turnip winter ... which is *not*, you might note, the
same as "mass starvation and cannibalism" ... hard times, for years,
perhaps decades, but slowly improving.
Much of the problem in WW1 with the turnip winter was a premature frost
that destroyed much of potato harvest; Germany may not suffer this in this
POD.

The lack of agricultural workers as much of Germany's population then had a
strong rural root plus no enemies so the army is free to be used in
agriculture so this should not be a problem.

Germany has been cut off from fertilizers and this would be a major
problem, but some of this would be alleviated due to a reduction in
munition requirements.

However, tractors, willing hands and slaves much could be done in a few
years.

Germany has in this POD has her Lebensraum at almost no cost.
Post by Phil McGregor
And not good for the locals, crazy racial policies notwithstanding.
(In fact, come to think of it, the Nazis might decide to send an
Expeditionary Force to Israel and wipe out the Jews root and branch!
Or not.)
Phil
Phil McGregor
2013-04-15 09:53:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Phil McGregor
Like I said, turnip winter ... which is *not*, you might note, the
same as "mass starvation and cannibalism" ... hard times, for years,
perhaps decades, but slowly improving.
Much of the problem in WW1 with the turnip winter was a premature frost
that destroyed much of potato harvest; Germany may not suffer this in this
POD.
The lack of agricultural workers as much of Germany's population then had a
strong rural root plus no enemies so the army is free to be used in
agriculture so this should not be a problem.
THAT was the reason they had to starve the Poles in 1939+ ... to
mobilise the army for the attack meant pulling workers off the farms
...

So the peacetime component off the Army was separate ... and not
needed.
Post by SolomonW
Germany has been cut off from fertilizers and this would be a major
problem, but some of this would be alleviated due to a reduction in
munition requirements.
As I recall they didn't need to import Fertilisers - the Fischer-Topf
(??) process gave them plenty ... the problem in 1917-18 was that
there was plenty for *either* Fertiliser production *or* explosives
... they chose the latter, another reason for the "turnip winter"
being so bad.

In this instance, they don't need to produce the huge amounts of
smallarms ammo and artillery shells that they needed in 1917-18, so it
shouldn't be a problem
Post by SolomonW
However, tractors, willing hands and slaves much could be done in a few
years.
As long as they don't mobilise the *whole* army, and keep to peacetime
only staffing levels, they won't have a problem. And the 36 (?) or so
pre-mobilisation Divisions would be more than enough to conquer
anything they damn well pleased!

Tractors would, of course, release more men for other things ... but
wouldn't have been *necessary* ... and they could produce a hell of a
lot of them if they're not having to produce Total War quantities of
U-Boats, Tanks and Combat Aircraft!

Phil
Dan Goodman
2013-04-14 20:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Dan Goodman
A country is sent back several thousand years into the past. (Occupying
the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?
I suspect Nazi Germany would manage to get itself defeated in war.
By *whom*, exactly?
"Several thousand years" (say 3000+) "occupying the same area" ... in
1000 BC the people(s) surrounding 1933-39 Germany are so deficient in
both techology *and* population that it would, literally, be a
walk-over.
The would be no contest whatsoever. The C20th Germans would win hands
down.
My take: The Germans would try to conquer the world, and spread their
resources too thin.
Post by Phil McGregor
The onlyy thing(s) preventing them from doing *anyything* they damn well
please would be the less obvious economic consequences of the shift ...
* Starvation. Germany was barely self-sifficient in food and planned to
starve the Poles in 1939+ and the Russians in 1941+ by stealing *their*
food for Germany, and starve them in *massive* numbers (IIRC at least a
third of the Poles and 2/3rds of the Russians) in order to feed
themselves and their army, and to make the needed "lebensraum" for the
good Aryans.
In 1000 BC there simply aren't enough surrounding peoples, and their
methods of agriculture are so pathetically unproductive (about 1:1.5 -
barely enough to have seed crop for the next harvest and still have
"enough" to eat themselves (if hunger 8+ years of 10, of which 2+ are
typically famine, and large scale starvation or starvation related
deaths *anyway* are *your* idea of "enough") that the Germans aren't
gonna get enough food from them even if they take it *all* ... and that
assumes they'd be able to transport it all back home on the nonexistent
railroads, roads or through nonexistent ports ...
Sure, they can introduce better farming practices, better (and new)
crops, and better agricultural machinery ... but that will all take
time. Time I am not sure they'd have.
In short, the first year(s) would make "turnip winter" look like a
plethora ...
* Disruption of resource supplies. Germany went to war because, apart
from food (see above) she had to import all sorts of vital industrial
supplies ... and, suddenly, they're all gone. Oil and Iron Ore being the
two most obvious (sure, they're still "there" ... but completely
undeveloped ... and developing t6he Mines/Wells and transport
infrastructure will be a nontrivial task).
There's lots more, but you get the idea, I hope.
Still, I suspect the German state would survive and prosper ... and that
that wouldn't be good for the rest of Europe, circa 1000 BC. The 1000
Year Reich would have a decent chance of surviving that long simply
because there is no competition (though not necessarily a 1000 year NAZI
Reich).
YMMV
--
Dan Goodman
SolomonW
2013-04-15 08:43:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Goodman
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Dan Goodman
A country is sent back several thousand years into the past. (Occupying
the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?
I suspect Nazi Germany would manage to get itself defeated in war.
By *whom*, exactly?
"Several thousand years" (say 3000+) "occupying the same area" ... in
1000 BC the people(s) surrounding 1933-39 Germany are so deficient in
both techology *and* population that it would, literally, be a
walk-over.
The would be no contest whatsoever. The C20th Germans would win hands
down.
My take: The Germans would try to conquer the world, and spread their
resources too thin.
Spanish conquistadors had almost no resources.
Post by Dan Goodman
Post by Phil McGregor
The onlyy thing(s) preventing them from doing *anyything* they damn well
please would be the less obvious economic consequences of the shift ...
* Starvation. Germany was barely self-sifficient in food and planned to
starve the Poles in 1939+ and the Russians in 1941+ by stealing *their*
food for Germany, and starve them in *massive* numbers (IIRC at least a
third of the Poles and 2/3rds of the Russians) in order to feed
themselves and their army, and to make the needed "lebensraum" for the
good Aryans.
In 1000 BC there simply aren't enough surrounding peoples, and their
methods of agriculture are so pathetically unproductive (about 1:1.5 -
barely enough to have seed crop for the next harvest and still have
"enough" to eat themselves (if hunger 8+ years of 10, of which 2+ are
typically famine, and large scale starvation or starvation related
deaths *anyway* are *your* idea of "enough") that the Germans aren't
gonna get enough food from them even if they take it *all* ... and that
assumes they'd be able to transport it all back home on the nonexistent
railroads, roads or through nonexistent ports ...
Sure, they can introduce better farming practices, better (and new)
crops, and better agricultural machinery ... but that will all take
time. Time I am not sure they'd have.
In short, the first year(s) would make "turnip winter" look like a
plethora ...
* Disruption of resource supplies. Germany went to war because, apart
from food (see above) she had to import all sorts of vital industrial
supplies ... and, suddenly, they're all gone. Oil and Iron Ore being the
two most obvious (sure, they're still "there" ... but completely
undeveloped ... and developing t6he Mines/Wells and transport
infrastructure will be a nontrivial task).
There's lots more, but you get the idea, I hope.
Still, I suspect the German state would survive and prosper ... and that
that wouldn't be good for the rest of Europe, circa 1000 BC. The 1000
Year Reich would have a decent chance of surviving that long simply
because there is no competition (though not necessarily a 1000 year NAZI
Reich).
YMMV
Paul F Austin
2013-04-15 14:21:13 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by SolomonW
Post by Dan Goodman
Post by Phil McGregor
"Several thousand years" (say 3000+) "occupying the same area" ... in
1000 BC the people(s) surrounding 1933-39 Germany are so deficient in
both techology *and* population that it would, literally, be a
walk-over.
The would be no contest whatsoever. The C20th Germans would win hands
down.
My take: The Germans would try to conquer the world, and spread their
resources too thin.
Spanish conquistadors had almost no resources.
Numbers count. NAZI Germany would add roughly 60M people to "Europe"
whose population in 1000BC was under a million. The case of 16th Century
Spain is apropos. Spain conquered Mexico and Peru and imported a vast
stream of silver that paid the rest of Europe to produce for Spain as it
converted to an engine for war. The agricultural base of 16th Century
Europe could at least marginally support Europe plus Spain.

In a 10th Century BC Europe, neither valuata nor duress could force
European "native" agriculture to feed 60M new mouths. The only avenue
for German survival would be a rapid breaking of new land to "modern"
20th Century agricultural methods. 20th Century agricultural
productivity, given the land, machinery and agri-chemical inputs could
feed Germany. 10th Century BC agricultural methods could not.

So, to survive, Germany would need to organize for clearance of
sufficient new land to feed its 60M, build the communications network
(river ports and roads to get harvest to Germany), produce the
machinery, fuels and fertilizers and store and transport the resulting
harvests. The machinery could be largely horse-drawn (gang plows and
harvesters) but that means the national horse herd would need to grow.
Fertilizers could be produced using coal-powered Haber-Bosch process
production.

Paul
Rich Rostrom
2013-04-15 17:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul F Austin
harvesters) but that means the national horse herd would need to grow.
The problem with that is that it is impossible to
produce a new draft horse in less than several years.

Furthermore,it is impossible to produce additional
brood mares with which to produce additional draft
horses in less than several years.

And an ISOT country doesn't have those years.
Cast-iron steam tractors, crude but functional,
running on coal, would be much faster to get up.

(Even if Germany had _no_ domestic iron ore supplies,
there's enough scrap iron or scrappable iron to make
the tractors.)

One might gain a short boost by converting beef and
dairy cattle to draft oxen. I don't know if that's
even possible.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Paul F Austin
2013-04-15 23:41:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Paul F Austin
harvesters) but that means the national horse herd would need to grow.
The problem with that is that it is impossible to
produce a new draft horse in less than several years.
Furthermore,it is impossible to produce additional
brood mares with which to produce additional draft
horses in less than several years.
And an ISOT country doesn't have those years.
Cast-iron steam tractors, crude but functional,
running on coal, would be much faster to get up.
The Hitlerian horse herd was quite large. The German Heers was largely
horse-drawn. According to Richard Overy in _Why the Allies Won_, the
German army employed 700,000 horses in support of Barbarossa. During
1942, another 400,000 horses were mobilized from Germany and the German
occupied countries. Overy didn't break out German vs e.g., French horses.

Steam-powered tillage doesn't even require tractors. The river valley in
the north of France that are tilled by cable-pulled plows. The cables
stretch across from one side of the river valley to the other in a
continuous loop. Steam winches pull the cable and plows and harrows back
and forth by attaching to the cables.

Paul
Phil McGregor
2013-04-16 01:07:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:57:12 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Paul F Austin
harvesters) but that means the national horse herd would need to grow.
The problem with that is that it is impossible to
produce a new draft horse in less than several years.
Indeed. Which means that the 600,000 horses the Wehrmacht had and used
in 1941 for Barbarossa were mostly already available in 1939!

And, of course, there's no need to mobilise beyond their 36 (?)
peacetime divisions ... which means the 290 additional divisions,
mostly Infantry with horse drawn logistics, that they raised and
maintained during the war don't need all those horses, either.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Furthermore,it is impossible to produce additional
brood mares with which to produce additional draft
horses in less than several years.
But you forget that the Germans already had industrial scale horse
breeding going on for the army, if nothing else, do the objection is
meaningless in real terms.
Post by Rich Rostrom
And an ISOT country doesn't have those years.
Cast-iron steam tractors, crude but functional,
running on coal, would be much faster to get up.
(Even if Germany had _no_ domestic iron ore supplies,
there's enough scrap iron or scrappable iron to make
the tractors.)
And there's no need for all those warships, U-Boats especially, combat
aircraft and tanks ... or even artillery and smallarms ... beyond what
they already have ... freeing up a lot of the iron and steel they used
...
Post by Rich Rostrom
One might gain a short boost by converting beef and
dairy cattle to draft oxen. I don't know if that's
even possible.
No need, see above. More than enough horses, even if Germany wasn't
more or less self sufficient in food as long as she didn't have to
mobilise the army for WW2.

Phil
Rich Rostrom
2013-04-16 20:10:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:57:12 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Paul F Austin
harvesters) but that means the national horse herd would need to grow.
The problem with that is that it is impossible to
produce a new draft horse in less than several years.
Indeed. Which means that the 600,000 horses the Wehrmacht had and used
in 1941 for Barbarossa were mostly already available in 1939!
That's a very good point, but... Are you sure?

Because Germany may have seized many of those
horses in countries occupied in 1939-1941.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Paul F Austin
2013-04-16 23:42:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Phil McGregor
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:57:12 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Paul F Austin
harvesters) but that means the national horse herd would need to grow.
The problem with that is that it is impossible to
produce a new draft horse in less than several years.
Indeed. Which means that the 600,000 horses the Wehrmacht had and used
in 1941 for Barbarossa were mostly already available in 1939!
That's a very good point, but... Are you sure?
Because Germany may have seized many of those
horses in countries occupied in 1939-1941.
The German Heers was a horse-drawn army from the very beginning of WWII
to the very end. Motorized transport was added (600,000 vehicles took
part in Barbarossa) but rail and horse drawn logistics were the basis of
the army.

According to Gotz Aly, Germany didn't really start exploiting Western
Europe for several years after conquest and even then didn't do it
systematically.

Paul
Phil McGregor
2013-04-17 01:10:03 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:10:24 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Phil McGregor
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:57:12 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Paul F Austin
harvesters) but that means the national horse herd would need to grow.
The problem with that is that it is impossible to
produce a new draft horse in less than several years.
Indeed. Which means that the 600,000 horses the Wehrmacht had and used
in 1941 for Barbarossa were mostly already available in 1939!
That's a very good point, but... Are you sure?
Because Germany may have seized many of those
horses in countries occupied in 1939-1941.
Yabbut ... what did they invade Poland with in 1939? Maybe not the
same amount as they used in 1941, but they deployed approximately 100
Divisions, mostly infantry (i.e. largely with horse drawn logistics)
for the invasion of Poland. The "peacetime" army was supposedly 36
divisions ... and I don't think they *really* need even 36 divisions
to conquer Europe in 1000 BC, do *you*?

Which leave the horse drawn logistics component of those 64 divisions
*plus* the rear area slice needed to support them to be deployed for
farming.

The Heer at the time of Barbarossa (all units, not just those on the
East Front) was only about twice as large (200-220 divisions), and
only about 150 were initially deployed for the invasion of Russia, so
half again the size of the army in 1939.

Even allowing as how they could have, theoretically, stolen every
horse in Poland (in which case not only the *Poles* would have
starved, but so would the Germans, as Polish farmingg was even less
advanced than German farming!), that would mean that they would have
had around 42% of 600,000 horses from the 64 divisions they no longer
need from 1939 ... or about 252,000 horses.

D'you think *that* would be enough?

Phil
Derek Lyons
2013-04-17 04:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
Even allowing as how they could have, theoretically, stolen every
horse in Poland (in which case not only the *Poles* would have
starved, but so would the Germans, as Polish farmingg was even less
advanced than German farming!), that would mean that they would have
had around 42% of 600,000 horses from the 64 divisions they no longer
need from 1939 ... or about 252,000 horses.
D'you think *that* would be enough?
If they have sufficient tack to equip them with (which Army horses
aren't) and sufficient farming implements for them to pull (which Army
horses don't). Simply freeing up the horses from Army use isn't
enough.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Phil McGregor
2013-04-17 06:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Lyons
Post by Phil McGregor
Even allowing as how they could have, theoretically, stolen every
horse in Poland (in which case not only the *Poles* would have
starved, but so would the Germans, as Polish farmingg was even less
advanced than German farming!), that would mean that they would have
had around 42% of 600,000 horses from the 64 divisions they no longer
need from 1939 ... or about 252,000 horses.
D'you think *that* would be enough?
If they have sufficient tack to equip them with (which Army horses
aren't) and sufficient farming implements for them to pull (which Army
horses don't). Simply freeing up the horses from Army use isn't
enough.
And it is oh so high tech to produce leather horse tack?

So complex and demanding of scarce high tech resources that 1939
Germany was so lacking in?

Things like, oh, *leather* ...

I mean, let's get serious here.

As I noted, initially, while *barely* self sufficient in food, Germany
was, in 1939 *self sufficient* ...

And suddenly has no need to produce lots of tanks, guns, artillery,
combat aircraft or explosives.

Which frees up both industry *and* raw materials ... like, say,
leather ... to make horse tack.

And its not even as if the skills needed to make said horse tack are
lacking ... German farming was largely horse based in 1939, one of the
reasons they had to plan to starve the Poles after they conquered them
... so they still had plenty of leather workers, vets, farriers and
the like with the skills in need.

As for ploughs and such - much the same ... German farming used lots
and lots of horses, and those horses pulled lots and lots of horse
drawn ploughs, farrows, seed drills and whatever else. And all of
those were still being maintained and built in quantity because the
German economy wasn't (then) rich enough to mechanise everything.

So, the factories that produced those suddenly have all that iron and
steel no longer needed for the aforementioned tanks, combat aircraft,
warships, artillery and smallarms ... *and* they have the same
peacetime workforce they need, as Germany can conquer all of Europe
(hell, it could have a pretty damn good go at conquering all of the
*world*) with its 36 (?) division peacetime army, and the additional
64 or so divisions mobilised for the invasion of Poland, or the
additional 100-120 divisions (on top of the additional 64) raised for
the invasion of Russia are no longer needed.

Since they have plenty of horses, and enough food - turnip winter or
not - initially, then the rest is just a matter of production to match
up the number of horses with the needed additional agricultural
equipment ... and how hard can *that* be given that the Germans
managed to produce all those tanks etc.

(Oh and, no, the Germans will be short of POL, but not completely
lacking as the DPRK would be, and had lots of coal and lots of coal
powered (or electric powered, but run from coal or hydro power plants)
trains to move the needed stuff around ... and even the "shortage" of
POL will be less severe, if severe at all, now that it doesn't have to
fuel 20+ Panzer, Panzergrenadier or Motorised Divisions on continual
combat operations!)

So, really, no ... your caveat is meaningless.

Phil
Paul F Austin
2013-04-17 08:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Lyons
Post by Phil McGregor
Even allowing as how they could have, theoretically, stolen every
horse in Poland (in which case not only the *Poles* would have
starved, but so would the Germans, as Polish farmingg was even less
advanced than German farming!), that would mean that they would have
had around 42% of 600,000 horses from the 64 divisions they no longer
need from 1939 ... or about 252,000 horses.
D'you think *that* would be enough?
If they have sufficient tack to equip them with (which Army horses
aren't) and sufficient farming implements for them to pull (which Army
horses don't). Simply freeing up the horses from Army use isn't
enough.
Tack they would have. The Army horses weren't there for riding but
rather drayage, complete with proper horse collars and other tack. The
designs and manufacturing "expertise" for horse-drawn farm equipment was
in current use at the time.

It may be silly to talk about converting tank factories into plow
factories because the biggest limitation to new farm production would be
land clearing, road building and river dredging and lock building.

Paul
Derek Lyons
2013-04-17 13:14:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul F Austin
Post by Derek Lyons
Post by Phil McGregor
Even allowing as how they could have, theoretically, stolen every
horse in Poland (in which case not only the *Poles* would have
starved, but so would the Germans, as Polish farmingg was even less
advanced than German farming!), that would mean that they would have
had around 42% of 600,000 horses from the 64 divisions they no longer
need from 1939 ... or about 252,000 horses.
D'you think *that* would be enough?
If they have sufficient tack to equip them with (which Army horses
aren't) and sufficient farming implements for them to pull (which Army
horses don't). Simply freeing up the horses from Army use isn't
enough.
Tack they would have. The Army horses weren't there for riding but
rather drayage, complete with proper horse collars and other tack. The
designs and manufacturing "expertise" for horse-drawn farm equipment was
in current use at the time.
Was the Army tack compatible with civilian gear? (Though it's
probably easily modified.) And while the design and engineering was
current, that doesn't mean they could turn to and produce massive
quantities in a short period - even simple gear has a production start
up and acceleration period.
Post by Paul F Austin
It may be silly to talk about converting tank factories into plow
factories because the biggest limitation to new farm production would be
land clearing, road building and river dredging and lock building.
Yeah, it's kinda silly, but it does illustrate two salient points...
First, that a country ITSOT suffers from the same kind of resource
allocation problems that pretty much every other ITSOT scenario does.
Second, that pretty much any economy above the most primitive
hunter-gatherers has interactions that often can't easily or quickly
be altered 'on the fly', pull on one thread and the interconnections
can cause an unexpected one to tauten or snap.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Phil McGregor
2013-04-16 01:02:18 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:21:13 -0400, Paul F Austin
Post by Paul F Austin
In a 10th Century BC Europe, neither valuata nor duress could force
European "native" agriculture to feed 60M new mouths. The only avenue
for German survival would be a rapid breaking of new land to "modern"
20th Century agricultural methods. 20th Century agricultural
productivity, given the land, machinery and agri-chemical inputs could
feed Germany. 10th Century BC agricultural methods could not.
Thning is, pre-war Germany was more or less self suffficient in food.
The reason they planned to starve the Poles after conquest was because
they had to call up the army to conquer them, and, since Germany still
had a manpower heavy rather than machine heavy agricultural sector,
this meant the 1939 harvest would be dramatically down on what was
needed to feed the nation ... not, as I understand it, to the point of
famine, but to the point where the Nazis preferred not to face the
likely political consequences.

If the Poles starved, no-one (immediately) cared.

So, with no need to mobilise beyond the peacetime 36 divisions, the
"1939" growing season is not disrupted, and the above (and below) can
be done all in good time.
Post by Paul F Austin
So, to survive, Germany would need to organize for clearance of
sufficient new land to feed its 60M, build the communications network
(river ports and roads to get harvest to Germany), produce the
machinery, fuels and fertilizers and store and transport the resulting
harvests. The machinery could be largely horse-drawn (gang plows and
harvesters) but that means the national horse herd would need to grow.
Fertilizers could be produced using coal-powered Haber-Bosch process
production.
I dunno, would 600,000 horses be enough?

That's how many the Wehrmacht had in the East at the beginning of
Barbarossa!

And, of course, the Germans are not mobilising 350 mostly Infantry
divisions who had mostly horse drawn transport, they can easily
conquer the world with their "peacetime" 36 divisions.

So, would the balance of around 290 Divisions worth of horses be
enough?

Phil
Bradipus
2013-04-15 19:37:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:56:50 -0500, Dan Goodman
Post by Dan Goodman
A country is sent back several thousand years into the past.
(Occupying
the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which
wouldn't?
I suspect Nazi Germany would manage to get itself defeated in
war.
By *whom*, exactly?
"Several thousand years" (say 3000+) "occupying the same area"
... in 1000 BC the people(s) surrounding 1933-39 Germany are
so deficient in both techology *and* population that it would,
literally, be a walk-over.
The would be no contest whatsoever. The C20th Germans would
win hands down.
The onlyy thing(s) preventing them from doing *anyything* they
damn well please would be the less obvious economic
consequences of the shift ...
* Starvation. Germany was barely self-sifficient in food and
planned
to starve the Poles in 1939+ and the Russians in 1941+ by
stealing *their* food for Germany, and starve them in
*massive* numbers (IIRC at least a third of the Poles and
2/3rds of the Russians) in order to feed themselves and their
army, and to make the needed "lebensraum" for the good Aryans.
In 1000 BC there simply aren't enough surrounding peoples, and
their methods of agriculture are so pathetically unproductive
(about 1:1.5 - barely enough to have seed crop for the next
harvest and still have "enough" to eat themselves (if hunger
8+ years of 10, of which 2+ are typically famine, and large
scale starvation or starvation related deaths *anyway* are
*your* idea of "enough") that the Germans aren't gonna get
enough food from them even if they take it *all* ... and that
assumes they'd be able to transport it all back home on the
nonexistent railroads, roads or through nonexistent ports ...
Sure, they can introduce better farming practices, better (and
new) crops, and better agricultural machinery ... but that
will all take time. Time I am not sure they'd have.
In short, the first year(s) would make "turnip winter" look
like a plethora ...
* Disruption of resource supplies. Germany went to war
because, apart from food (see above) she had to import all
sorts of vital industrial supplies ... and, suddenly, they're
all gone. Oil and Iron Ore being the two most obvious (sure,
they're still "there" ... but completely undeveloped ... and
developing t6he Mines/Wells and transport infrastructure will
be a nontrivial task).
There's lots more, but you get the idea, I hope.
Still, I suspect the German state would survive and prosper
... and that that wouldn't be good for the rest of Europe,
circa 1000 BC. The 1000 Year Reich would have a decent chance
of surviving that long simply because there is no competition
(though not necessarily a 1000 year NAZI Reich).
YMMV
I think that in year 1000 BC European plains were covered by a
dense forest with a few burned clearings, and swamps.

To plow that land one has to cut down all those trees and dig
canals to drain water.

I suppose the first year half of population dies.
--
o o
Phil McGregor
2013-04-16 01:11:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradipus
I think that in year 1000 BC European plains were covered by a
dense forest with a few burned clearings, and swamps.
To plow that land one has to cut down all those trees and dig
canals to drain water.
I suppose the first year half of population dies.
You suppose wrong.

*Germany*, as I noted in the original post was *self sufficient* in
food production as long as she didn't have the mobilise and invade
Poland.

"Barely" self suffficient, but self sufficient nonetheless.

The fact that large swathes of western Europe were as you describe
historically is meaningless as the whole of self-sufficient Germany is
transpported ISOT.

There would be some privation, but nowhere near 50% starvation ...
probably very little at all.

Phil
SolomonW
2013-04-14 08:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Goodman
A country is sent back several thousand years into the past. (Occupying
the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?
Very few countries would do well initially as they would be cut off the
world market and almost everyone imports something.

Some, however, like Qatar would have a real problems as they have no
customers for their product, and their economy is really pathetic.
Phil McGregor
2013-04-14 08:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Dan Goodman
A country is sent back several thousand years into the past. (Occupying
the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?
Very few countries would do well initially as they would be cut off the
world market and almost everyone imports something.
Some, however, like Qatar would have a real problems as they have no
customers for their product, and their economy is really pathetic.
And, generally speaking, you can't eat crude oil ... so *they* would
be *far* worse off than the Nazis ... though, possibly, the climate in
the region is somewhat better then than it is now ... even so, same
problem as the Germans, net importer (net *massive* importer) of food
faces situation where the local population is far too small and their
methods of agriculture not the best for producing enough for the
Qataris to even steal.

Of course, the Tigris-Euphrates cities would be good targets ... and
*may* be enough, *if* the Qataris have enough brains to not slaughter
the goose in the first raids ;-(

Phil
Dan Goodman
2013-04-14 20:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Dan Goodman
A country is sent back several thousand years into the past.
(Occupying the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which
wouldn't?
Very few countries would do well initially as they would be cut off the
world market and almost everyone imports something.
Which countries NEED to import? I think all three North American
countries could survive on their own resources.
Post by SolomonW
Some, however, like Qatar would have a real problems as they have no
customers for their product, and their economy is really pathetic.
--
Dan Goodman
Derek Lyons
2013-04-15 05:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Goodman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Dan Goodman
A country is sent back several thousand years into the past.
(Occupying the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which
wouldn't?
Very few countries would do well initially as they would be cut off the
world market and almost everyone imports something.
Which countries NEED to import? I think all three North American
countries could survive on their own resources.
The problem isn't that they don't need to import - the problem is that
they *do* import. And once they've travelled through time, those
imports cease and must be replaced. For some countries this might end
up being nothing but a minor bobble, for others disastrous or nearly
so.

Or, to put it another way, countries adrift suffer the same problems
as anything else adrift - massive short term resource and allocation
problems, resulting in a race against time with one foot in a bucket
of cement to adress them.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Rich Rostrom
2013-04-15 17:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Goodman
Post by SolomonW
Very few countries would do well initially as they would be cut off the
world market and almost everyone imports something.
Which countries NEED to import? I think all three North American
countries could survive on their own resources.
In the long term.

In the short term, all three countries import a great
variety of manufactured goods, including essential
components of critical technologies.

(This is true of almost _any_ nation today.)

The immediate total cutoff of these supplies would
be a disruptive shock.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
jgharston
2013-04-18 22:08:19 UTC
Permalink
Which countries NEED to import?  I think all three North American
countries could survive on their own resources.
*Three* countries in North America? Where? I see two.

JGH
Phil McGregor
2013-04-18 23:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgharston
Which countries NEED to import?  I think all three North American
countries could survive on their own resources.
*Three* countries in North America? Where? I see two.
I have been told, vehemently, by some North Americans (of the USA
variety), that Mexicans believe they are part of North America, and
not Central America.

Don't know any Mexicans, personally, so I don't know whether they do
or not, but it is what I have been told ... FWIW

*IF* correct, Canada + USA + Mexico = 3.

Otherwise ... ???

Phil
Rich Rostrom
2013-04-19 17:31:49 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by jgharston
Which countries NEED to import?  I think all three North American
countries could survive on their own resources.
*Three* countries in North America? Where? I see two.
I have been told, vehemently, by some North Americans (of the USA
variety), that Mexicans believe they are part of North America, and
not Central America.
The term _norteamericano_ was coined, AIUI, to refer
to U.S.-ians and Canadians, who are linguistically
separate from all those further south (with the
trivial exceptions of Belize, Guyana, Surinam, and
French Guiana).

However, there is no geographical division between
Mexico and the U.S. The "end" of "North America"
could be placed at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, at
the head of the Gulf of Honduras, or at the Isthmus
of Panama.

"Central America" is not a continent, nor an island,
and is never considered part of "South America".

Anthropologists and archaeologists refer to the
Aztec (and pre-Aztec) and Mayan civilizations
as "Meso-American" ("central" ?).
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
The Horny Goat
2013-04-19 18:42:17 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:19:36 +1000, Phil McGregor
Post by Phil McGregor
Don't know any Mexicans, personally, so I don't know whether they do
or not, but it is what I have been told ... FWIW
*IF* correct, Canada + USA + Mexico = 3.
Otherwise ... ???
Geographically - certainly

Culturally? Not so much
Dan Goodman
2013-04-18 23:24:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgharston
Which countries NEED to import?  I think all three North American
countries could survive on their own resources.
*Three* countries in North America? Where? I see two.
JGH
United States
Canada
Mexico
--
Dan Goodman
Bradipus
2013-04-19 14:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Goodman
Post by jgharston
Which countries NEED to import?  I think all three North
American countries could survive on their own resources.
*Three* countries in North America? Where? I see two.
United States
(most of)
Post by Dan Goodman
Canada
Mexico
What about Greenland?


I think Central America is from Tehuantepec isthmus to the
Panamá-Colombia border.

So most of Mexico is in N.A., but part of Mexico belongs to C.A.
--
o o
Anthony Buckland
2013-04-19 20:09:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradipus
Post by Dan Goodman
Post by jgharston
Post by Dan Goodman
Which countries NEED to import? I think all three North
American countries could survive on their own resources.
*Three* countries in North America? Where? I see two.
United States
(most of)
Post by Dan Goodman
Canada
Mexico
What about Greenland?
Indeed. Greenland is currently an independent country,
one of those making up the Kingdom of Denmark, the
others being Denmark itself and the Faroes. So so far
we have four complete countries, part of France, and
if you want to really do some thinking consider the
Caribbean islands and Bermuda and the Virgins.

Any Russian islands positioned so as to be more in North
America than in Asia?
Bradipus
2013-04-24 16:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Buckland
Post by Bradipus
Post by Dan Goodman
Post by jgharston
Post by Dan Goodman
Which countries NEED to import? I think all three North
American countries could survive on their own resources.
*Three* countries in North America? Where? I see two.
United States
(most of)
Post by Dan Goodman
Canada
Mexico
What about Greenland?
Indeed. Greenland is currently an independent country,
one of those making up the Kingdom of Denmark, the
others being Denmark itself and the Faroes.
So so far we have four complete countries, part of France, and
I think Canada and Greenland are completely included in N.A.

Part of the USA (Hawaii etc) is not in N.A.

Southern Mexico could be included in Central America.
Post by Anthony Buckland
if you want to really do some thinking consider the
Caribbean islands and Bermuda and the Virgins.
If Central America is to be considered a part of the Americas,
my votes for being in North America are Yes for Bermuda, Maybe
for Bahamas and No for the Caribbean islands.
Post by Anthony Buckland
Any Russian islands positioned so as to be more in North
America than in Asia?
One of the Diomedes Islands is Russian but I suppose the
continental dividing line is conventional there rather than
physical.
--
o o
The Horny Goat
2013-04-24 18:49:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradipus
I think Canada and Greenland are completely included in N.A.
Part of the USA (Hawaii etc) is not in N.A.
Southern Mexico could be included in Central America.
Geograpically and geologically. Culturally I don't think you could
divide Mexico.
Post by Bradipus
Post by Anthony Buckland
if you want to really do some thinking consider the
Caribbean islands and Bermuda and the Virgins.
No one considers the Sardinians, Sicilians, Corsicans, Maltese or the
inhabitants of the small islands around Greece other than European so
I don't think the Caribbean islands require a whole lot of thinking.
They're pretty much all Spanish, French or English heritage now.
Post by Bradipus
If Central America is to be considered a part of the Americas,
my votes for being in North America are Yes for Bermuda, Maybe
for Bahamas and No for the Caribbean islands.
Obviously they're part of "the" Americas but the discussion was
whether they're North or South. I tend to say Latin America since whe
(unlike Dan Quayle) I don't think the territory south of the Rio
Grande speaks Latin most of the area is a variation on Spanish culture
with the obvious exception of Brazil and several of the Caribbean
islands plus Haiti.
Post by Bradipus
Post by Anthony Buckland
Any Russian islands positioned so as to be more in North
America than in Asia?
This is of course why the International Date Line takes a 'funny' jag
in that area.. I don't think Siberia and western Alaska are all that
different geologically though in my opinion the population is not high
enough to speak of dominant cultures. Presumably anything you say
about the Diomedes applies to the much more important Aleutians as
well.
Post by Bradipus
One of the Diomedes Islands is Russian but I suppose the
continental dividing line is conventional there rather than
physical.
Realistically I don't see any ATL involving the United States or
Canada reaching the Pacific that leaves much room for Russian
settlements anywhere in North America. In fact about the only scenario
I ever remember being discussed here involving Russian Alaska in the
present day was as a kind of Russian Taiwan under US protection after
1917 though in my opinion even if Russia doesn't sell Alaska in the
1860s or 1870s, she probably loses it following the Russo-Japanese war
- likely to the United States and likely at a higher price than 1867
since gold would by then be known to be there. (I think that's pretty
much inevitable following the California 1849 rush and the British
Columbia 1857 rush)
Bradipus
2013-04-24 20:23:13 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:36:03 +0200, Bradipus
Post by Bradipus
I think Canada and Greenland are completely included in N.A.
Part of the USA (Hawaii etc) is not in N.A.
Southern Mexico could be included in Central America.
Geograpically and geologically. Culturally I don't think you
could divide Mexico.
I don't.

I was speaking of geography with no relation to peoples'
culture.


F.ex. Africa is geographically a single continent but culturally
Northern Africa is different from the sub-saharian Africa and
closer to western Asia.
--
o o
Anthony Buckland
2013-04-19 19:59:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Goodman
Post by jgharston
Post by Dan Goodman
Which countries NEED to import? I think all three North American
countries could survive on their own resources.
*Three* countries in North America? Where? I see two.
JGH
United States
Canada
Mexico
I assume at least some posters have looked in Wikipedia,
which contains far more discussion than I care to post
here. But Mexico is definitely part of North America.
Interestingly, so are St. Pierre et Miquelon, which are
also part of metropolitan France.
Rich Rostrom
2013-04-14 22:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Goodman
A country is sent back several thousand years into the past. (Occupying
the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?
Would do well: Countries which could feed themselves,
have strong civil orders, are technologically
capable, and large enough to have a sufficiently broad
technical capacities to rebuild what they don't have.

Wouldn't: anybody else.

This is complicated by the extreme interdependence
of world industry. It seems as though everyone
imports at least some vital and irreplaceable goods
from somebody else.

For a country even to survive as an organized entity,
it may have to have very strong food availability and
civil order (as well as the tech base).
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
The Horny Goat
2013-04-14 22:47:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Goodman
A country is sent back several thousand years into the past. (Occupying
the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?
I suspect Nazi Germany would manage to get itself defeated in war.
From our time into the past? Don't know.
From several thousand years in the future into our time?
I dunno - Nazi Germany in 12000 would have occupied England .... of
course Britannia (English/Scotland/Wales) wasn't an island at that
time so no talk of Sealion...
d***@gmail.com
2013-04-16 04:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Goodman
A country is sent back several thousand years into the past. (Occupying
the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?
Dan Goodman
Could North Korea do quite well?

There's going to be a mass famine as all food aide disappears (but the NK government has survived mass famines before), and if the government survives those bad first few years, then it is in a good position to capitalize on its technological edge.

I'd have to look at the NK trade statistics more closely to see if a bizarro-ISOT is possible. A quick glance shows that crude oil may be a big problem.
Phil McGregor
2013-04-16 05:24:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Dan Goodman
A country is sent back several thousand years into the past. (Occupying
the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?
Dan Goodman
Could North Korea do quite well?
There's going to be a mass famine as all food aide disappears (but the NK government has survived mass famines before), and if the government survives those bad first few years, then it is in a good position to capitalize on its technological edge.
I'd have to look at the NK trade statistics more closely to see if a bizarro-ISOT is possible. A quick glance shows that crude oil may be a big problem.
It's not *just* the mass famines ... it's the loss of *all* oil
imports.

According to the CIA World Factbook (2012), the DPRK produces a
*massive* 118 barrels per day (1 barrel = about 158/159 liters) or
1870 liters per day.

Yes, ONE thousand EIGHT hundred and SEVENTY liters and NOT, say,
1,870,000 (or more!) liters.

Their oil IMPORTS are equal to 13,890 barrels per day ...

They have *no* internal oil reserves.

They produce 143 cu meters of natural gas. ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY THREE
and NOT, say, 143 million cu meters.

Does the phrase "starve in the dark" resonate?

Because it soon would to 24.5 million North Koreans.

I have seen sources that seem credible who have commented that, while
the DPRK Armed Forces *used* to hold 2-5+ *years* reserves of fuel and
food (presumably only for the armed forces) that, since the massive
famine of 1995 this has been drawn down and is effectively gone, or
mostly so, and that it is common to see gaunt, hungry, soldiers in
places where it's not expected that any "outsider" will see them.

I would guess that they probably have no more than 90-180 days
reserves and then they "starve in the dark" ...

Phil
Alfred Montestruc
2013-04-21 18:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Goodman
A country is sent back several thousand years into the past. (Occupying
the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?
I suspect Nazi Germany would manage to get itself defeated in war.
From our time into the past? Don't know.
From several thousand years in the future into our time?
--
Dan Goodman
Exactly. No Royal Navy, no any other navy that could do more than mildly annoy a German freighter with well stocked small arms locker. The Germans have plenty of coal and still had a fair number of coal fired ships. They look in the libraries and find the locations of Romanian oil fields and load ships up with oil drilling equipment and rail-road building equipment and enough troops and ammo to run off the bronze age peoples who have the stones to get in the way. Next shipload gets oil refining equipment and more railroad building supplies. In the mean time you start a railroad from the nearest transported German line toward Romanian oil fields and plan a meeting in the middle much as the USA was building rail roads from both the east and west coast at the same time with less technology and a much longer distance. I suspect they could finish in two years or less and have oil tankers sailing back to Germany before that.

Agriculture? They can expand rapidly into the low countries, and to France and the UK and to Poland and so on and run off (or enslave) the natives as fast as you can say Jack Robinson. On hungry winter maybe depending on what time of year the transition takes place.
Bradipus
2013-04-21 20:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Exactly. No Royal Navy, no any other navy that could do more
than mildly annoy a German freighter with well stocked small
arms locker. The Germans have plenty of coal and still had a
fair number of coal fired ships. They look in the libraries
and find the locations of Romanian oil fields and load ships
up with oil drilling equipment and rail-road building
equipment and enough troops and ammo to run off the bronze age
peoples who have the stones to get in the way. Next shipload
gets oil refining equipment and more railroad building
supplies. In the mean time you start a railroad from the
nearest transported German line toward Romanian oil fields and
plan a meeting in the middle much as the USA was building rail
roads from both the east and west coast at the same time with
less technology and a much longer distance. I suspect they
could finish in two years or less and have oil tankers sailing
back to Germany before that.
Well, you forgot that Danube is a shipping route.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Agriculture? They can expand rapidly into the low countries,
and to France and the UK and to Poland and so on and run off
(or enslave) the natives as fast as you can say Jack Robinson.
On hungry winter maybe depending on what time of year the
transition takes place.
--
o o
Anthony Buckland
2013-04-22 15:52:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradipus
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Exactly. No Royal Navy, no any other navy that could do more
than mildly annoy a German freighter with well stocked small
arms locker. The Germans have plenty of coal and still had a
fair number of coal fired ships. They look in the libraries
and find the locations of Romanian oil fields and load ships
up with oil drilling equipment and rail-road building
equipment and enough troops and ammo to run off the bronze age
peoples who have the stones to get in the way. Next shipload
gets oil refining equipment and more railroad building
supplies. In the mean time you start a railroad from the
nearest transported German line toward Romanian oil fields and
plan a meeting in the middle much as the USA was building rail
roads from both the east and west coast at the same time with
less technology and a much longer distance. I suspect they
could finish in two years or less and have oil tankers sailing
back to Germany before that.
Well, you forgot that Danube is a shipping route.
...

It is, once you get to it. Germany's canals would terminate
at the cutoff line, and some of them might actually drain
at that point until repaired. A rail line could be built to
a port (built, or taken over and improved), but then we run
into river navigation hazards not removed as in OTL. IIRC,
considerable effort would have to be put into instead
linking the Rhine and the Danube by water. Rail all the way
sounds easier, or navigation from the Baltic to the Black
Sea (problem with Constantinople there), but without modern
weather forecasting once the neighborhood of Germany is left
behind, and with the need to pacify not only in the East but
also at Gibraltar and around Sicily, Crete etc.
Dan Goodman
2013-04-21 20:51:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Dan Goodman
A country is sent back several thousand years into the past.
(Occupying
the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?
I suspect Nazi Germany would manage to get itself defeated in war.
From our time into the past? Don't know.
From several thousand years in the future into our time?
--
Dan Goodman
Exactly. No Royal Navy, no any other navy that could do more than
mildly annoy a German freighter with well stocked small arms locker.
The Germans have plenty of coal and still had a fair number of coal
fired ships. They look in the libraries and find the locations of
Romanian oil fields and load ships up with oil drilling equipment and
rail-road building equipment and enough troops and ammo to run off the
bronze age peoples who have the stones to get in the way. Next shipload
gets oil refining equipment and more railroad building supplies. In the
mean time you start a railroad from the nearest transported German line
toward Romanian oil fields and plan a meeting in the middle much as the
USA was building rail roads from both the east and west coast at the
same time with less technology and a much longer distance. I suspect
they could finish in two years or less and have oil tankers sailing back
to Germany before that.
Agriculture? They can expand rapidly into the low countries, and to
France and the UK and to Poland and so on and run off (or enslave) the
natives as fast as you can say Jack Robinson. On hungry winter maybe
depending on what time of year the transition takes place.
My contentions: 1) They would overreach. Try to conquer Europe, Asia,
Africa, the Americas, Australia, and all inhabited islands -- starting
at the same time, and dividing their resources.

2) They would do incompetent things. Many, many incompetent things.

3) They would alienate potential allies.
--
Dan Goodman
SolomonW
2013-04-22 08:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Goodman
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Dan Goodman
A country is sent back several thousand years into the past.
(Occupying
the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?
I suspect Nazi Germany would manage to get itself defeated in war.
From our time into the past? Don't know.
From several thousand years in the future into our time?
--
Dan Goodman
Exactly. No Royal Navy, no any other navy that could do more than
mildly annoy a German freighter with well stocked small arms locker.
The Germans have plenty of coal and still had a fair number of coal
fired ships. They look in the libraries and find the locations of
Romanian oil fields and load ships up with oil drilling equipment and
rail-road building equipment and enough troops and ammo to run off the
bronze age peoples who have the stones to get in the way. Next shipload
gets oil refining equipment and more railroad building supplies. In the
mean time you start a railroad from the nearest transported German line
toward Romanian oil fields and plan a meeting in the middle much as the
USA was building rail roads from both the east and west coast at the
same time with less technology and a much longer distance. I suspect
they could finish in two years or less and have oil tankers sailing back
to Germany before that.
Agriculture? They can expand rapidly into the low countries, and to
France and the UK and to Poland and so on and run off (or enslave) the
natives as fast as you can say Jack Robinson. On hungry winter maybe
depending on what time of year the transition takes place.
My contentions: 1) They would overreach. Try to conquer Europe, Asia,
Africa, the Americas, Australia, and all inhabited islands -- starting
at the same time, and dividing their resources.
I am not so sure they would over reach, but if they did the natives at
best can only act locally. The Germans, in the worst case, can pull out and
come back.

In the time period, you propose none of these have much in the way of
stopping a German army, much less a German air force which I am sure here
would use gas.


Some like Australia militarily are a very minor problem. This page in the
wiki exaggerates the scope but assuming it is true. The Europeans with
little organization or plan with a few hundred thousand people lost 2,500
people conquered the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_frontier_wars

The Europeans biggest problem in Africa was disease, by the time this POD
starts much but not all of this is solved. The big plus the Germans have
here is a machine gun which will devastate the locals.
Post by Dan Goodman
2) They would do incompetent things. Many, many incompetent things.
Indeed but so would the natives.
Post by Dan Goodman
3) They would alienate potential allies.
That is for sure.
Phil McGregor
2013-04-22 01:26:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:46:23 -0700 (PDT), Alfred Montestruc
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Exactly. No Royal Navy, no any other navy that could do more than mildly annoy a German freighter with well stocked small arms locker.
he Germans have plenty of coal and still had a fair number of coal fired ships. They look in the libraries and find the locations of
omanian oil fields and load ships up with oil drilling equipment and rail-road building equipment and enough troops and ammo to run off
he bronze age peoples who have the stones to get in the way. Next shipload gets oil refining equipment and more railroad building supplies.
n the mean time you start a railroad from the nearest transported German line toward Romanian oil fields and plan a meeting in the middle
uch as the USA was building rail roads from both the east and west coast at the same time with less technology and a much longer distance.
suspect they could finish in two years or less and have oil tankers sailing back to Germany before that.
As usual, Dishonest Al is angling to replace Michael Douglas as the
CEO of Fantasyland.

OIL
===
1) Knowing the general location of the oil *fields* in Romania is NOT
the same as knowing where to drill the actual production wells. It
will speed up the search, that's all.

2) Germany did not have a massive oil exploration sector. No one,
pretty much, outside of the USA, UK and Dutch did. Exploring for all
those well sites would be a nontrivial task that would take *YEARS*,
if not DECADES.

3) The Germans didn't have a huge oil well drilling sector. No one,
pretty much, outside of the USA, UK and Dutch did. Exploring for all
those well sites would be a nontrivial task that would take *YEARS*,
if not DECADES.

4) The Germans didn't have a huge oil refinery sector, nor a huge oil
refinery manufacturing sector. No one, pretty much, outside of the
USA, UK and Dutch did. Exploring for all those well sites would be a
nontrivial task that would take *YEARS*, if not DECADES.

5) Pursuant to 2) and 3) and 4), these things could be worked on at
the same time, but, still, we're talking DECADES.

6) Al ignores the fact that Ploesti fields are not on a port. So,,
before you can do anything more than a cursory (and very preliminary)
search off the area, you have to build the port facilities to unload
the heavy equipment that you need for 2).

Then expand those facilities so you can unload the heavy equipment
needed for 3).

Then expand the facilities again to be able to unload the even heavier
equipment needed for 4).

And, of course, at each stage you need to import, unload and use the
equipment needed to build the road(s) and/or rail line(s) needed to
move 1)-4) (inclusive) to the Oil Fields.

7) While 6) implies being able to move the oil back from the fields to
the refinery and/or port facilities, it doesn't necessarily include
it, as not all of the needed facilities are dual use. So add time and
effort to ship, unload, transport and build the oil transport
facilities.

8) Another poster noted the Danube was navigable. Well, yes and no.
Mostly no for our purposes. It is navigable *to a point* and *now* ...
it wasn't necessarily navigable back then (a lot of canalisation and
other civil engineering work has been done to make it as navigable as
it is today) ... and, in any case, the Danube route merely brought the
oil *closer* to Germany.

At the end of the riverine route was an inadequate pipeline to pump
the oil hundreds of klicks back to the Reich.

Which, needless to say, doesn't exist. And to construct it through the
howling wilderness which is entirely lacking in anything resembling
supporting infrastructure, well, see 6).

RAIL LINES
==========

They use this thing called "iron" (and its subset, "steel") and
Germany didn't have enough.

In fact, historically, one of the constraints for all German
operations in WW2 was their limited capacity to build the lines,
supporting infrastructure, and rolling stock needed to operate new
routes. They barely had enough for the routes they did have.

Again, not impossible, but no way "withing two years" ... except, of
course, in Dishonest Al's deranged fantasyland!
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Agriculture? They can expand rapidly into the low countries, and to France and the UK and to Poland and so on and run off (or enslave) the natives as fast as you can say Jack Robinson. On hungry winter maybe depending on what time of year the transition takes place.
AGRICULTURE
===========

Same problem. No way in the timeframe Dishonest Al suggests.

None of it is impossible, but anyone with any brains who stops and
thinks for a moment about the manpower, industrial capacity and
resource problems faced by Germany in the circumstances will see that
it's not gonna happen overnight, or even within two years ... it will
occur slowly, and slowly speed up, over a decade or more ... more
likely a couple of decades.

Of course, if Dishonest Al wasn't angling to be the CEO of Fantasyland
... but, of course, he *is* so angling <sad sigh>

So tragic in one so young.

Phil
Brett Dunbar
2013-04-22 15:28:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:46:23 -0700 (PDT), Alfred Montestruc
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Exactly. No Royal Navy, no any other navy that could do more than
mildly annoy a German freighter with well stocked small arms locker.
he Germans have plenty of coal and still had a fair number of coal
fired ships. They look in the libraries and find the locations of
omanian oil fields and load ships up with oil drilling equipment and
rail-road building equipment and enough troops and ammo to run off he
bronze age peoples who have the stones to get in the way. Next
shipload gets oil refining equipment and more railroad building
supplies. n the mean time you start a railroad from the nearest
transported German line toward Romanian oil fields and plan a meeting
in the middle uch as the USA was building rail roads from both the
east and west coast at the same time with less technology and a much
longer distance. suspect they could finish in two years or less and
have oil tankers sailing back to Germany before that.
As usual, Dishonest Al is angling to replace Michael Douglas as the
CEO of Fantasyland.
OIL
===
1) Knowing the general location of the oil *fields* in Romania is NOT
the same as knowing where to drill the actual production wells. It
will speed up the search, that's all.
They know exactly where the actual wells were drilled so they don't need
to explore for some of this as they already know where to drill. There
were at the time a few natural seepages on some oil fields. Romania
might not in fact be the best choice. There were a number of fields that
were exploited in the middle ages.
Post by Phil McGregor
2) Germany did not have a massive oil exploration sector. No one,
pretty much, outside of the USA, UK and Dutch did. Exploring for all
those well sites would be a nontrivial task that would take *YEARS*,
if not DECADES.
3) The Germans didn't have a huge oil well drilling sector. No one,
pretty much, outside of the USA, UK and Dutch did. Exploring for all
those well sites would be a nontrivial task that would take *YEARS*,
if not DECADES.
4) The Germans didn't have a huge oil refinery sector, nor a huge oil
refinery manufacturing sector. No one, pretty much, outside of the
USA, UK and Dutch did. Exploring for all those well sites would be a
nontrivial task that would take *YEARS*, if not DECADES.
5) Pursuant to 2) and 3) and 4), these things could be worked on at
the same time, but, still, we're talking DECADES.
They had some capacity, they aren't looking to export oil they are
looking to supply domestic consumption. They aren't going to need to
operate on the scale of a major export orientated oil sector like the
Dutch American or British had. A priority programme might take a few
years but not decades. Especially as the military can be drastically cut
freeing up a lot of resources. Germany has heavy industry and the
knowledge and engineering capacity to build the equipment for the
sectors which will need to expand.
Post by Phil McGregor
6) Al ignores the fact that Ploesti fields are not on a port. So,,
before you can do anything more than a cursory (and very preliminary)
search off the area, you have to build the port facilities to unload
the heavy equipment that you need for 2).
Then expand those facilities so you can unload the heavy equipment
needed for 3).
Then expand the facilities again to be able to unload the even heavier
equipment needed for 4).
And, of course, at each stage you need to import, unload and use the
equipment needed to build the road(s) and/or rail line(s) needed to
move 1)-4) (inclusive) to the Oil Fields.
7) While 6) implies being able to move the oil back from the fields to
the refinery and/or port facilities, it doesn't necessarily include
it, as not all of the needed facilities are dual use. So add time and
effort to ship, unload, transport and build the oil transport
facilities.
Use one of the other oil fields you know about that are easier to get
to. Ideally natural seepages of light sweet crude near the coast, as
that needs minimal transport, drilling or refining.
Post by Phil McGregor
8) Another poster noted the Danube was navigable. Well, yes and no.
Mostly no for our purposes. It is navigable *to a point* and *now* ...
it wasn't necessarily navigable back then (a lot of canalisation and
other civil engineering work has been done to make it as navigable as
it is today) ... and, in any case, the Danube route merely brought the
oil *closer* to Germany.
At the end of the riverine route was an inadequate pipeline to pump
the oil hundreds of klicks back to the Reich.
Which, needless to say, doesn't exist. And to construct it through the
howling wilderness which is entirely lacking in anything resembling
supporting infrastructure, well, see 6).
Use sea transport, Germany has a lot of coal and some shipbuilding
capacity. It'll be easier to use the known oil fields on the coast.
Post by Phil McGregor
RAIL LINES
==========
They use this thing called "iron" (and its subset, "steel") and
Germany didn't have enough.
They know where the existing easily accessible deposits are and there
are no real obstacles to taking whatever they want. A lot of stuff that
was either controlled by hostile powers or had simply been mined out
would be there.
Post by Phil McGregor
In fact, historically, one of the constraints for all German
operations in WW2 was their limited capacity to build the lines,
supporting infrastructure, and rolling stock needed to operate new
routes. They barely had enough for the routes they did have.
Again, not impossible, but no way "withing two years" ... except, of
course, in Dishonest Al's deranged fantasyland!
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Agriculture? They can expand rapidly into the low countries, and to
France and the UK and to Poland and so on and run off (or enslave) the
natives as fast as you can say Jack Robinson. On hungry winter maybe
depending on what time of year the transition takes place.
AGRICULTURE
===========
Same problem. No way in the timeframe Dishonest Al suggests.
None of it is impossible, but anyone with any brains who stops and
thinks for a moment about the manpower, industrial capacity and
resource problems faced by Germany in the circumstances will see that
it's not gonna happen overnight, or even within two years ... it will
occur slowly, and slowly speed up, over a decade or more ... more
likely a couple of decades.
They would in the short term be able to fish a lot more. Germany at that
point was not too far self sufficient and that along with de
mobilisation freeing up army horses should close the gap. The techniques
and crop varieties they have available are a lot better following three
thousand years of selective breeding and exploration. They've got
Potatoes and they've got fertiliser, the ammonia production capacity
they had built to make explosives can easily be switched to fertiliser.
Ranching can be expanded quickly in areas like Argentina. Allowing for a
rapid expansion in food production without much labour.


I think you are seriously overestimating the difficulties. The likely
course of events would be a couple of difficult years, then world
empire.
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/
Brett Dunbar
Phil McGregor
2013-04-22 23:22:29 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:28:30 +0100, Brett Dunbar
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:46:23 -0700 (PDT), Alfred Montestruc
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Exactly. No Royal Navy, no any other navy that could do more than
mildly annoy a German freighter with well stocked small arms locker.
he Germans have plenty of coal and still had a fair number of coal
fired ships. They look in the libraries and find the locations of
omanian oil fields and load ships up with oil drilling equipment and
rail-road building equipment and enough troops and ammo to run off he
bronze age peoples who have the stones to get in the way. Next
shipload gets oil refining equipment and more railroad building
supplies. n the mean time you start a railroad from the nearest
transported German line toward Romanian oil fields and plan a meeting
in the middle uch as the USA was building rail roads from both the
east and west coast at the same time with less technology and a much
longer distance. suspect they could finish in two years or less and
have oil tankers sailing back to Germany before that.
As usual, Dishonest Al is angling to replace Michael Douglas as the
CEO of Fantasyland.
OIL
===
1) Knowing the general location of the oil *fields* in Romania is NOT
the same as knowing where to drill the actual production wells. It
will speed up the search, that's all.
They know exactly where the actual wells were drilled so they don't need
to explore for some of this as they already know where to drill. There
were at the time a few natural seepages on some oil fields. Romania
might not in fact be the best choice. There were a number of fields that
were exploited in the middle ages.
This is interesting.

If true.

Do you have an actual source that can be checked to show that the
Germans had maps that showed where each individual wellhead was, as
opposed to the general location of the oilfields?

And do you have independent evidence to show that the local landforms
that were used to register the locations of those individual wellheads
will still be recoggnizable 3000+ years in the past?

Knowing the general location of an oilfield is NOT the same as knowing
where the actual wellheads were ... even in a productive field, some
wells drilled will be a bust.
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
2) Germany did not have a massive oil exploration sector. No one,
pretty much, outside of the USA, UK and Dutch did. Exploring for all
those well sites would be a nontrivial task that would take *YEARS*,
if not DECADES.
3) The Germans didn't have a huge oil well drilling sector. No one,
pretty much, outside of the USA, UK and Dutch did. Exploring for all
those well sites would be a nontrivial task that would take *YEARS*,
if not DECADES.
4) The Germans didn't have a huge oil refinery sector, nor a huge oil
refinery manufacturing sector. No one, pretty much, outside of the
USA, UK and Dutch did. Exploring for all those well sites would be a
nontrivial task that would take *YEARS*, if not DECADES.
5) Pursuant to 2) and 3) and 4), these things could be worked on at
the same time, but, still, we're talking DECADES.
They had some capacity, they aren't looking to export oil they are
looking to supply domestic consumption. They aren't going to need to
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of a huge local demand for oil in
proto-Romania in 1000 BC.

Do you have evidence of this?

Otherwise, sadly, the oil *is* being exported - to GERMANY, as the
above notes should have indicated to anyone actually reading them with
care!

They all refer to ACTUAL EXISTING PROBLEMS that Germany had to face
(and proved incapable of solving) during the 1930's and 1940's.
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
6) Al ignores the fact that Ploesti fields are not on a port. So,,
before you can do anything more than a cursory (and very preliminary)
search off the area, you have to build the port facilities to unload
the heavy equipment that you need for 2).
Then expand those facilities so you can unload the heavy equipment
needed for 3).
Then expand the facilities again to be able to unload the even heavier
equipment needed for 4).
And, of course, at each stage you need to import, unload and use the
equipment needed to build the road(s) and/or rail line(s) needed to
move 1)-4) (inclusive) to the Oil Fields.
7) While 6) implies being able to move the oil back from the fields to
the refinery and/or port facilities, it doesn't necessarily include
it, as not all of the needed facilities are dual use. So add time and
effort to ship, unload, transport and build the oil transport
facilities.
Use one of the other oil fields you know about that are easier to get
to. Ideally natural seepages of light sweet crude near the coast, as
that needs minimal transport, drilling or refining.
So you say.

Evidence?

My information is that your claims are wishful thinking.

Germany needs more than a couple of hundred barrels of crude oil per
day gathered by hand in barrels and loaded over a beach ... she needs
industrial quantities.

Wishful fantasy thinking won't change this.
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
8) Another poster noted the Danube was navigable. Well, yes and no.
Mostly no for our purposes. It is navigable *to a point* and *now* ...
it wasn't necessarily navigable back then (a lot of canalisation and
other civil engineering work has been done to make it as navigable as
it is today) ... and, in any case, the Danube route merely brought the
oil *closer* to Germany.
At the end of the riverine route was an inadequate pipeline to pump
the oil hundreds of klicks back to the Reich.
Which, needless to say, doesn't exist. And to construct it through the
howling wilderness which is entirely lacking in anything resembling
supporting infrastructure, well, see 6).
Use sea transport, Germany has a lot of coal and some shipbuilding
capacity. It'll be easier to use the known oil fields on the coast.
See above.

Note that Germany did NOT have enough tankers to move PoL in the real
world and the need to build them ... well, it took about a year to
build a merchant ship in the 1930's.

I never said Germany couldn't EVENTUALLY solve the above problems,
just that Dishonest Al's claims it could all be done in two years were
fantasy.

Insofar as you *seem* to be supporting rididulous timeframe, you are
completely wrong as well. For the many reasons indicated.
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
RAIL LINES
==========
They use this thing called "iron" (and its subset, "steel") and
Germany didn't have enough.
They know where the existing easily accessible deposits are and there
are no real obstacles to taking whatever they want. A lot of stuff that
was either controlled by hostile powers or had simply been mined out
would be there.
Except the complete, total, utter lack of infrastructure to access,
mine and then transport said iron.

Well done.

Wishful fantasy thinking a la Dishonest Al!

Yes, it can all be done ... EVENTUALLY ... but not in Dishonest Al's 2
year fantasy.
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
In fact, historically, one of the constraints for all German
operations in WW2 was their limited capacity to build the lines,
supporting infrastructure, and rolling stock needed to operate new
routes. They barely had enough for the routes they did have.
Again, not impossible, but no way "withing two years" ... except, of
course, in Dishonest Al's deranged fantasyland!
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Agriculture? They can expand rapidly into the low countries, and to
France and the UK and to Poland and so on and run off (or enslave) the
natives as fast as you can say Jack Robinson. On hungry winter maybe
depending on what time of year the transition takes place.
AGRICULTURE
===========
Same problem. No way in the timeframe Dishonest Al suggests.
None of it is impossible, but anyone with any brains who stops and
thinks for a moment about the manpower, industrial capacity and
resource problems faced by Germany in the circumstances will see that
it's not gonna happen overnight, or even within two years ... it will
occur slowly, and slowly speed up, over a decade or more ... more
likely a couple of decades.
They would in the short term be able to fish a lot more. Germany at that
point was not too far self sufficient and that along with de
mobilisation freeing up army horses should close the gap. The techniques
and crop varieties they have available are a lot better following three
thousand years of selective breeding and exploration. They've got
Potatoes and they've got fertiliser, the ammonia production capacity
they had built to make explosives can easily be switched to fertiliser.
Ranching can be expanded quickly in areas like Argentina. Allowing for a
rapid expansion in food production without much labour.
I think you are seriously overestimating the difficulties. The likely
course of events would be a couple of difficult years, then world
empire.
No, I believe the problem is entirely in the ballpark of you not
reading what I said ... which was that Germany could do it in a period
of 10 years or more (likely more), but that it was impossible in
Dishonest Al's 2 year fantasyland scenario.

How long do *you* think it would take?

6 months?

2 Years?

10 Years?

Phil
Brett Dunbar
2013-04-23 19:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:28:30 +0100, Brett Dunbar
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:46:23 -0700 (PDT), Alfred Montestruc
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Exactly. No Royal Navy, no any other navy that could do more than
mildly annoy a German freighter with well stocked small arms locker.
he Germans have plenty of coal and still had a fair number of coal
fired ships. They look in the libraries and find the locations of
omanian oil fields and load ships up with oil drilling equipment and
rail-road building equipment and enough troops and ammo to run off he
bronze age peoples who have the stones to get in the way. Next
shipload gets oil refining equipment and more railroad building
supplies. n the mean time you start a railroad from the nearest
transported German line toward Romanian oil fields and plan a meeting
in the middle uch as the USA was building rail roads from both the
east and west coast at the same time with less technology and a much
longer distance. suspect they could finish in two years or less and
have oil tankers sailing back to Germany before that.
As usual, Dishonest Al is angling to replace Michael Douglas as the
CEO of Fantasyland.
OIL
===
1) Knowing the general location of the oil *fields* in Romania is NOT
the same as knowing where to drill the actual production wells. It
will speed up the search, that's all.
They know exactly where the actual wells were drilled so they don't need
to explore for some of this as they already know where to drill. There
were at the time a few natural seepages on some oil fields. Romania
might not in fact be the best choice. There were a number of fields that
were exploited in the middle ages.
This is interesting.
If true.
Do you have an actual source that can be checked to show that the
Germans had maps that showed where each individual wellhead was, as
opposed to the general location of the oilfields?
Some of it is going to be on standard maps, in the same way that any
large structure is marked on a map. I'm not sure how detailed Romanian
maps were however unless there are specific security concerns the wells
are going to be marked in routine local maps. There were a number of
operating on shore oil wells in Britain Hardstoft for example, the
Ordnance Survey maps would give the exact position of those wells.
Post by Phil McGregor
And do you have independent evidence to show that the local landforms
that were used to register the locations of those individual wellheads
will still be recoggnizable 3000+ years in the past?
Some things will be, burial mounds and other archaeology the exact
position of mountains and other things that are pretty certain to still
be in the same place. Germany has perfectly adequate
Post by Phil McGregor
Knowing the general location of an oilfield is NOT the same as knowing
where the actual wellheads were ... even in a productive field, some
wells drilled will be a bust.
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
2) Germany did not have a massive oil exploration sector. No one,
pretty much, outside of the USA, UK and Dutch did. Exploring for all
those well sites would be a nontrivial task that would take *YEARS*,
if not DECADES.
3) The Germans didn't have a huge oil well drilling sector. No one,
pretty much, outside of the USA, UK and Dutch did. Exploring for all
those well sites would be a nontrivial task that would take *YEARS*,
if not DECADES.
4) The Germans didn't have a huge oil refinery sector, nor a huge oil
refinery manufacturing sector. No one, pretty much, outside of the
USA, UK and Dutch did. Exploring for all those well sites would be a
nontrivial task that would take *YEARS*, if not DECADES.
5) Pursuant to 2) and 3) and 4), these things could be worked on at
the same time, but, still, we're talking DECADES.
They had some capacity, they aren't looking to export oil they are
looking to supply domestic consumption. They aren't going to need to
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of a huge local demand for oil in
proto-Romania in 1000 BC.
Do you have evidence of this?
Otherwise, sadly, the oil *is* being exported - to GERMANY, as the
above notes should have indicated to anyone actually reading them with
care!
Don't be an idiot I obviously meant German domestic supply. Germany
needs oil to supply itself. The Dutch British and American oil
industries produced far more than their economies consumed as they were
exporters.
Post by Phil McGregor
They all refer to ACTUAL EXISTING PROBLEMS that Germany had to face
(and proved incapable of solving) during the 1930's and 1940's.
While the Royal Navy had closed down the sea lanes and they were
fighting a major war against other industrialised powers. None of which
applies three thousand years ago. At that point all of the world's
combined military power is incapable of even mildly inconveniencing the
Germans.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
6) Al ignores the fact that Ploesti fields are not on a port. So,,
before you can do anything more than a cursory (and very preliminary)
search off the area, you have to build the port facilities to unload
the heavy equipment that you need for 2).
Then expand those facilities so you can unload the heavy equipment
needed for 3).
Then expand the facilities again to be able to unload the even heavier
equipment needed for 4).
And, of course, at each stage you need to import, unload and use the
equipment needed to build the road(s) and/or rail line(s) needed to
move 1)-4) (inclusive) to the Oil Fields.
7) While 6) implies being able to move the oil back from the fields to
the refinery and/or port facilities, it doesn't necessarily include
it, as not all of the needed facilities are dual use. So add time and
effort to ship, unload, transport and build the oil transport
facilities.
Use one of the other oil fields you know about that are easier to get
to. Ideally natural seepages of light sweet crude near the coast, as
that needs minimal transport, drilling or refining.
So you say.
Evidence?
My information is that your claims are wishful thinking.
Germany needs more than a couple of hundred barrels of crude oil per
day gathered by hand in barrels and loaded over a beach ... she needs
industrial quantities.
Oil seepages did actually exist, early wells were frequently dug in
places where there were natural seepages, Hardstoft in Derbyshire for
example. You know for an absolute fact that there is oil there very
close to the surface. You can collect from the surface or you can
improve the flow by drilling a shallow well. I didn't claim that they
would be able to supply Germany fully by seepages just that there is
some oil available with minimal effort and virtually no exploration.
Post by Phil McGregor
Wishful fantasy thinking won't change this.
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
8) Another poster noted the Danube was navigable. Well, yes and no.
Mostly no for our purposes. It is navigable *to a point* and *now* ...
it wasn't necessarily navigable back then (a lot of canalisation and
other civil engineering work has been done to make it as navigable as
it is today) ... and, in any case, the Danube route merely brought the
oil *closer* to Germany.
At the end of the riverine route was an inadequate pipeline to pump
the oil hundreds of klicks back to the Reich.
Which, needless to say, doesn't exist. And to construct it through the
howling wilderness which is entirely lacking in anything resembling
supporting infrastructure, well, see 6).
Use sea transport, Germany has a lot of coal and some shipbuilding
capacity. It'll be easier to use the known oil fields on the coast.
See above.
Note that Germany did NOT have enough tankers to move PoL in the real
world and the need to build them ... well, it took about a year to
build a merchant ship in the 1930's.
Converting a freighter to act as a tanker could be done more quickly.
Germany doesn't have to worry about hostile powers.
Post by Phil McGregor
I never said Germany couldn't EVENTUALLY solve the above problems,
just that Dishonest Al's claims it could all be done in two years were
fantasy.
Insofar as you *seem* to be supporting rididulous timeframe, you are
completely wrong as well. For the many reasons indicated.
After a couple of years the short term crisis should be over.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
They use this thing called "iron" (and its subset, "steel") and
Germany didn't have enough.
They know where the existing easily accessible deposits are and there
are no real obstacles to taking whatever they want. A lot of stuff that
was either controlled by hostile powers or had simply been mined out
would be there.
Except the complete, total, utter lack of infrastructure to access,
mine and then transport said iron.
How much infrastructure is actually needed to dynamite rocks on the
coast and load the rubble onto ships?

Germany has the smelting facilities to process the ore, a high
explosives manufacturing capacity scaled to fight a major war and ships.
Iron ore is fairly plentiful
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
I think you are seriously overestimating the difficulties. The likely
course of events would be a couple of difficult years, then world
empire.
No, I believe the problem is entirely in the ballpark of you not
reading what I said ... which was that Germany could do it in a period
of 10 years or more (likely more), but that it was impossible in
Dishonest Al's 2 year fantasyland scenario.
How long do *you* think it would take?
6 months?
2 Years?
10 Years?
Maybe two years to get over the initial crisis and dislocation. Clearing
land and getting more modern agriculture into effect sufficiently to
solve the food problems would take about that long. Once the
organisational issues are dealt with world conquest wouldn't be
difficult. The nazis started the second world war six years after
seizing power and that was against militaries far more capable than
anything that existed three thousand years ago.
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/
Brett Dunbar
Phil McGregor
2013-04-24 02:00:53 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:08:05 +0100, Brett Dunbar
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:28:30 +0100, Brett Dunbar
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:46:23 -0700 (PDT), Alfred Montestruc
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Exactly. No Royal Navy, no any other navy that could do more than
mildly annoy a German freighter with well stocked small arms locker.
he Germans have plenty of coal and still had a fair number of coal
fired ships. They look in the libraries and find the locations of
omanian oil fields and load ships up with oil drilling equipment and
rail-road building equipment and enough troops and ammo to run off he
bronze age peoples who have the stones to get in the way. Next
shipload gets oil refining equipment and more railroad building
supplies. n the mean time you start a railroad from the nearest
transported German line toward Romanian oil fields and plan a meeting
in the middle uch as the USA was building rail roads from both the
east and west coast at the same time with less technology and a much
longer distance. suspect they could finish in two years or less and
have oil tankers sailing back to Germany before that.
As usual, Dishonest Al is angling to replace Michael Douglas as the
CEO of Fantasyland.
OIL
===
1) Knowing the general location of the oil *fields* in Romania is NOT
the same as knowing where to drill the actual production wells. It
will speed up the search, that's all.
They know exactly where the actual wells were drilled so they don't need
to explore for some of this as they already know where to drill. There
were at the time a few natural seepages on some oil fields. Romania
might not in fact be the best choice. There were a number of fields that
were exploited in the middle ages.
This is interesting.
If true.
Do you have an actual source that can be checked to show that the
Germans had maps that showed where each individual wellhead was, as
opposed to the general location of the oilfields?
Some of it is going to be on standard maps, in the same way that any
large structure is marked on a map. I'm not sure how detailed Romanian
maps were however unless there are specific security concerns the wells
are going to be marked in routine local maps. There were a number of
operating on shore oil wells in Britain Hardstoft for example, the
Ordnance Survey maps would give the exact position of those wells.
In other words, the Nazis do NOT have exact locations for each
wellhead.

Strike one.
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
And do you have independent evidence to show that the local landforms
that were used to register the locations of those individual wellheads
will still be recoggnizable 3000+ years in the past?
Some things will be, burial mounds and other archaeology the exact
position of mountains and other things that are pretty certain to still
be in the same place. Germany has perfectly adequate
In other words, you have NO evidence that the landforms will be
similar enough (or not covered in literally trackless forest) to
enable the vague and general maps available to the Germans to be worth
much at all.

Strike two.

Knowing the general location of an oilfield is NOT the same as knowing
where the actual wellheads were ... even in a productive field, some
wells drilled will be a bust.
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
2) Germany did not have a massive oil exploration sector. No one,
pretty much, outside of the USA, UK and Dutch did. Exploring for all
those well sites would be a nontrivial task that would take *YEARS*,
if not DECADES.
3) The Germans didn't have a huge oil well drilling sector. No one,
pretty much, outside of the USA, UK and Dutch did. Exploring for all
those well sites would be a nontrivial task that would take *YEARS*,
if not DECADES.
4) The Germans didn't have a huge oil refinery sector, nor a huge oil
refinery manufacturing sector. No one, pretty much, outside of the
USA, UK and Dutch did. Exploring for all those well sites would be a
nontrivial task that would take *YEARS*, if not DECADES.
5) Pursuant to 2) and 3) and 4), these things could be worked on at
the same time, but, still, we're talking DECADES.
They had some capacity, they aren't looking to export oil they are
looking to supply domestic consumption. They aren't going to need to
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of a huge local demand for oil in
proto-Romania in 1000 BC.
Do you have evidence of this?
Otherwise, sadly, the oil *is* being exported - to GERMANY, as the
above notes should have indicated to anyone actually reading them with
care!
Don't be an idiot I obviously meant German domestic supply. Germany
I'm sorry, when you referred to "they aren't looking to export oil" as
a reason why they don't need any infrastructure at all it seemed
obvious, well, obvious to anyone who a) had a clew and b) had read
what I said and c) had comprehended the nature of the problems raised,
that the only possible meaning of "not export" means *local*
consumption.

Strike three.
Post by Brett Dunbar
needs oil to supply itself. The Dutch British and American oil
industries produced far more than their economies consumed as they were
exporters.
And so did Romania. And, in 1000 BC or earlier the only way to move
the oil *from* pre/proto Romania is by EXPORTING it.

Which means the infrastructure you have wished away.
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
They all refer to ACTUAL EXISTING PROBLEMS that Germany had to face
(and proved incapable of solving) during the 1930's and 1940's.
While the Royal Navy had closed down the sea lanes and they were
fighting a major war against other industrialised powers. None of which
applies three thousand years ago. At that point all of the world's
combined military power is incapable of even mildly inconveniencing the
Germans.
Are you deliberately channelling Dishonest Al by not reading what was
actually written?

The existence, or lack thereof, of the RN 3000+ years ago is
IRRELEVANT to the problems raised.

The problems I pointed out were ACTUAL EXISTING PROBLEMS that Germany
had to face (and proved incapable of solving) during the 1930's and
1940's and none of those mentioned had anything at all to do with the
existence (or not) of the RN, or, for that matter, the Swiss Navy.

Strike four.

Oh.

Wait.

It's *three* strikes and you;re out, isn't it?
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
6) Al ignores the fact that Ploesti fields are not on a port. So,,
before you can do anything more than a cursory (and very preliminary)
search off the area, you have to build the port facilities to unload
the heavy equipment that you need for 2).
Then expand those facilities so you can unload the heavy equipment
needed for 3).
Then expand the facilities again to be able to unload the even heavier
equipment needed for 4).
And, of course, at each stage you need to import, unload and use the
equipment needed to build the road(s) and/or rail line(s) needed to
move 1)-4) (inclusive) to the Oil Fields.
7) While 6) implies being able to move the oil back from the fields to
the refinery and/or port facilities, it doesn't necessarily include
it, as not all of the needed facilities are dual use. So add time and
effort to ship, unload, transport and build the oil transport
facilities.
Use one of the other oil fields you know about that are easier to get
to. Ideally natural seepages of light sweet crude near the coast, as
that needs minimal transport, drilling or refining.
So you say.
Evidence?
My information is that your claims are wishful thinking.
Germany needs more than a couple of hundred barrels of crude oil per
day gathered by hand in barrels and loaded over a beach ... she needs
industrial quantities.
Oil seepages did actually exist, early wells were frequently dug in
Yes. So? I repeat, since you don't seem to have either a) read or b)
grasped what I wrote.

=====
Germany needs more than a couple of hundred barrels of crude oil per
day gathered by hand in barrels and loaded over a beach ... she needs
industrial quantities.
=====

I would, personally, have thought the clew was in the term "seepages",
which generally indicate just that ... similar seepages in CA yield a
few hundred barrels equivalent a day.

Germany needs THOUSANDS, indeed, probably TENS OF THOUSANDS of Bbl per
day.

They're not getting it by scraping it into barrels by hand from
*seepages*.
Post by Brett Dunbar
places where there were natural seepages, Hardstoft in Derbyshire for
example. You know for an absolute fact that there is oil there very
close to the surface. You can collect from the surface or you can
improve the flow by drilling a shallow well. I didn't claim that they
would be able to supply Germany fully by seepages just that there is
some oil available with minimal effort and virtually no exploration.
Minimal effort for minimal oil = worthless.

To get the *industrial* quantities Germany needs there needs to be
considerable infrastructure, as I noted and as your wishful thinking
fantasy world ignores.

Strike *five*.
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
Wishful fantasy thinking won't change this.
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
8) Another poster noted the Danube was navigable. Well, yes and no.
Mostly no for our purposes. It is navigable *to a point* and *now* ...
it wasn't necessarily navigable back then (a lot of canalisation and
other civil engineering work has been done to make it as navigable as
it is today) ... and, in any case, the Danube route merely brought the
oil *closer* to Germany.
At the end of the riverine route was an inadequate pipeline to pump
the oil hundreds of klicks back to the Reich.
Which, needless to say, doesn't exist. And to construct it through the
howling wilderness which is entirely lacking in anything resembling
supporting infrastructure, well, see 6).
Use sea transport, Germany has a lot of coal and some shipbuilding
capacity. It'll be easier to use the known oil fields on the coast.
See above.
Note that Germany did NOT have enough tankers to move PoL in the real
world and the need to build them ... well, it took about a year to
build a merchant ship in the 1930's.
Converting a freighter to act as a tanker could be done more quickly.
Germany doesn't have to worry about hostile powers.
And you have specific citable sources to show a) that this WAS done
and b) that it took less than a year?

Germany and Italy built almost no tankers in WW2 and, as far as I am
aware, converted exactly NO merchies INTO tankers.

They transported POL in tankers by putting them in 44 gallon drums and
loading the drums manually.

And *that* proved a piss poor and inadequate way of doing things that
couldn't even properly supply the DAK.

Let alone the whole German industrial economy.

Strike *six*
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
I never said Germany couldn't EVENTUALLY solve the above problems,
just that Dishonest Al's claims it could all be done in two years were
fantasy.
Insofar as you *seem* to be supporting rididulous timeframe, you are
completely wrong as well. For the many reasons indicated.
After a couple of years the short term crisis should be over.
No, after a couple of years there would be moves afoot that would
eventually solve the problem. The "crisis" would not be over in any
meaningful sense ... not that I believe that the "crisis" would ever
have been enough, for example, to cause more than severe rationing.
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
They use this thing called "iron" (and its subset, "steel") and
Germany didn't have enough.
They know where the existing easily accessible deposits are and there
are no real obstacles to taking whatever they want. A lot of stuff that
was either controlled by hostile powers or had simply been mined out
would be there.
Except the complete, total, utter lack of infrastructure to access,
mine and then transport said iron.
How much infrastructure is actually needed to dynamite rocks on the
coast and load the rubble onto ships?
Germany has the smelting facilities to process the ore, a high
explosives manufacturing capacity scaled to fight a major war and ships.
Iron ore is fairly plentiful
YYour handwaving is approaching Freckian proportions ... and you are
about to achieve Orbital Escape Velocity.

You have obviously been incapable of grasping what I said.

Where is this rubble and on what coast?

And where are the nearest (nonexistent, of course) ports and loading
facilities for this mythical rubble?

You really are clewless.

Strike *s*e*v*e*n*
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
I think you are seriously overestimating the difficulties. The likely
course of events would be a couple of difficult years, then world
empire.
No, I believe the problem is entirely in the ballpark of you not
reading what I said ... which was that Germany could do it in a period
of 10 years or more (likely more), but that it was impossible in
Dishonest Al's 2 year fantasyland scenario.
How long do *you* think it would take?
6 months?
2 Years?
10 Years?
Maybe two years to get over the initial crisis and dislocation. Clearing
land and getting more modern agriculture into effect sufficiently to
solve the food problems would take about that long. Once the
organisational issues are dealt with world conquest wouldn't be
difficult. The nazis started the second world war six years after
seizing power and that was against militaries far more capable than
anything that existed three thousand years ago.
Again, this is all insane hanwaving ... and you have simply achieved
solar system escape velocity through your own efforts.

Strike EIGHT.

Tell you what, if you ever DO develop a clew, we might have a
discussion ... but deliberately trolling as you must be (not even
*Freck* is THAT stupid) is a waste of space.

Phil
The Horny Goat
2013-04-24 06:44:16 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:00:53 +1000, Phil McGregor
Post by Phil McGregor
As usual, Dishonest Al is angling to replace Michael Douglas as the
CEO of Fantasyland.
In fairness Phil, anything relating to ISOT scenarios is by definition
a fantasy so really - the point is moot.

We are not talking something real like whether the German 1918
offensive could have reached the Channel or whether the German 1940
offensive could have been prevented from reaching the Channel so isn't
the whole idea of a ISOT scenario just a great lark?

I mean I thoroughly enjoyed The Guns of the South but any trace of
historical or allohistorical content is purely in one's imagination.
(I viewed it primarily as a mystery as to who AWB was and was pleased
I guessed correctly)
Phil McGregor
2013-04-24 08:09:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:00:53 +1000, Phil McGregor
Post by Phil McGregor
As usual, Dishonest Al is angling to replace Michael Douglas as the
CEO of Fantasyland.
In fairness Phil, anything relating to ISOT scenarios is by definition
a fantasy so really - the point is moot.
We are not talking something real like whether the German 1918
offensive could have reached the Channel or whether the German 1940
offensive could have been prevented from reaching the Channel so isn't
the whole idea of a ISOT scenario just a great lark?
I mean I thoroughly enjoyed The Guns of the South but any trace of
historical or allohistorical content is purely in one's imagination.
(I viewed it primarily as a mystery as to who AWB was and was pleased
I guessed correctly)
Well, in that case, the Germans would obviously be defeated by the
Olympian/Cretan Gods ... they'd summons a Thera level volcanic
eruption in Berlin and wipe the Nazis out, destroying the entire
German economy and causing megadeaths amongst those not instantly
incinerated by thunderbolts and the like.

Game Over.

I can play silly buggers, too.

The *POD* is fantasy, like many (if not most, or even all, are, if
you're realistic) of those posted on this forum.

However, that said, we (well, *some* of us ... and I include you in
that category, of course) like to take the POD and run with it.

This POD is that 1939 Germany is transported 3000+ years in the past.

We know a fair bit about the economy and infrastructure available to
the Germans in 1939, and the problems they faced and the limitations
they had to deal with in the real world.

We also know a fair bit (well, *I* do) about Europe BC, though I don't
often post about it, and the realities of conditions there.

Given the real world elements of both, you can have a reasonable guess
at what would happen if the single Fantasy Element (the POD) occurred.

Note: I am not saying the Germans would starve to death, nor am I
saying that their economy would collapse in a screaming heap. Neither
is likely. What the argument is is that, given the real world
constraints of 1939 Germany and 1000+ BC Earth, how long would it take
for Germany to, in a sense, "get back to normal" ... Dishonest Al
believes in magical handwaving, and within 2 years. So does the other
guy.

Al provides nothing but throwaway claims with no basis of support.
Dunbar is either incapable of reading what was written, knows less
than nothing about either 1939 Germany or 1000+ BC Earth, or is
trolling ... or is living in fantasyland.

What you are saying, I guess, is that he and Al are arguing about how
a NOT 1939 GERMANY with FANTASY abilities would operate in a NOT 1000
BC (or earlier) FANTASY EARTH.

Well, in that case, the Olympian Gods destroy Germany as I noted. Or
the Hittite Gods. Or maybe an alliance of the Hittite and Sumerian
Gods. Or perhaps the Gods of Mohenjo Daro.

In other words, if they want fantasy, I can respond that way myyself.

Otherwise, I prefer facts.

YMMV.

However, it seems increasingly obvious that Dunbar is trolling,
deliberately.

YMMV.

Phil
The Horny Goat
2013-04-24 18:06:18 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:09:55 +1000, Phil McGregor
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by The Horny Goat
I mean I thoroughly enjoyed The Guns of the South but any trace of
historical or allohistorical content is purely in one's imagination.
(I viewed it primarily as a mystery as to who AWB was and was pleased
I guessed correctly)
Well, in that case, the Germans would obviously be defeated by the
Olympian/Cretan Gods ... they'd summons a Thera level volcanic
eruption in Berlin and wipe the Nazis out, destroying the entire
German economy and causing megadeaths amongst those not instantly
incinerated by thunderbolts and the like.
Game Over.
I can play silly buggers, too.
Yup - I remember the Superman comic where they conscripted Superman,
sent him to Italy in 1944, told him to "take that hill" so he flew
over, physically removed the hill with several hundred Germans in
stunned disbelief, flew back to his commanding general and said "where
would you like it?"

This being the comics they somehow forgot to send him to Berlin or
Tokyo.
Post by Phil McGregor
The *POD* is fantasy, like many (if not most, or even all, are, if
you're realistic) of those posted on this forum.
However, that said, we (well, *some* of us ... and I include you in
that category, of course) like to take the POD and run with it.
This POD is that 1939 Germany is transported 3000+ years in the past.
Admittedly a silly fantasy but whatever. My taste in PODs tends to run
to "What if Gustav Stresemann had lived into the mid-1950s?" which is
certainly possible as he was 6 years younger than Conrad Adenauer who
lived into the 1960s and died in his 90s. Based on what I've read
about Stresemann 's lifestyle I'd have betted against him living into
his 90s (short version: he liked the same things Churchill did) but
75-80 does not require ASB's.
Post by Phil McGregor
We know a fair bit about the economy and infrastructure available to
the Germans in 1939, and the problems they faced and the limitations
they had to deal with in the real world.
We also know a fair bit (well, *I* do) about Europe BC, though I don't
often post about it, and the realities of conditions there.
Given the real world elements of both, you can have a reasonable guess
at what would happen if the single Fantasy Element (the POD) occurred.
Note: I am not saying the Germans would starve to death, nor am I
saying that their economy would collapse in a screaming heap. Neither
is likely. What the argument is is that, given the real world
constraints of 1939 Germany and 1000+ BC Earth, how long would it take
for Germany to, in a sense, "get back to normal" ... Dishonest Al
believes in magical handwaving, and within 2 years. So does the other
guy.
Al provides nothing but throwaway claims with no basis of support.
Dunbar is either incapable of reading what was written, knows less
than nothing about either 1939 Germany or 1000+ BC Earth, or is
trolling ... or is living in fantasyland.
Logistically I would guess that 1939 Germany would do better in 1000BC
than 2009 Germany and less well than 1914 Germany. Not that I think
the fleets in any of these scenarios does well. I don't see coal or
oil production ramping up nearly fast enough to outdo the corrosion of
the ships in salt water and make no mistake about it it's a race
against time. No question the Wehrmacht's horses would play a crucial
role in the post-ISOT German economy and most especially the horse
breeders. That's one area where 20th century Europeans would have a
crucial edge on their forebears.
Post by Phil McGregor
What you are saying, I guess, is that he and Al are arguing about how
a NOT 1939 GERMANY with FANTASY abilities would operate in a NOT 1000
BC (or earlier) FANTASY EARTH.
Well, in that case, the Olympian Gods destroy Germany as I noted. Or
the Hittite Gods. Or maybe an alliance of the Hittite and Sumerian
Gods. Or perhaps the Gods of Mohenjo Daro.
In other words, if they want fantasy, I can respond that way myyself.
Otherwise, I prefer facts.
YMMV.
However, it seems increasingly obvious that Dunbar is trolling,
deliberately.
I'm not completely convinced on that but you may well be right.
SolomonW
2013-04-24 09:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:08:05 +0100, Brett Dunbar
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:28:30 +0100, Brett Dunbar
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:46:23 -0700 (PDT), Alfred Montestruc
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Exactly. No Royal Navy, no any other navy that could do more than
mildly annoy a German freighter with well stocked small arms locker.
he Germans have plenty of coal and still had a fair number of coal
fired ships. They look in the libraries and find the locations of
omanian oil fields and load ships up with oil drilling equipment and
rail-road building equipment and enough troops and ammo to run off he
bronze age peoples who have the stones to get in the way. Next
shipload gets oil refining equipment and more railroad building
supplies. n the mean time you start a railroad from the nearest
transported German line toward Romanian oil fields and plan a meeting
in the middle uch as the USA was building rail roads from both the
east and west coast at the same time with less technology and a much
longer distance. suspect they could finish in two years or less and
have oil tankers sailing back to Germany before that.
As usual, Dishonest Al is angling to replace Michael Douglas as the
CEO of Fantasyland.
OIL
===
1) Knowing the general location of the oil *fields* in Romania is NOT
the same as knowing where to drill the actual production wells. It
will speed up the search, that's all.
They know exactly where the actual wells were drilled so they don't need
to explore for some of this as they already know where to drill. There
were at the time a few natural seepages on some oil fields. Romania
might not in fact be the best choice. There were a number of fields that
were exploited in the middle ages.
This is interesting.
If true.
Do you have an actual source that can be checked to show that the
Germans had maps that showed where each individual wellhead was, as
opposed to the general location of the oilfields?
Some of it is going to be on standard maps, in the same way that any
large structure is marked on a map. I'm not sure how detailed Romanian
maps were however unless there are specific security concerns the wells
are going to be marked in routine local maps. There were a number of
operating on shore oil wells in Britain Hardstoft for example, the
Ordnance Survey maps would give the exact position of those wells.
In other words, the Nazis do NOT have exact locations for each
wellhead.
Strike one.
I can see where you are getting at and anyone who has an interest in
archaeology is aware of these problems.

Do they need exact locations for each of them initially?

Our Germans here would have a fairly good idea where the wells are, their
geologist could take it from there. I am sure after a few exploratory
holes, they would find oil wells. It would not take long.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
And do you have independent evidence to show that the local landforms
that were used to register the locations of those individual wellheads
will still be recoggnizable 3000+ years in the past?
Some things will be, burial mounds and other archaeology the exact
position of mountains and other things that are pretty certain to still
be in the same place. Germany has perfectly adequate
In other words, you have NO evidence that the landforms will be
similar enough (or not covered in literally trackless forest) to
enable the vague and general maps available to the Germans to be worth
much at all.
Strike two.
as above
Post by Phil McGregor
Knowing the general location of an oilfield is NOT the same as knowing
where the actual wellheads were ... even in a productive field, some
wells drilled will be a bust.
Some being bust is a fact of life in oil wells.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
2) Germany did not have a massive oil exploration sector. No one,
pretty much, outside of the USA, UK and Dutch did. Exploring for all
those well sites would be a nontrivial task that would take *YEARS*,
if not DECADES.
3) The Germans didn't have a huge oil well drilling sector. No one,
pretty much, outside of the USA, UK and Dutch did. Exploring for all
those well sites would be a nontrivial task that would take *YEARS*,
if not DECADES.
4) The Germans didn't have a huge oil refinery sector, nor a huge oil
refinery manufacturing sector. No one, pretty much, outside of the
USA, UK and Dutch did. Exploring for all those well sites would be a
nontrivial task that would take *YEARS*, if not DECADES.
5) Pursuant to 2) and 3) and 4), these things could be worked on at
the same time, but, still, we're talking DECADES.
They had some capacity, they aren't looking to export oil they are
looking to supply domestic consumption. They aren't going to need to
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of a huge local demand for oil in
proto-Romania in 1000 BC.
Do you have evidence of this?
Otherwise, sadly, the oil *is* being exported - to GERMANY, as the
above notes should have indicated to anyone actually reading them with
care!
Don't be an idiot I obviously meant German domestic supply. Germany
I'm sorry, when you referred to "they aren't looking to export oil" as
a reason why they don't need any infrastructure at all it seemed
obvious, well, obvious to anyone who a) had a clew and b) had read
what I said and c) had comprehended the nature of the problems raised,
that the only possible meaning of "not export" means *local*
consumption.
Strike three.
Post by Brett Dunbar
needs oil to supply itself. The Dutch British and American oil
industries produced far more than their economies consumed as they were
exporters.
And so did Romania. And, in 1000 BC or earlier the only way to move
the oil *from* pre/proto Romania is by EXPORTING it.
Which means the infrastructure you have wished away.
Yes

Germany would be a big oil importing market.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
They all refer to ACTUAL EXISTING PROBLEMS that Germany had to face
(and proved incapable of solving) during the 1930's and 1940's.
While the Royal Navy had closed down the sea lanes and they were
fighting a major war against other industrialised powers. None of which
applies three thousand years ago. At that point all of the world's
combined military power is incapable of even mildly inconveniencing the
Germans.
Are you deliberately channelling Dishonest Al by not reading what was
actually written?
The existence, or lack thereof, of the RN 3000+ years ago is
IRRELEVANT to the problems raised.
The problems I pointed out were ACTUAL EXISTING PROBLEMS that Germany
had to face (and proved incapable of solving) during the 1930's and
1940's and none of those mentioned had anything at all to do with the
existence (or not) of the RN, or, for that matter, the Swiss Navy.
Strike four.
Oh.
Wait.
It's *three* strikes and you;re out, isn't it?
Most of the German merchant fleet would not be in Germany, so I suppose in
this POD it is lost. However, there would be many merchant ships in the
German ports. Many of these would be used.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
6) Al ignores the fact that Ploesti fields are not on a port. So,,
before you can do anything more than a cursory (and very preliminary)
search off the area, you have to build the port facilities to unload
the heavy equipment that you need for 2).
Then expand those facilities so you can unload the heavy equipment
needed for 3).
Then expand the facilities again to be able to unload the even heavier
equipment needed for 4).
And, of course, at each stage you need to import, unload and use the
equipment needed to build the road(s) and/or rail line(s) needed to
move 1)-4) (inclusive) to the Oil Fields.
7) While 6) implies being able to move the oil back from the fields to
the refinery and/or port facilities, it doesn't necessarily include
it, as not all of the needed facilities are dual use. So add time and
effort to ship, unload, transport and build the oil transport
facilities.
Use one of the other oil fields you know about that are easier to get
to. Ideally natural seepages of light sweet crude near the coast, as
that needs minimal transport, drilling or refining.
So you say.
Evidence?
My information is that your claims are wishful thinking.
Germany needs more than a couple of hundred barrels of crude oil per
day gathered by hand in barrels and loaded over a beach ... she needs
industrial quantities.
Oil seepages did actually exist, early wells were frequently dug in
Yes. So? I repeat, since you don't seem to have either a) read or b)
grasped what I wrote.
=====
Germany needs more than a couple of hundred barrels of crude oil per
day gathered by hand in barrels and loaded over a beach ... she needs
industrial quantities.
=====
What Germany has is coal, those ships that used oil would need to be
converted to coal. However, many of the ships of this time were coal. In
this period for the short term what she absolutely needed in oil would have
to come from coal.

<snip - I do not want to get into this personal mud slinging>
Phil McGregor
2013-04-24 13:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Phil McGregor
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:08:05 +0100, Brett Dunbar
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:28:30 +0100, Brett Dunbar
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:46:23 -0700 (PDT), Alfred Montestruc
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Exactly. No Royal Navy, no any other navy that could do more than
mildly annoy a German freighter with well stocked small arms locker.
he Germans have plenty of coal and still had a fair number of coal
fired ships. They look in the libraries and find the locations of
omanian oil fields and load ships up with oil drilling equipment and
rail-road building equipment and enough troops and ammo to run off he
bronze age peoples who have the stones to get in the way. Next
shipload gets oil refining equipment and more railroad building
supplies. n the mean time you start a railroad from the nearest
transported German line toward Romanian oil fields and plan a meeting
in the middle uch as the USA was building rail roads from both the
east and west coast at the same time with less technology and a much
longer distance. suspect they could finish in two years or less and
have oil tankers sailing back to Germany before that.
As usual, Dishonest Al is angling to replace Michael Douglas as the
CEO of Fantasyland.
OIL
===
1) Knowing the general location of the oil *fields* in Romania is NOT
the same as knowing where to drill the actual production wells. It
will speed up the search, that's all.
They know exactly where the actual wells were drilled so they don't need
to explore for some of this as they already know where to drill. There
were at the time a few natural seepages on some oil fields. Romania
might not in fact be the best choice. There were a number of fields that
were exploited in the middle ages.
This is interesting.
If true.
Do you have an actual source that can be checked to show that the
Germans had maps that showed where each individual wellhead was, as
opposed to the general location of the oilfields?
Some of it is going to be on standard maps, in the same way that any
large structure is marked on a map. I'm not sure how detailed Romanian
maps were however unless there are specific security concerns the wells
are going to be marked in routine local maps. There were a number of
operating on shore oil wells in Britain Hardstoft for example, the
Ordnance Survey maps would give the exact position of those wells.
In other words, the Nazis do NOT have exact locations for each
wellhead.
Strike one.
I can see where you are getting at and anyone who has an interest in
archaeology is aware of these problems.
Especially given the state of Archaeology in Eastern Europe in the
1930's and earlier. It's not exactly state of the art and up to date
even today.
Post by SolomonW
Do they need exact locations for each of them initially?
The Germans didn't drill oilfields. They had limited (probably none at
all) ability to search for them.

Searching for oil deposits requires some pretty specialised skills.
The countries who had those skills, in spades, in the period were the
US and UK/Commonwealth.

While there are clues as to where to drill (the oil seeps mentioned),
and these would give some locations that would be productive, most of
the oil would be deeper and have no real surface indications.

Even in known oil fields there is a significant chance of drilling a
dry well ... especially given the technology for determining
underground formations as it existed back in the 1930s (and which
Germany had none of).

Now, if you know *exactly* where the wellheads are, then its easy to
drill a productive well if the aforementioned wellheads are destroyed
(or, in this case, no longer exist and never existed).

If you *don't* know where they are/were, then you're drilling not
quite blind.

Now, given that Germany had limited (close to none) drilling capacity
(the oilfields inside Germany were already in existence and Germany
wasn't a major oil exploring nation) ... and the "Technical Oil
Brigade" that was deployed in the Caucasus was unable to get any wells
back into significant production while they were there in 1941/42 and
drilled, insofar as they did, only on the locations of destroyed
wellheads, then we can reasonably extrapolate that the lack of exact
knowledge will mean that whatever limited capacity they initially
have, and slowly develop, will be working with a huge chance that
their efforts will be a complete bust as often as not.

This is what Clausewitz would probably call "friction" ... things that
don't go perfectly and/or as expected ... and would slow down any
efforts to get the fields into production significantly.
Post by SolomonW
Our Germans here would have a fairly good idea where the wells are, their
geologist could take it from there. I am sure after a few exploratory
holes, they would find oil wells. It would not take long.
See above.

They would find wells *eventually*, using the initially limited or
nonexistent exploration and wildcatting facilities that would have to
be developed pretty much from scratch. None of the equipment for which
is actually available "off the shelf" as the Germans had no need for
it (and they certainly didn't manage to do it in preparation for
Barbarossa, as the abysmal failure of the Technical Oil Brigade shows
... and this is before they even knew they might need it for *that*).

Then they have to transport all this exploration equipment to
nonexistent ports, unload it with nonexistent cargo handling equipment
(and this isn't light stuff that can be easily unloaded over a beach
from rowboats ... as they planned to do for Sealion, and which
everyone involved, except Hitler, knew would be a disaste ... then
move it along nonexistent roads or rail lines to the exploration
sites. Then they have to drill scores, probably hundreds, of
exploratory wells, a significant number of which will be duds ...

Then, of course, they have to transport in all of the needed
production pumps, pipeline etc. through the selfsame nonexistent ports
over the selfsame nonexistent roads etc etc

And then they have to move the crude oil back to the nonexistent ports
over the same nonexistent roads or railines or through nonexistent
pipelines to be loaded onto nonexistent tankers with nonexistent cargo
handling equipment at nonexistent ports.

None of this is impossible ... but it's not going to be done in two
years. It will be gradually done, and, the magnitude of the
infrastructure requirements, I'd seriously doubt that they'd be able
to get more than a modest trickle out of Romania in less than ten
years, and probably a lot more.
Post by SolomonW
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
And do you have independent evidence to show that the local landforms
that were used to register the locations of those individual wellheads
will still be recoggnizable 3000+ years in the past?
Some things will be, burial mounds and other archaeology the exact
position of mountains and other things that are pretty certain to still
be in the same place. Germany has perfectly adequate
In other words, you have NO evidence that the landforms will be
similar enough (or not covered in literally trackless forest) to
enable the vague and general maps available to the Germans to be worth
much at all.
Strike two.
as above
See the immediately below paragraph, and refer to explanation above.
Post by SolomonW
Post by Phil McGregor
Knowing the general location of an oilfield is NOT the same as knowing
where the actual wellheads were ... even in a productive field, some
wells drilled will be a bust.
Some being bust is a fact of life in oil wells.
Which is why, given the lack of exploratory capacity and related
problems, knowing exactly where the wellheads were is a vital time
saver. As noted above.
Post by SolomonW
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
2) Germany did not have a massive oil exploration sector. No one,
pretty much, outside of the USA, UK and Dutch did. Exploring for all
those well sites would be a nontrivial task that would take *YEARS*,
if not DECADES.
3) The Germans didn't have a huge oil well drilling sector. No one,
pretty much, outside of the USA, UK and Dutch did. Exploring for all
those well sites would be a nontrivial task that would take *YEARS*,
if not DECADES.
4) The Germans didn't have a huge oil refinery sector, nor a huge oil
refinery manufacturing sector. No one, pretty much, outside of the
USA, UK and Dutch did. Exploring for all those well sites would be a
nontrivial task that would take *YEARS*, if not DECADES.
5) Pursuant to 2) and 3) and 4), these things could be worked on at
the same time, but, still, we're talking DECADES.
They had some capacity, they aren't looking to export oil they are
looking to supply domestic consumption. They aren't going to need to
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of a huge local demand for oil in
proto-Romania in 1000 BC.
Do you have evidence of this?
Otherwise, sadly, the oil *is* being exported - to GERMANY, as the
above notes should have indicated to anyone actually reading them with
care!
Don't be an idiot I obviously meant German domestic supply. Germany
I'm sorry, when you referred to "they aren't looking to export oil" as
a reason why they don't need any infrastructure at all it seemed
obvious, well, obvious to anyone who a) had a clew and b) had read
what I said and c) had comprehended the nature of the problems raised,
that the only possible meaning of "not export" means *local*
consumption.
Strike three.
Post by Brett Dunbar
needs oil to supply itself. The Dutch British and American oil
industries produced far more than their economies consumed as they were
exporters.
And so did Romania. And, in 1000 BC or earlier the only way to move
the oil *from* pre/proto Romania is by EXPORTING it.
Which means the infrastructure you have wished away.
Yes
Germany would be a big oil importing market.
Indeed, and requires massive infrastructure construction before it can
get more than purely token amounts of oil from Romania of 1000+ BC.
Post by SolomonW
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
They all refer to ACTUAL EXISTING PROBLEMS that Germany had to face
(and proved incapable of solving) during the 1930's and 1940's.
While the Royal Navy had closed down the sea lanes and they were
fighting a major war against other industrialised powers. None of which
applies three thousand years ago. At that point all of the world's
combined military power is incapable of even mildly inconveniencing the
Germans.
Are you deliberately channelling Dishonest Al by not reading what was
actually written?
The existence, or lack thereof, of the RN 3000+ years ago is
IRRELEVANT to the problems raised.
The problems I pointed out were ACTUAL EXISTING PROBLEMS that Germany
had to face (and proved incapable of solving) during the 1930's and
1940's and none of those mentioned had anything at all to do with the
existence (or not) of the RN, or, for that matter, the Swiss Navy.
Strike four.
Oh.
Wait.
It's *three* strikes and you;re out, isn't it?
Most of the German merchant fleet would not be in Germany, so I suppose in
this POD it is lost. However, there would be many merchant ships in the
German ports. Many of these would be used.
Again, transporting oil in 44 gallon drums is *not* a viable option
... as the Germans proved in their attempts to supply the DAK and
their forces in Russia by this method showed (they could only move a
relative trickle) and as the Japanese proved in their desperate
attempts to move crude from the DEI back to the Home Islands by the
same method.

Which means you need Tankers. Merchantmen in the 1930s and 1940s took
around 12 months to construct.

And Germany had limited slipways (even if they discard all of the
warships under construction, they will be slow at doing this) ... the
Germans were never able to do what Mr Kaiser did with Liberty/Victory
ships.

Again, not impossible ... but not possible within a 2 year timeframe,
especially given the loss of all iron ore imports (most of Germany's
iron ore at the time came from those imports ... and even with
diversion of steel from German sources from military contracts there
will be a delay as the workforce needs to be retrained and industry
reorganised to produce many many many merchantmen) ... so, again, not
within two years. A decade or more.
Post by SolomonW
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
6) Al ignores the fact that Ploesti fields are not on a port. So,,
before you can do anything more than a cursory (and very preliminary)
search off the area, you have to build the port facilities to unload
the heavy equipment that you need for 2).
Then expand those facilities so you can unload the heavy equipment
needed for 3).
Then expand the facilities again to be able to unload the even heavier
equipment needed for 4).
And, of course, at each stage you need to import, unload and use the
equipment needed to build the road(s) and/or rail line(s) needed to
move 1)-4) (inclusive) to the Oil Fields.
7) While 6) implies being able to move the oil back from the fields to
the refinery and/or port facilities, it doesn't necessarily include
it, as not all of the needed facilities are dual use. So add time and
effort to ship, unload, transport and build the oil transport
facilities.
Use one of the other oil fields you know about that are easier to get
to. Ideally natural seepages of light sweet crude near the coast, as
that needs minimal transport, drilling or refining.
So you say.
Evidence?
My information is that your claims are wishful thinking.
Germany needs more than a couple of hundred barrels of crude oil per
day gathered by hand in barrels and loaded over a beach ... she needs
industrial quantities.
Oil seepages did actually exist, early wells were frequently dug in
Yes. So? I repeat, since you don't seem to have either a) read or b)
grasped what I wrote.
=====
Germany needs more than a couple of hundred barrels of crude oil per
day gathered by hand in barrels and loaded over a beach ... she needs
industrial quantities.
=====
What Germany has is coal, those ships that used oil would need to be
converted to coal. However, many of the ships of this time were coal. In
this period for the short term what she absolutely needed in oil would have
to come from coal.
You can't run diesels on coal. That's what you need the Coal
Gasification plants for ... and, preferably, the oil from Romania and
elsewhere.
Post by SolomonW
<snip - I do not want to get into this personal mud slinging>
I just don't play well with idiots ... and you're not one.

You've raised reasonable points, so why would we?

Phil
The Horny Goat
2013-04-24 18:17:49 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:08:35 +1000, Phil McGregor
Post by Phil McGregor
Again, not impossible ... but not possible within a 2 year timeframe,
especially given the loss of all iron ore imports (most of Germany's
iron ore at the time came from those imports ... and even with
diversion of steel from German sources from military contracts there
will be a delay as the workforce needs to be retrained and industry
reorganised to produce many many many merchantmen) ... so, again, not
within two years. A decade or more.
Surely you recall why Germany was interested in acquiring Alsace and
Lorraine in the first place - and why Germany in 1916-17 was hoping to
gain additional territory west of Alsace?

Or why the primary point of the European Coal and Steel Community
(which led directly to the Treaty of Rome establishing the EEC) was
combining the coal of western German and the iron ore of eastern
France into a common bloc?

In a ISOT world the Germans do not of course have to negotiate with
the proto-Franks and it's not that long distance an import.
Phil McGregor
2013-04-25 00:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:08:35 +1000, Phil McGregor
Post by Phil McGregor
Again, not impossible ... but not possible within a 2 year timeframe,
especially given the loss of all iron ore imports (most of Germany's
iron ore at the time came from those imports ... and even with
diversion of steel from German sources from military contracts there
will be a delay as the workforce needs to be retrained and industry
reorganised to produce many many many merchantmen) ... so, again, not
within two years. A decade or more.
Surely you recall why Germany was interested in acquiring Alsace and
Lorraine in the first place - and why Germany in 1916-17 was hoping to
gain additional territory west of Alsace?
Or why the primary point of the European Coal and Steel Community
(which led directly to the Treaty of Rome establishing the EEC) was
combining the coal of western German and the iron ore of eastern
France into a common bloc?
In a ISOT world the Germans do not of course have to negotiate with
the proto-Franks and it's not that long distance an import.
Yes, but the Mines still have to be dug and the transport
infrastructure put in place.

My point, perhaps not well made, is that, under the conditions
proposed, Germany's recovery depends on not just *one* thing ...
developing the oilfields in Romania, for example, or the iron ore
mines in Alsace-Lorraine, but in a whole lot of things.

All of which are inter-related and of varying degrees of difficulty
and for which the German economy and industrial and transport
infrastructure within Germany's 1939 borders are *not* optimally set
up to do.

None of it's *impossible*, as I have repeatedly said, it'll just take
a hell of a lot more than 2 years. Most likely decades.

Phil
Dimensional Traveler
2013-04-25 04:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:08:35 +1000, Phil McGregor
Post by Phil McGregor
Again, not impossible ... but not possible within a 2 year timeframe,
especially given the loss of all iron ore imports (most of Germany's
iron ore at the time came from those imports ... and even with
diversion of steel from German sources from military contracts there
will be a delay as the workforce needs to be retrained and industry
reorganised to produce many many many merchantmen) ... so, again, not
within two years. A decade or more.
Surely you recall why Germany was interested in acquiring Alsace and
Lorraine in the first place - and why Germany in 1916-17 was hoping to
gain additional territory west of Alsace?
Or why the primary point of the European Coal and Steel Community
(which led directly to the Treaty of Rome establishing the EEC) was
combining the coal of western German and the iron ore of eastern
France into a common bloc?
In a ISOT world the Germans do not of course have to negotiate with
the proto-Franks and it's not that long distance an import.
Yes, but the Mines still have to be dug and the transport
infrastructure put in place.
My point, perhaps not well made, is that, under the conditions
proposed, Germany's recovery depends on not just *one* thing ...
developing the oilfields in Romania, for example, or the iron ore
mines in Alsace-Lorraine, but in a whole lot of things.
All of which are inter-related and of varying degrees of difficulty
and for which the German economy and industrial and transport
infrastructure within Germany's 1939 borders are *not* optimally set
up to do.
None of it's *impossible*, as I have repeatedly said, it'll just take
a hell of a lot more than 2 years. Most likely decades.
There would be some production within two years and it would increase
over time, but decades? What level of development are you talking about
that would take decades?
--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate
wouldn't tolerate.
Phil McGregor
2013-04-25 09:32:41 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:08:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:08:35 +1000, Phil McGregor
Post by Phil McGregor
Again, not impossible ... but not possible within a 2 year timeframe,
especially given the loss of all iron ore imports (most of Germany's
iron ore at the time came from those imports ... and even with
diversion of steel from German sources from military contracts there
will be a delay as the workforce needs to be retrained and industry
reorganised to produce many many many merchantmen) ... so, again, not
within two years. A decade or more.
Surely you recall why Germany was interested in acquiring Alsace and
Lorraine in the first place - and why Germany in 1916-17 was hoping to
gain additional territory west of Alsace?
Or why the primary point of the European Coal and Steel Community
(which led directly to the Treaty of Rome establishing the EEC) was
combining the coal of western German and the iron ore of eastern
France into a common bloc?
In a ISOT world the Germans do not of course have to negotiate with
the proto-Franks and it's not that long distance an import.
Yes, but the Mines still have to be dug and the transport
infrastructure put in place.
My point, perhaps not well made, is that, under the conditions
proposed, Germany's recovery depends on not just *one* thing ...
developing the oilfields in Romania, for example, or the iron ore
mines in Alsace-Lorraine, but in a whole lot of things.
All of which are inter-related and of varying degrees of difficulty
and for which the German economy and industrial and transport
infrastructure within Germany's 1939 borders are *not* optimally set
up to do.
None of it's *impossible*, as I have repeatedly said, it'll just take
a hell of a lot more than 2 years. Most likely decades.
There would be some production within two years and it would increase
over time, but decades? What level of development are you talking about
that would take decades?
Indeed, but a fair chunk of things being done can't be done until
other things are done first, and, as often, those things require still
other things to be done first. So there are built in delays all along
the way.

As for the level of development. Well, to something resembling
"normal" ... full production of all of Germany's civilian and military
needs and wants.

As I have said all along, Germany is unlikely to starve (though, if
the SOT transfers her immediately before the next planting season, but
into late autumn or even winter, then there *will* be some starvation)
en masse ... she's *almost* self-sufficient.

Likewise, she won't do so in the dark. She has enough good coal and
hydro power to ensure the electrical grid continues to operate.

And she won't starve because she can't move food around, if there's
any to move, because the railways are mostly run on coal or
electricity, of which she has plenty. And her synthetic oil industry
means that there'll be a need for rationing for motor vehicles, as
much for the rubber shortage as anything else (yes, they can produce
synthetic rubber, but preferred to import it before 1939 and would
need time to ramp up production).

But there will be the loss off ALL imports. And the economic
disruption caused by this coupled with the loss off ALL export markets
worth spit (Bronze age savages don't count).

The economic disruption will take decades to overcome and get things
back to "normal", or what the Fascists all around the world in the
1930s referred to as "autarky" (or something close to it).

Since they're never going to starve in the dark as the DPRK *would*,
then I cannot see what else one could be discussing.

YMMV,

Phil
Rich Rostrom
2013-04-25 16:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
The economic disruption will take decades to overcome and get things
back to "normal", or what the Fascists all around the world in the
1930s referred to as "autarky" (or something close to it).
Germany would be immediately forced to a condition
of autarky.

However, Germany would also gain essentially free
access to resources that OTL were costly imports.

The disruption caused by the loss of all imports
and exports would be tremendous, but... The
obvious response would be to transfer the labor
from now surplus areas to all the "emergency"
work needed to adapt to the new situation.

For instance:

- Construction of new railroads into the virgin
cross-border areas.

- Conversion of ships to coal-burning, conversion
of coal-burning ships to new functions.

- Conversion of cross-border wilderness areas to
agriculture.

Germany has the advantage of an extremely skilled
and disciplined workforce. True, the top executive
includes some thoroughly corrupt and lazy men, and
an incompetent chief executive, but as OTL showed,
even the Nazis couldn't squander all of Germany's
intrinsic strength.

The grand adjustments would happen fairly quickly.

Within six months, everybody would have some kind
job, and within two years, the benefits of the
new situation would be coming in.

Bear in mind that only a few years earlier, Germany
was neck deep in the Depression, with 25% or so
unemployment. It's not as though Germans can't deal
with hardship, especially since it will be temporary.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Bradipus
2013-04-25 18:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Bear in mind that only a few years earlier, Germany
was neck deep in the Depression, with 25% or so
unemployment. It's not as though Germans can't deal
with hardship, especially since it will be temporary.
And they don't have to pay international debts...
--
o o
r***@darkstar.arc.nasa.gov
2013-04-25 19:53:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Germany has the advantage of an extremely skilled
and disciplined workforce. True, the top executive
includes some thoroughly corrupt and lazy men, and
an incompetent chief executive, but as OTL showed,
even the Nazis couldn't squander all of Germany's
intrinsic strength.
A question in a different direction: would all of this cause Hitler to
give up on his plans for the Jews, even temporarily? If not, how much
of a monkey wrench does that throw into the necessary adjustments?
--
Kathy Rages
Dimensional Traveler
2013-04-26 02:15:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@darkstar.arc.nasa.gov
Post by Rich Rostrom
Germany has the advantage of an extremely skilled
and disciplined workforce. True, the top executive
includes some thoroughly corrupt and lazy men, and
an incompetent chief executive, but as OTL showed,
even the Nazis couldn't squander all of Germany's
intrinsic strength.
A question in a different direction: would all of this cause Hitler to
give up on his plans for the Jews, even temporarily? If not, how much
of a monkey wrench does that throw into the necessary adjustments?
Personally my guess is that any Jews who don't walk into the wilderness
are dead with a year or two. No international community to require the
Nazis to be subtle about their actions anymore. Add in a little "the
Jews are taking the food from your children's mouths!" and....
--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate
wouldn't tolerate.
Phil McGregor
2013-04-26 03:04:19 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:15:45 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by r***@darkstar.arc.nasa.gov
Post by Rich Rostrom
Germany has the advantage of an extremely skilled
and disciplined workforce. True, the top executive
includes some thoroughly corrupt and lazy men, and
an incompetent chief executive, but as OTL showed,
even the Nazis couldn't squander all of Germany's
intrinsic strength.
A question in a different direction: would all of this cause Hitler to
give up on his plans for the Jews, even temporarily? If not, how much
of a monkey wrench does that throw into the necessary adjustments?
Personally my guess is that any Jews who don't walk into the wilderness
are dead with a year or two. No international community to require the
Nazis to be subtle about their actions anymore. Add in a little "the
Jews are taking the food from your children's mouths!" and....
Yeah, I'd say that's a very likely outcome ... but possibly not as bad
as you might think.

For a start, Submarines probably survive, as do mischlings and those
with non-Jewish spouses ... as was historically the case, even after
the Wannsee Conference plans were implemented.

And the Wannsee conference and the "Final Solution" were brought
about, remember, because of all the *additional* Jews that existed in
Poland and Russia (and, to an extent, Western Europe ... some of whom
in this case had already fled Germany/Austria once already) ... so the
pressure for a *deliberate* mass *industrial* level "solution" will be
less pressing, and probably won't occur.

There'll just be institutionalised anti-semitism and the occasional
pogrom to do the job more gradually.

Phil
Invid Fan
2013-04-26 03:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Getting this away from Nazi's for a moment, how about the nation of
Israel circa 1966 finds itself back around 40 BCE. The 1967 war hasn't
happened yet, so they find themselves next to a Jerusalem with a
functioning second Temple, and a rather surprised King Antigonus trying
to fight off Herod and the Romans.

Thoughts?
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
Phil McGregor
2013-04-26 03:28:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Invid Fan
Getting this away from Nazi's for a moment, how about the nation of
Israel circa 1966 finds itself back around 40 BCE. The 1967 war hasn't
happened yet, so they find themselves next to a Jerusalem with a
functioning second Temple, and a rather surprised King Antigonus trying
to fight off Herod and the Romans.
Thoughts?
Well, Judaism in the 1st Century AD was a proselytising religion and
was being taken up by significant numbers of the intelligentsia in
Rome, for example ... it's only after the Jewish Revolt, reinforced by
the 2nd and 3rd Jewish revolts, that this internationalising trend is
stopped dead in its tracks, reversed, and Judaism made a pariah
religion.

With Israel/SOT, well, even if they don't want to conquer Rome
outright, the prestige of Judaism very possibly means that *it*
becomes the major religion of the Roman Empire (or successor) and that
Christianity may not really get a look in (even though, yes, I know,
there are some Christians in Israel ... and some Muslims, too).

I'd also suggest that there's exactly *zip* chance of Islam becoming
the major religion of the Arabian peninsula (or anywhere else,
either).

Both Christianity and Islam would remain minor Jewish heresies in all
likelihood.

Phil
Alex Milman
2013-04-26 16:22:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Invid Fan
Getting this away from Nazi's for a moment, how about the nation of
Israel circa 1966 finds itself back around 40 BCE. The 1967 war hasn't
happened yet, so they find themselves next to a Jerusalem with a
functioning second Temple, and a rather surprised King Antigonus trying
to fight off Herod and the Romans.
Thoughts?
Well, Judaism in the 1st Century AD was a proselytising religion and
was being taken up by significant numbers of the intelligentsia in
Rome, for example ... it's only after the Jewish Revolt, reinforced by
the 2nd and 3rd Jewish revolts, that this internationalising trend is
stopped dead in its tracks, reversed, and Judaism made a pariah
religion.
With Israel/SOT, well, even if they don't want to conquer Rome
outright, the prestige of Judaism very possibly means that *it*
becomes the major religion of the Roman Empire (or successor) and that
Christianity may not really get a look in (even though, yes, I know,
there are some Christians in Israel ... and some Muslims, too).
I'd also suggest that there's exactly *zip* chance of Islam becoming
the major religion of the Arabian peninsula (or anywhere else,
either).
Both Christianity and Islam would remain minor Jewish heresies in all
likelihood.
What would be Roman reaction to such an appearance? Besides strictly
religious issues, there would be strictly practical ones: sudden
change of a regional situation due to appearance of the state which is
(most probably) not going to consider itself anybody's vassal not to
mention a direct Roman occupation. So, unless the Roman Empire
suddenly changes to something totally different, there is a war
coming. Most obviously, whatever Romans troops are sent, they are
crushed by the modern army. The obvious question is: was Israel of
1966 self-sustainable in the terms of ammunition, fuel and the raw
materials? Their own weaponry production would be most probably
adequate for the task of annihilating people armed with the spears and
swords but they needed materials out of which this weaponry can be
produced and, AFAIK, there are not too much of those in the region.
With the fuel, situation would better than what you described for ALT
Germany: plenty of gas on Sinai (which they had been extracting after
1967), known oil areas on Arabian Peninsula but, AFAIK, not too much
in the terms of metals except copper.

So, in a short term, there would be a successful war in which Roman
forces are soundly defeated and as much territory as Israelis want is
conquered. The long term scenario is dependent upon (a) Israel's
ability to provide adequate supply of the needed materials and (b)
Roman willingness to keep being beaten time and again with no clear
'end-game' scenario (they would have no idea about opponent's ability
to keep producing weapons). As far as food is concerned, with
Alexandria being within easy reach (and a lot of the ancient Jews
living there), grain supplies from Egypt can be controlled and, unlike
the modern times, Egypt was one of the big grain producers.

A happy-end scenario: after few defeats the Romans come to the terms
and Empire peacefully coexists with the independent Israel getting
some exciting trinkets (and perhaps even few not very complicated
shooting toys to be used against the Germans, Brits and whoever else)
in exchange for the raw materials. Everybody lives happily ever
after. :-)
Bradipus
2013-04-26 16:45:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 23:14:42 -0400, Invid Fan
Post by Invid Fan
Getting this away from Nazi's for a moment, how about the
nation of Israel circa 1966 finds itself back around 40 BCE.
The 1967 war hasn't happened yet, so they find themselves
next to a Jerusalem with a functioning second Temple, and a
rather surprised King Antigonus trying to fight off Herod
and the Romans.
Thoughts?
Well, Judaism in the 1st Century AD was a proselytising
religion and was being taken up by significant numbers of the
intelligentsia in Rome, for example ... it's only after the
Jewish Revolt, reinforced by the 2nd and 3rd Jewish revolts,
that this internationalising trend is stopped dead in its
tracks, reversed, and Judaism made a pariah religion.
With Israel/SOT, well, even if they don't want to conquer
Rome outright, the prestige of Judaism very possibly means
that *it* becomes the major religion of the Roman Empire (or
successor) and that Christianity may not really get a look in
(even though, yes, I know, there are some Christians in
Israel ... and some Muslims, too).
I'd also suggest that there's exactly *zip* chance of Islam
becoming the major religion of the Arabian peninsula (or
anywhere else, either).
Both Christianity and Islam would remain minor Jewish
heresies in all likelihood.
What would be Roman reaction to such an appearance? Besides
strictly religious issues, there would be strictly practical
ones: sudden change of a regional situation due to appearance
of the state which is (most probably) not going to consider
itself anybody's vassal not to mention a direct Roman
occupation. So, unless the Roman Empire suddenly changes to
something totally different, there is a war coming. Most
obviously, whatever Romans troops are sent, they are crushed
by the modern army. The obvious question is: was Israel of
1966 self-sustainable in the terms of ammunition, fuel and the
raw materials? Their own weaponry production would be most
probably adequate for the task of annihilating people armed
with the spears and swords but they needed materials out of
which this weaponry can be produced and, AFAIK, there are not
too much of those in the region. With the fuel, situation
would better than what you described for ALT Germany: plenty
of gas on Sinai (which they had been extracting after 1967),
known oil areas on Arabian Peninsula but, AFAIK, not too much
in the terms of metals except copper.
So, in a short term, there would be a successful war in which
Roman forces are soundly defeated and as much territory as
Israelis want is conquered. The long term scenario is
dependent upon (a) Israel's ability to provide adequate supply
of the needed materials and (b) Roman willingness to keep
being beaten time and again with no clear 'end-game' scenario
(they would have no idea about opponent's ability to keep
producing weapons). As far as food is concerned, with
Alexandria being within easy reach (and a lot of the ancient
Jews living there), grain supplies from Egypt can be
controlled and, unlike the modern times, Egypt was one of the
big grain producers.
A happy-end scenario: after few defeats the Romans come to the
terms and Empire peacefully coexists with the independent
Israel getting some exciting trinkets (and perhaps even few
not very complicated shooting toys to be used against the
Germans, Brits and whoever else) in exchange for the raw
materials. Everybody lives happily ever after. :-)
How much was Israel dependant on USA technology and other
supplies in 1966?

Most air force can't fly without continuous service and spare
parts.

Same for armour and mech and navy.

So Israel technology edge over Romans drops fast.

But they know much more than Romans about geography and
everything else.
--
o o
Alex Milman
2013-04-26 18:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradipus
Post by Alex Milman
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 23:14:42 -0400, Invid Fan
Post by Invid Fan
Getting this away from Nazi's for a moment, how about the
nation of Israel circa 1966 finds itself back around 40 BCE.
The 1967 war hasn't happened yet, so they find themselves
next to a Jerusalem with a functioning second Temple, and a
rather surprised King Antigonus trying to fight off Herod
and the Romans.
Thoughts?
Well, Judaism in the 1st Century AD was a proselytising
religion and was being taken up by significant numbers of the
intelligentsia in Rome, for example ... it's only after the
Jewish Revolt, reinforced by the 2nd and 3rd Jewish revolts,
that this internationalising trend is stopped dead in its
tracks, reversed, and Judaism made a pariah religion.
With Israel/SOT, well, even if they don't want to conquer
Rome outright, the prestige of Judaism very possibly means
that *it* becomes the major religion of the Roman Empire (or
successor) and that Christianity may not really get a look in
(even though, yes, I know, there are some Christians in
Israel ... and some Muslims, too).
I'd also suggest that there's exactly *zip* chance of Islam
becoming the major religion of the Arabian peninsula (or
anywhere else, either).
Both Christianity and Islam would remain minor Jewish
heresies in all likelihood.
What would be Roman reaction to such an appearance? Besides
strictly religious issues, there would be strictly practical
ones: sudden change of a regional situation due to appearance
of the state which is (most probably) not going to consider
itself anybody's vassal not to mention a direct Roman
occupation. So, unless the Roman Empire suddenly changes to
something totally different, there is a war coming. Most
obviously, whatever Romans troops are sent, they are crushed
by the modern army. The obvious question is: was Israel of
1966 self-sustainable in the terms of ammunition, fuel and the
raw materials? Their own weaponry production would be most
probably adequate for the task of annihilating people armed
with the spears and swords but they needed materials out of
which this weaponry can be produced and, AFAIK, there are not
too much of those in the region. With the fuel, situation
would better than what you described for ALT Germany: plenty
of gas on Sinai (which they had been extracting after 1967),
known oil areas on Arabian Peninsula but, AFAIK, not too much
in the terms of metals except copper.
So, in a short term, there would be a successful war in which
Roman forces are soundly defeated and as much territory as
Israelis want is conquered. The long term scenario is
dependent upon (a) Israel's ability to provide adequate supply
of the needed materials and (b) Roman willingness to keep
being beaten time and again with no clear 'end-game' scenario
(they would have no idea about opponent's ability to keep
producing weapons). As far as food is concerned, with
Alexandria being within easy reach (and a lot of the ancient
Jews living there), grain supplies from Egypt can be
controlled and, unlike the modern times, Egypt was one of the
big grain producers.
A happy-end scenario: after few defeats the Romans come to the
terms and Empire peacefully coexists with the independent
Israel getting some exciting trinkets (and perhaps even few
not very complicated shooting toys to be used against the
Germans, Brits and whoever else) in exchange for the raw
materials. Everybody lives happily ever after. :-)
How much was Israel dependant on USA technology and other
supplies in 1966?
You are confusing 1967 with 1973. :-)

Main reliance in 1960's was on the French weaponry which ceased to be
available after French Embargo of 1967. Among other things, in the
1950's the French had been supplying guns for Israeli modification of
the old Sherman tanks they had as their main armor. In 1967 they had
been still using old French and British planes which they somehow
managed to supply with the necessary parts even after suppliers'
embargos..

Reliance upon the American weaponry started only AFTER this embargo
which means that in the War of 1967 it was hardly a factor.
Post by Bradipus
Most air force can't fly without continuous service and spare
parts.
Quite true but it seems that in OTL Israelis somehow managed to solve
this problem until they started producing their own weaponry.
Post by Bradipus
Same for armour and mech and navy.
So Israel technology edge over Romans drops fast.
You forgot that by 1966 Israel was a reasonably well-developed modern
state with a reasonably big stockpile of weapons and ability to
produce adequate amount of ammunition. It would not take too much of
either to defeat few Roman legions: most probably they'd flee just at
a sight of a plane, especially after it will start shooting (taking
into an account that the Romans had been using reasonably dense
formations, effect of the bombs, artillery and machine-gun fire would
be impressive both in the terms of casualties and moral effect.

So, arsenal and stockpiles they had by 1966 would probably be enough
to defeat quite a few Roman armies. Providing, of course, the Romans
would be suicidal enough to keep throwing these armies against
'divine' weaponry. I suspect that after a relatively short while an
emperor willing to continue such experiments would face revolt of his
own troops: it was one thing to march against opponents with inferior
organization and (at best) more or less the same weapons and quite
another to do so against those with demonstrably overwhelmingly
superior weapons.
Post by Bradipus
But they know much more than Romans about geography and
everything else.
Unlike Romans they were not bent on the world domination so, as soon
as the lesson is learned (by the Romans) some mutually acceptable
arrangement could be possible.
Bradipus
2013-04-27 16:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Bradipus
Post by Alex Milman
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 23:14:42 -0400, Invid Fan
Post by Invid Fan
Getting this away from Nazi's for a moment, how about the
nation of Israel circa 1966 finds itself back around 40
BCE. The 1967 war hasn't happened yet, so they find
themselves next to a Jerusalem with a functioning second
Temple, and a rather surprised King Antigonus trying to
fight off Herod and the Romans.
Thoughts?
Well, Judaism in the 1st Century AD was a proselytising
religion and was being taken up by significant numbers of
the intelligentsia in Rome, for example ... it's only
after the Jewish Revolt, reinforced by the 2nd and 3rd
Jewish revolts, that this internationalising trend is
stopped dead in its tracks, reversed, and Judaism made a
pariah religion.
With Israel/SOT, well, even if they don't want to conquer
Rome outright, the prestige of Judaism very possibly means
that *it* becomes the major religion of the Roman Empire
(or successor) and that Christianity may not really get a
look in (even though, yes, I know, there are some
Christians in Israel ... and some Muslims, too).
I'd also suggest that there's exactly *zip* chance of
Islam becoming the major religion of the Arabian peninsula
(or anywhere else, either).
Both Christianity and Islam would remain minor Jewish
heresies in all likelihood.
What would be Roman reaction to such an appearance? Besides
strictly religious issues, there would be strictly
practical ones: sudden change of a regional situation due
to appearance of the state which is (most probably) not
going to consider itself anybody's vassal not to mention a
direct Roman occupation. So, unless the Roman Empire
suddenly changes to something totally different, there is a
war coming. Most obviously, whatever Romans troops are
sent, they are crushed by the modern army. The obvious
question is: was Israel of 1966 self-sustainable in the
terms of ammunition, fuel and the raw materials? Their own
weaponry production would be most probably adequate for the
task of annihilating people armed with the spears and
swords but they needed materials out of which this weaponry
can be produced and, AFAIK, there are not too much of those
in the region. With the fuel, situation would better than
what you described for ALT Germany: plenty of gas on Sinai
(which they had been extracting after 1967), known oil
areas on Arabian Peninsula but, AFAIK, not too much in the
terms of metals except copper.
So, in a short term, there would be a successful war in
which Roman forces are soundly defeated and as much
territory as Israelis want is conquered. The long term
scenario is dependent upon (a) Israel's ability to provide
adequate supply of the needed materials and (b) Roman
willingness to keep being beaten time and again with no
clear 'end-game' scenario (they would have no idea about
opponent's ability to keep producing weapons). As far as
food is concerned, with Alexandria being within easy reach
(and a lot of the ancient Jews living there), grain
supplies from Egypt can be controlled and, unlike the
modern times, Egypt was one of the big grain producers.
A happy-end scenario: after few defeats the Romans come to
the terms and Empire peacefully coexists with the
independent Israel getting some exciting trinkets (and
perhaps even few not very complicated shooting toys to be
used against the Germans, Brits and whoever else) in
exchange for the raw materials. Everybody lives happily
ever after. :-)
How much was Israel dependant on USA technology and other
supplies in 1966?
You are confusing 1967 with 1973. :-)
You are right, prof. Milman. :-)
Post by Alex Milman
Main reliance in 1960's was on the French weaponry which
ceased to be available after French Embargo of 1967. Among
other things, in the 1950's the French had been supplying guns
for Israeli modification of the old Sherman tanks they had as
their main armor. In 1967 they had been still using old French
and British planes which they somehow managed to supply with
the necessary parts even after suppliers' embargos..
IIRC the bulk of their Air Force were Mirages.
Post by Alex Milman
Reliance upon the American weaponry started only AFTER this
embargo which means that in the War of 1967 it was hardly a
factor.
Anyway a foreign source was still important.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Bradipus
Most air force can't fly without continuous service and spare
parts.
Quite true but it seems that in OTL Israelis somehow managed
to solve this problem until they started producing their own
weaponry.
Post by Bradipus
Same for armour and mech and navy.
So Israel technology edge over Romans drops fast.
You forgot that by 1966 Israel was a reasonably well-developed
modern state with a reasonably big stockpile of weapons and
ability to produce adequate amount of ammunition.
But that is possible only with a flow of industrial imports.
Post by Alex Milman
It would not
take too much of either to defeat few Roman legions: most
probably they'd flee just at a sight of a plane, especially
after it will start shooting (taking into an account that the
Romans had been using reasonably dense formations, effect of
the bombs, artillery and machine-gun fire would be impressive
both in the terms of casualties and moral effect.
Yes, elephants too were impressive but then Romans found a way
to beat them.
Post by Alex Milman
So, arsenal and stockpiles they had by 1966 would probably be
enough to defeat quite a few Roman armies. Providing, of
course, the Romans would be suicidal enough to keep throwing
these armies against 'divine' weaponry. I suspect that after a
relatively short while an emperor willing to continue such
experiments would face revolt of his own troops: it was one
thing to march against opponents with inferior organization
and (at best) more or less the same weapons and quite another
to do so against those with demonstrably overwhelmingly
superior weapons.
Israeli airplanes could not hit Rome.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Bradipus
But they know much more than Romans about geography and
everything else.
Unlike Romans they were not bent on the world domination so,
as soon as the lesson is learned (by the Romans) some mutually
acceptable arrangement could be possible.
How long? :-)

Either Israelis maintain their technology monopoly or Romans
prevail.
--
o o
Phil McGregor
2013-04-27 00:32:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradipus
So Israel technology edge over Romans drops fast.
Rubbish.

Small Arms and artillery ammo is stockpiled in quantity for wars
against conventional Arab armies ...

Even a Company of IDF *infantry* would be able to destroy an entire
Roman Legion with its automatic rifles, machineguns and mortars ...
with any sort of artillery backup the Romans won't even get close ...
not even with Human Wave attacks, which they weren't up to anyway.

The Romans would turn and run.

IIRC there was only a two Legions in Egypt and two in Syria (the two
in Israel have gone "poof") ... with Auxilia, that's probably 15,000
men in each army vs. 300,000 IDF (or so, on full mobilisation ... they
won't need that).

All up, the Romans have 28 (or so) Legions over the whole Empire, less
the two lost in Israel, or about 120,000 legionaries and a like number
off Auxiliaries. During the Civil Wars they fielded twice as many
Legions, but probably no more than 10-20% actual additional forces ...
and they couldn't, logistically, supply all of them as one force in
more or less one place.

Nope, as long as the Israelis keep their heads, the Romans are also
rans.

Phil
Alex Milman
2013-04-27 13:25:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Bradipus
So Israel technology edge over Romans drops fast.
Rubbish.
Small Arms and artillery ammo is stockpiled in quantity for wars
against conventional Arab armies ...
And enough of fuel and other thing necessary to operate tanks and
aviation.
Post by Phil McGregor
Even a Company of IDF *infantry* would be able to destroy an entire
Roman Legion with its automatic rifles, machineguns and mortars ...
I wonder what would be reaction of an ancient person to a squadron of
the fighter planes (especially after they start shooting) or to few
tanks. Strongly suspect that even Roman discipline would break down
from a purely moral effect. Tanks would not even need to do too much
of a shooting, just driving from one flank to another by the bodies of
those who did not run.
Post by Phil McGregor
with any sort of artillery backup the Romans won't even get close ...
not even with Human Wave attacks, which they weren't up to anyway.
The Romans would turn and run.
IIRC there was only a two Legions in Egypt and two in Syria (the two
in Israel have gone "poof") ... with Auxilia, that's probably 15,000
men in each army vs. 300,000 IDF (or so, on full mobilisation ... they
won't need that).
As you said, few companies (with the show of the planes and/or tanks)
would be enough to put an ancient army to flight. The Romans, AFAAIK,
had been very superstitious and the flying deadly creatures could not
be anything but a sign of a hostile divine intervention.
Post by Phil McGregor
All up, the Romans have 28 (or so) Legions over the whole Empire, less
the two lost in Israel, or about 120,000 legionaries and a like number
off Auxiliaries.
IIRC, for the siege of Jerusalem, which was a top of their effort,
they brought 5 legions with the auxiliaries (presumably, total up to
80K with hardly half of them being Roman). So, following your
arithmetic, shall we say, 5 infantry companies backed up with a dozen
of planes, few tanks and perhaps few artillery pieces. :-)
Post by Phil McGregor
During the Civil Wars they fielded twice as many
Legions, but probably no more than 10-20% actual additional forces ...
and they couldn't, logistically, supply all of them as one force in
more or less one place.
Of course. They had a very long border to guard and a lot of the
territories to garrison so they could spare only a fraction of the
total for any specific sector.
Post by Phil McGregor
Nope, as long as the Israelis keep their heads, the Romans are also
rans.
Of course. An interesting question is for how long a modern country
with the limited natural resources can survive in a situation of
economic isolation. I saw that you brought up some valid points for
Germany of 1930's and, short of the very few totally self-sufficient
(in the terms of natural resources and their extraction and
processing) countries, these or similar point would apply across the
board.

Arguably, a country of the late XIX - early XX would be in a better
position in the terms of maintaining its economy: there was an absence
of high-tech and individual economies had been much less integrated
world-wide while still being measurably advanced comparing to the
Ancient World. Countries like US or Russia of 1890's could happily
survive: enough of a food production, very limited need of the foreign
imports (especially with the needs related to a military competition
gone), plenty of coal, oil and other natural resources. The 'wild'
surroundings would not be much different than, for example, Russian
borders in the Central Asia (where the 'natives' had firearms).
Phil McGregor
2013-04-27 00:22:28 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:22:19 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Invid Fan
Getting this away from Nazi's for a moment, how about the nation of
Israel circa 1966 finds itself back around 40 BCE. The 1967 war hasn't
happened yet, so they find themselves next to a Jerusalem with a
functioning second Temple, and a rather surprised King Antigonus trying
to fight off Herod and the Romans.
Thoughts?
Well, Judaism in the 1st Century AD was a proselytising religion and
was being taken up by significant numbers of the intelligentsia in
Rome, for example ... it's only after the Jewish Revolt, reinforced by
the 2nd and 3rd Jewish revolts, that this internationalising trend is
stopped dead in its tracks, reversed, and Judaism made a pariah
religion.
With Israel/SOT, well, even if they don't want to conquer Rome
outright, the prestige of Judaism very possibly means that *it*
becomes the major religion of the Roman Empire (or successor) and that
Christianity may not really get a look in (even though, yes, I know,
there are some Christians in Israel ... and some Muslims, too).
I'd also suggest that there's exactly *zip* chance of Islam becoming
the major religion of the Arabian peninsula (or anywhere else,
either).
Both Christianity and Islam would remain minor Jewish heresies in all
likelihood.
What would be Roman reaction to such an appearance? Besides strictly
religious issues, there would be strictly practical ones: sudden
change of a regional situation due to appearance of the state which is
(most probably) not going to consider itself anybody's vassal not to
mention a direct Roman occupation. So, unless the Roman Empire
suddenly changes to something totally different, there is a war
coming. Most obviously, whatever Romans troops are sent, they are
I don't think so. The Romans *might* start a war if they had lots and
lots of troops present ... but all the Legions and Auxilia in the
boundaries of Israel (and do you mean the UN boundaries? the 1967
boundaries? Israel plus Gaza and the West Bank? Or Israel the Roman
client state? Or what?) have just *disappeared* ...

That *will* give them pause.

Units from outside will *attempt* to re-establish contact ... and, my,
won't *that* go well against the IDF!

It will never get to the stage of being anything resembling a war ...
it won't really be more than some border incidents.

The disparity in power is simply too great.

Of course, the Israelis have a severe problem ... oil ;-)

They produce 3806 bbl per day, yet consume 231000 bbl per day. No
amount of rationing will stretch 1.5% of their requirements into
anything worth spit.

And, yes, while I am sure they know where the local oil fields are,
and possibly even where the wellheads are, they really don't have the
capacity to search for, drill and find enough productive ones before
their economy collapses in a screaming heap.

They have some natural gas, 1.19 million cu.m., all consumed locally,
but I have no idea whether this would make a difference or replace the
oil in practical terms.

I suspect that most of their electricity will sputter out, as over
half of their generating capacity comes from coal fired plants, and
they seem to have limited internal mining of coal.

Of course, about 40% comes from natural gas, and since they seem to be
self sufficient in that, they'll maintain *some* power capacity.

The real problem will be food and raw materials. I don't know whether
they are self sufficient in food - probably close - but it won't
matter, as their agriculture will rely heavily on fuel that suddenly
isn't there (and no horses, oxen, donkeys or whatever to replace it),
so they get maybe one year's crop and then they're stuffed.

Raw materials are even worse. Israel produces a lot of stuff - but
almost entirely from imported raw materials ... all significant
sources of which have suddenly disappeared ... and which she doesn't
have the capacity to develop in any time frame that matters.
Post by Alex Milman
crushed by the modern army. The obvious question is: was Israel of
1966 self-sustainable in the terms of ammunition, fuel and the raw
materials? Their own weaponry production would be most probably
See above.
Post by Alex Milman
adequate for the task of annihilating people armed with the spears and
swords but they needed materials out of which this weaponry can be
produced and, AFAIK, there are not too much of those in the region.
See above.
Post by Alex Milman
With the fuel, situation would better than what you described for ALT
Germany: plenty of gas on Sinai (which they had been extracting after
1967), known oil areas on Arabian Peninsula but, AFAIK, not too much
in the terms of metals except copper.
Unfortunately, they don't have what it takes to get any of that in any
timeframe worth spit.
Post by Alex Milman
So, in a short term, there would be a successful war in which Roman
forces are soundly defeated and as much territory as Israelis want is
conquered. The long term scenario is dependent upon (a) Israel's
ability to provide adequate supply of the needed materials and (b)
Roman willingness to keep being beaten time and again with no clear
'end-game' scenario (they would have no idea about opponent's ability
to keep producing weapons). As far as food is concerned, with
Alexandria being within easy reach (and a lot of the ancient Jews
living there), grain supplies from Egypt can be controlled and, unlike
the modern times, Egypt was one of the big grain producers.
A happy-end scenario: after few defeats the Romans come to the terms
and Empire peacefully coexists with the independent Israel getting
some exciting trinkets (and perhaps even few not very complicated
shooting toys to be used against the Germans, Brits and whoever else)
in exchange for the raw materials. Everybody lives happily ever
after. :-)
The Israelis would have to spread out, simply to get enough food (and
they wouldn't be able to transport it by land, as they have no fuel to
do so and building railroads will require resources and industries
they don't have initially and won't be able to develop any time soon
because of the constraints hinted at above) ... but they should be
able to keep enough industry and technology turning over to enable
them to defeat the Romans pretty much at will ... just on their
stockpiled ammo alone ... while using what they have left to rebuild
something resembling a modern (19th centuryish) economy ... but that
would take at least several generations, most likely the better part
of a century, probably more.

Phil
Alex Milman
2013-04-27 14:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:22:19 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Invid Fan
Getting this away from Nazi's for a moment, how about the nation of
Israel circa 1966 finds itself back around 40 BCE. The 1967 war hasn't
happened yet, so they find themselves next to a Jerusalem with a
functioning second Temple, and a rather surprised King Antigonus trying
to fight off Herod and the Romans.
Thoughts?
Well, Judaism in the 1st Century AD was a proselytising religion and
was being taken up by significant numbers of the intelligentsia in
Rome, for example ... it's only after the Jewish Revolt, reinforced by
the 2nd and 3rd Jewish revolts, that this internationalising trend is
stopped dead in its tracks, reversed, and Judaism made a pariah
religion.
With Israel/SOT, well, even if they don't want to conquer Rome
outright, the prestige of Judaism very possibly means that *it*
becomes the major religion of the Roman Empire (or successor) and that
Christianity may not really get a look in (even though, yes, I know,
there are some Christians in Israel ... and some Muslims, too).
I'd also suggest that there's exactly *zip* chance of Islam becoming
the major religion of the Arabian peninsula (or anywhere else,
either).
Both Christianity and Islam would remain minor Jewish heresies in all
likelihood.
What would be Roman reaction to such an appearance? Besides strictly
religious issues, there would be strictly practical ones: sudden
change of a regional situation due to appearance of the state which is
(most probably) not going to consider itself anybody's vassal not to
mention a direct Roman occupation. So, unless the Roman Empire
suddenly changes to something totally different, there is a war
coming. Most obviously, whatever Romans troops are sent, they are
I don't think so. The Romans *might* start a war if they had lots and
lots of troops present ...
IIRC, short of the direct wars they rarely did. The 1st Judea War they
started with what? 1 legion?
Post by Phil McGregor
but all the Legions and Auxilia in the
boundaries of Israel (and do you mean the UN boundaries? the 1967
boundaries?
Israel plus Gaza and the West Bank? Or Israel the Roman
client state? Or what?) have just *disappeared* ...
Very interesting question. The initial post was talking about Israel
prior to the War of 1967 which gives quite clear INITIAL border
including split Jerusalem. However, it does not specify when exactly
this transfer happens and situation was very volatile in the terms of
ancient borders and military forces. This may produce a number of the
confusing scenarios. Are they dumped on a head of Herod the Great? Or
are they appearing in the area just at the eve (or during) the 1st
Judea War (with an obvious question what are they going to do with all
these priests, quarreling parties and simple Ancient Jews). Or do they
appear after the Romans won and did serious ethnic cleansing at least
in Jerusalem and its neighborhood.

Almost any imaginable scenario leaves some 'Jewish' pieces outside the
transplanted borders creating extra problems.
Post by Phil McGregor
That *will* give them pause.
Units from outside will *attempt* to re-establish contact ... and, my,
won't *that* go well against the IDF!
I strongly suspect so. :-)
Post by Phil McGregor
It will never get to the stage of being anything resembling a war ...
it won't really be more than some border incidents.
The disparity in power is simply too great.
Of course, the Israelis have a severe problem ... oil ;-)
They produce 3806 bbl per day, yet consume 231000 bbl per day. No
amount of rationing will stretch 1.5% of their requirements into
anything worth spit.
And, yes, while I am sure they know where the local oil fields are,
and possibly even where the wellheads are, they really don't have the
capacity to search for, drill and find enough productive ones before
their economy collapses in a screaming heap.
That I can't tell for sure one way or another. They definitely managed
to organize gas exploration and production on Sinai really fast but,
OTOH, I doubt that they had too many refineries in 1967 or too many
tankers in the Red Sea, which would make oil transportation (even
assuming that they knew exactly where some of the Arab oil fields are
located) and processing rather problematic with the results you
described.
Post by Phil McGregor
They have some natural gas, 1.19 million cu.m., all consumed locally,
As I mentioned, they managed to get gas production on Sinai.
Post by Phil McGregor
but I have no idea whether this would make a difference or replace the
oil in practical terms.
Probably it can but they'd have at least (a) to develop necessary
technology and (b) convert existing equipment so that it can work with
<whatever>. Both should happen really fast.
Post by Phil McGregor
I suspect that most of their electricity will sputter out, as over
half of their generating capacity comes from coal fired plants, and
they seem to have limited internal mining of coal.
Of course, about 40% comes from natural gas, and since they seem to be
self sufficient in that, they'll maintain *some* power capacity.
The real problem will be food and raw materials.
Yes.
Post by Phil McGregor
I don't know whether
they are self sufficient in food - probably close - but it won't
matter, as their agriculture will rely heavily on fuel that suddenly
isn't there (and no horses, oxen, donkeys or whatever to replace it),
so they get maybe one year's crop and then they're stuffed.
Raw materials are even worse. Israel produces a lot of stuff - but
almost entirely from imported raw materials ... all significant
sources of which have suddenly disappeared ... and which she doesn't
have the capacity to develop in any time frame that matters.
Exactly. I wrote about this problem in my post.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Alex Milman
crushed by the modern army. The obvious question is: was Israel of
1966 self-sustainable in the terms of ammunition, fuel and the raw
materials? Their own weaponry production would be most probably
See above.
Post by Alex Milman
adequate for the task of annihilating people armed with the spears and
swords but they needed materials out of which this weaponry can be
produced and, AFAIK, there are not too much of those in the region.
See above.
Post by Alex Milman
With the fuel, situation would better than what you described for ALT
Germany: plenty of gas on Sinai (which they had been extracting after
1967), known oil areas on Arabian Peninsula but, AFAIK, not too much
in the terms of metals except copper.
Unfortunately, they don't have what it takes to get any of that in any
timeframe worth spit.
Exactly.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Alex Milman
So, in a short term, there would be a successful war in which Roman
forces are soundly defeated and as much territory as Israelis want is
conquered. The long term scenario is dependent upon (a) Israel's
ability to provide adequate supply of the needed materials and (b)
Roman willingness to keep being beaten time and again with no clear
'end-game' scenario (they would have no idea about opponent's ability
to keep producing weapons). As far as food is concerned, with
Alexandria being within easy reach (and a lot of the ancient Jews
living there), grain supplies from Egypt can be controlled and, unlike
the modern times, Egypt was one of the big grain producers.
A happy-end scenario: after few defeats the Romans come to the terms
and Empire peacefully coexists with the independent Israel getting
some exciting trinkets (and perhaps even few not very complicated
shooting toys to be used against the Germans, Brits and whoever else)
in exchange for the raw materials. Everybody lives happily ever
after. :-)
The Israelis would have to spread out, simply to get enough food (and
they wouldn't be able to transport it by land, as they have no fuel to
do so and building railroads will require resources and industries
they don't have initially and won't be able to develop any time soon
because of the constraints hinted at above) ... but they should be
able to keep enough industry and technology turning over to enable
them to defeat the Romans pretty much at will ... just on their
stockpiled ammo alone ... while using what they have left to rebuild
something resembling a modern (19th centuryish) economy ... but that
would take at least several generations, most likely the better part
of a century, probably more.
You came very close to the point I made in another post: state of the
late XIX century would be in a much better position just because it
relied on much lower level of technology. Even then, this would apply,
in a long run, to the states big enough to have adequate supplies of
their own raw materials (and industry processing these materials) and
agriculture capable of sustaining the existing population. My
candidates for the 'transplanted' late XIX century successful states
would be USA, Russia, probably Germany (AFAIK, during Bismark's times
it was agriculturally self sufficient, can't tell about iron, etc.).
France, IIRC, was producing enough food but how about other natural
resources? OTOH, would it need too much to survive against the ancient
neighbors? Not sure if the GB without colonies, etc. was self-
sufficient. Most of the smaller states in Europe may not survive
pressure of the 'barbarians' trying to get in. Perhaps the Ottoman and
Persian empires and China?
Anthony Buckland
2013-04-27 17:39:23 UTC
Permalink
David Tenner
2013-04-26 19:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
Well, Judaism in the 1st Century AD was a proselytising religion and
was being taken up by significant numbers of the intelligentsia in
Rome, for example ...
I haven't researched this for a long time, but from what I recall, whether
the Jews proselytized seems to be a subject of controversy among historians.
I summed up some of the arguments in these posts:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/defd296ab79b3209
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/124964022086fd42
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/4465c46adbdfff83
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Phil McGregor
2013-04-27 00:36:08 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:34:19 +0000 (UTC), David Tenner
Post by David Tenner
Post by Phil McGregor
Well, Judaism in the 1st Century AD was a proselytising religion and
was being taken up by significant numbers of the intelligentsia in
Rome, for example ...
I haven't researched this for a long time, but from what I recall, whether
the Jews proselytized seems to be a subject of controversy among historians.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/defd296ab79b3209
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/124964022086fd42
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/4465c46adbdfff83
Indeed, you are right, there is much controversy. However, the
evidence I have seen adduced seems fairly reasonable in support, but I
Am Not An Expert!!!

Still and all, there was penetration into the Roman intelligentsia on
a fairly significant scale, however it happened, and I would strongly
suspect that this would continue and accellerate for internal Roman
socio-political reasons, even if not actively supported by the State
off Israel!

And what an opportunity! Would they be able to resist?!

Phil
Rich Rostrom
2013-04-27 01:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@darkstar.arc.nasa.gov
A question in a different direction: would all of this cause Hitler to
give up on his plans for the Jews, even temporarily? If not, how much
of a monkey wrench does that throw into the necessary adjustments?
Most of Germany's Jews had emigrated by 1939. IIRC.
(A lot of them didn't run far enough.)

The handful that are left won't be a priority
issue for Hitler - the vast new opportunities
will take center stage.

Probably the remoining Jews get deported to
external wilderness area - there's plenty
of essentially vacant land to settle them on.

That would satisfy Hitler's great ambition
of making Germany _judenrein_.

Where would they go? Probably overseas
somewhere, to get them as far as possible
from the Vaterland. The process would be
as fast and cheap as possible - overloaded
ships dumping all-but-helpless refugees on
some wilderness coastline. There _might_
be a slight effort to provide tools and kit.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Phil McGregor
2013-04-26 00:52:19 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:56:32 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Phil McGregor
The economic disruption will take decades to overcome and get things
back to "normal", or what the Fascists all around the world in the
1930s referred to as "autarky" (or something close to it).
Germany would be immediately forced to a condition
of autarky.
However, Germany would also gain essentially free
access to resources that OTL were costly imports.
The disruption caused by the loss of all imports
and exports would be tremendous, but... The
obvious response would be to transfer the labor
from now surplus areas to all the "emergency"
work needed to adapt to the new situation.
- Construction of new railroads into the virgin
cross-border areas.
- Conversion of ships to coal-burning, conversion
of coal-burning ships to new functions.
- Conversion of cross-border wilderness areas to
agriculture.
Germany has the advantage of an extremely skilled
and disciplined workforce. True, the top executive
includes some thoroughly corrupt and lazy men, and
an incompetent chief executive, but as OTL showed,
even the Nazis couldn't squander all of Germany's
intrinsic strength.
The grand adjustments would happen fairly quickly.
Within six months, everybody would have some kind
job, and within two years, the benefits of the
new situation would be coming in.
Bear in mind that only a few years earlier, Germany
was neck deep in the Depression, with 25% or so
unemployment. It's not as though Germans can't deal
with hardship, especially since it will be temporary.
Yes, all that is true. However, to get back to "normal" won't be done
in 2 years.

However, for example ...

* Construction of new railroads. We know the Germans were not good,
nor were they fast, at anything resembling this from they problems
they had - severe problems - with repurposing Russian Broad Gauge rail
lines for Standard Gauge. Exactly the same problems they faced there
will still apply ... moderated, to a degree, by the ability to divert
resources from now redundant military production to other things,
worsended by the loss of all externally supplied resources that were
used (such as high quality swedish iron ore) amd further slowed down
by the fact they have to ramp up all the production for the new rail
lines and facilities which were all special order stuff (the
facilities, not the rails so much) ... that takes time and slows
everything down. Everything.

And that doesn't deal with the limited capacity the Germans showed
they had for, for example, producing rolling stock for their existing
rail lines as we have discussed here many times. Again, with the
resources freed up from redundant military needs a plus, but the loss
of all externally supplied resources a minus.

All solvable, gradually. But a lot of "we can't build more rail
facilities or rolling stock because we haven't got enough iron/steel
and other stuff ... and the only sources are either hundreds of miles
away through a trackless forest and howling wilderness with absolutely
no supporting infrastructure at all ..."

* Can you blithely "convert ships to coal burning"? I am presuming you
mean those run on Marine Diesel? "Conversion", unless you think along
the lines of the fantasy of the Wisla Krolowa from GGDW's "Pirates of
the Vistula" (from their Twilight 2000 rpg) where some random engineer
actually turned a diesel engine into a steam engine, with much
handwaving, one presumes, means that you rip the diesels out and
replace them with steam engines. A nontrivial task in and of itself.

Then you have to redesign the ship's guts to provide coal bunkerage.
Another nontrivial task.

You do remember the arguments (ad nauseam) here about Germany's
limited slipway and drydock space? See the problem?

Then you have to build the marine Steam Engines ... all special order
stuff, with all the delays inherent *there* for much the same reasons
as for the railway facilities and rolling stock above.

You'd be better off simply rationing the fuel from the Synthetic
plants away from tanks to merchant ships ... since Panzer Divisions
aren't really needed against Bronze Age Savages mostly armed with
stone and wood weapons, even if you could deploy them in the
aforementioned trackless, howling, wilderness where said savages
either already live or would easily retreat to.

* Conversion of cross border areas to new fields for agriculture.
Leaving aside for the moment the problems in clearing the
aforementioned trackless forest in the howling wilderness with no
infrastructure at all there to assist in this nontrrivial task
consider the fact the the German agricultural system was so manpower
intensive that that was the reason why the pplan to invade Poland in
1939 included as part of the formal planning the assumption that the
Poles would have to be starved ... no mealy mouthed bullshit here,
*starved* ... by stealing their crops after the conquest in order to
feed Germany because the mobilisation of the Wehrmacht for said
invasion would cause a massive shortfall in internal food production.

So, do you feed yourself or clear tens of thousands of acres of
trackless virgin forest overnight and starve?

Sure, it's doable ... slowly. My point all along.

Und so weiter ...

Doable, but it all takes longer and costs more.

YMMV.

Phil
Derek Lyons
2013-04-26 06:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
Can you blithely "convert ships to coal burning"?
No. It's a huge job, and months of lead time are required to aquire
the new boilers in *normal* times.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Phil McGregor
2013-04-26 08:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Lyons
Post by Phil McGregor
Can you blithely "convert ships to coal burning"?
No. It's a huge job, and months of lead time are required to aquire
the new boilers in *normal* times.
And drydock space etc. etc.

As I said, probably best to keep them with Marine Diesels and ration
fuel from the Synthetic plants and the limited internal oilfields
actually within Germany's 1939 borders ... not a lot of call for
massive Panzer drives in this brave new world, so it *should* be OK.

In some ways it would possibly be quicker to get the Romanian fields
online before you could get nearby coalfields up and running, as there
would be a bigger manpower requirement for the latter.

YMMV

Phil
Rich Rostrom
2013-04-27 01:28:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
Yes, all that is true. However, to get back to "normal" won't be done
in 2 years.
Who said anything about "normal"?
Post by Phil McGregor
However, for example ...
* Construction of new railroads. We know the Germans were not good,
nor were they fast, at anything resembling this from they problems
they had - severe problems - with repurposing Russian Broad Gauge rail
lines for Standard Gauge.
Yeah. Makes you wonder how those slow,
fumbling, bumbling Germans kept the
continental railroad network operating
despite intense Allied bombing and
continual sabotage in occupied countries.
Post by Phil McGregor
All solvable, gradually. But a lot of "we can't build more rail
facilities or rolling stock because we haven't got enough iron/steel
and other stuff ... and the only sources are either hundreds of miles
away...
The iron ore fields of Briey in France are
are only 50 km from the German border.
Post by Phil McGregor
* Can you blithely "convert ships to coal burning"?
I am presuming you mean those run on Marine Diesel?
Not diesel-engine ships, of course. Oil-burning
steamships. Yeah, they'll be slow and inefficient.
Post by Phil McGregor
Sure, it's doable ... slowly. My point all along.
You forget one thing.

Germany has _nothing_ _else_ _to_ _do_.

99% of military production shuts down.
95% of military personnel are demobilized or
allocated to the Labor Front.

Big chunks of the civilian economy are
shifted to supporting the immediately
necessary projects - in part because
without imports and exports, they have
nothing to do.

The U.S. built 3,000 km of railroad
through howling wilderness, scorching
desert, and rugged mountains in less
than six years (1863-1869).

Would it really take 1939 Germany "decades"
to build a railroad to Ploesti, which is
only 1,000 km away?
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Phil McGregor
2013-04-27 10:06:22 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 20:28:42 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Phil McGregor
Yes, all that is true. However, to get back to "normal" won't be done
in 2 years.
Who said anything about "normal"?
Post by Phil McGregor
However, for example ...
* Construction of new railroads. We know the Germans were not good,
nor were they fast, at anything resembling this from they problems
they had - severe problems - with repurposing Russian Broad Gauge rail
lines for Standard Gauge.
Yeah. Makes you wonder how those slow,
fumbling, bumbling Germans kept the
continental railroad network operating
despite intense Allied bombing and
continual sabotage in occupied countries.
Rich, Rich, Rich ... surely you jest?

I would have thought someone normally as perceptive as yourself would
understand the difference between *repairing* something that *already
exists* and *building it from scratch*.

QED
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Phil McGregor
All solvable, gradually. But a lot of "we can't build more rail
facilities or rolling stock because we haven't got enough iron/steel
and other stuff ... and the only sources are either hundreds of miles
away...
The iron ore fields of Briey in France are
are only 50 km from the German border.
And during the Middle Ages famines regularly occurred on the other
side of major rivers because it cost too much to transport the food
(draft animals eat as much as they can carry in approximately 200
miles).

Without the infrastructure, and I don't mean forest tracks, you're not
going to move in the mining equipment and move out the ore any time
soon. Eventually, sure, once you build the infrastructure to do so.

Which takes time.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Phil McGregor
* Can you blithely "convert ships to coal burning"?
I am presuming you mean those run on Marine Diesel?
Not diesel-engine ships, of course. Oil-burning
steamships. Yeah, they'll be slow and inefficient.
See another post which makes it clear that it is *nontrivial* and, as
I suggested, would actually be a waste of time and resources ... the
Germans aren't *that* short of oil.

New construction? Sure.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Phil McGregor
Sure, it's doable ... slowly. My point all along.
You forget one thing.
Germany has _nothing_ _else_ _to_ _do_.
99% of military production shuts down.
95% of military personnel are demobilized or
allocated to the Labor Front.
Big chunks of the civilian economy are
shifted to supporting the immediately
necessary projects - in part because
without imports and exports, they have
nothing to do.
The U.S. built 3,000 km of railroad
through howling wilderness, scorching
desert, and rugged mountains in less
than six years (1863-1869).
Would it really take 1939 Germany "decades"
to build a railroad to Ploesti, which is
only 1,000 km away?
Through trackless howling wilderness with none of the infrastructure
*anywhere* along the 1000 klicks to support such construction ... and
without the raw materials easily available to the US c. 1860s.

Phil
Dimensional Traveler
2013-04-26 02:12:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:08:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:08:35 +1000, Phil McGregor
Post by Phil McGregor
Again, not impossible ... but not possible within a 2 year timeframe,
especially given the loss of all iron ore imports (most of Germany's
iron ore at the time came from those imports ... and even with
diversion of steel from German sources from military contracts there
will be a delay as the workforce needs to be retrained and industry
reorganised to produce many many many merchantmen) ... so, again, not
within two years. A decade or more.
Surely you recall why Germany was interested in acquiring Alsace and
Lorraine in the first place - and why Germany in 1916-17 was hoping to
gain additional territory west of Alsace?
Or why the primary point of the European Coal and Steel Community
(which led directly to the Treaty of Rome establishing the EEC) was
combining the coal of western German and the iron ore of eastern
France into a common bloc?
In a ISOT world the Germans do not of course have to negotiate with
the proto-Franks and it's not that long distance an import.
Yes, but the Mines still have to be dug and the transport
infrastructure put in place.
My point, perhaps not well made, is that, under the conditions
proposed, Germany's recovery depends on not just *one* thing ...
developing the oilfields in Romania, for example, or the iron ore
mines in Alsace-Lorraine, but in a whole lot of things.
All of which are inter-related and of varying degrees of difficulty
and for which the German economy and industrial and transport
infrastructure within Germany's 1939 borders are *not* optimally set
up to do.
None of it's *impossible*, as I have repeatedly said, it'll just take
a hell of a lot more than 2 years. Most likely decades.
There would be some production within two years and it would increase
over time, but decades? What level of development are you talking about
that would take decades?
Indeed, but a fair chunk of things being done can't be done until
other things are done first, and, as often, those things require still
other things to be done first. So there are built in delays all along
the way.
As for the level of development. Well, to something resembling
"normal" ... full production of all of Germany's civilian and military
needs and wants.
As I have said all along, Germany is unlikely to starve (though, if
the SOT transfers her immediately before the next planting season, but
into late autumn or even winter, then there *will* be some starvation)
en masse ... she's *almost* self-sufficient.
Likewise, she won't do so in the dark. She has enough good coal and
hydro power to ensure the electrical grid continues to operate.
And she won't starve because she can't move food around, if there's
any to move, because the railways are mostly run on coal or
electricity, of which she has plenty. And her synthetic oil industry
means that there'll be a need for rationing for motor vehicles, as
much for the rubber shortage as anything else (yes, they can produce
synthetic rubber, but preferred to import it before 1939 and would
need time to ramp up production).
But there will be the loss off ALL imports. And the economic
disruption caused by this coupled with the loss off ALL export markets
worth spit (Bronze age savages don't count).
The economic disruption will take decades to overcome and get things
back to "normal", or what the Fascists all around the world in the
1930s referred to as "autarky" (or something close to it).
Since they're never going to starve in the dark as the DPRK *would*,
then I cannot see what else one could be discussing.
Heck, the DPRK is starving *now*.

As for decades to satisfy all of Germany's needs, I guess the problem
I'm having with visualizing that is that a lot of it isn't really Needs,
just really really wants. I don't think it would take decades for the
rising production to meet the lowering usage.

Just by the fact of the scenario nothing is ever going to be as it once
was, economically, industrially, politically or socially. So saying it
will take X years to get "back" to a state they're never going to be in
again doesn't seem quite right. I hope that makes sense.
--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate
wouldn't tolerate.
Phil McGregor
2013-04-26 03:22:01 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:12:15 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:08:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
As for decades to satisfy all of Germany's needs, I guess the problem
I'm having with visualizing that is that a lot of it isn't really Needs,
just really really wants. I don't think it would take decades for the
rising production to meet the lowering usage.
Ah. Needs vs Wants. Brings back memories of 3rd Form Commerce! (Year 9
for modern Aussies, or 9th Grade for those of a US persuasion).

I well remember the difference. And the massive fudging that went with
the definition.

So that, for example, needs for a poor family may simply be basic food
and shelter ... but for a wealthy family?! Gourmet meals and a
mansion. Sportscars. Overseas Holidays. Servants (or labour saving
devices at the very least) ... all of which would be mere "wants" for
the "poor" family.

You may or may not be aware that one of the major fears of the Nazi
regime was that their warmaking would make too many demands of their
own citizenry ... while, of course, *proffessing* to not care when it
did! That's why they planned to starve the Poles on conquering them in
1939 ... they *had* too, otherwise they'd have had to institute severe
rationing for their own, and they were afraid of the consequences.

It's why they avoided going to full wartime production until 1941 and
managed to keep their home front full of "wants" by stripping their
conquests economies of food and manufactured goods.

And, except right at the end, from late 1944 on, German citizens
enjoyed a much less stringent rationing regime than the rest of Europe
... because they were ripping off the rest of Europe all along. Yes,
things had gotten worse since 1941, but *less* worse than in Russia,
Benelux, France, Yugoslavia or Greece (for example).

The fact that they're now in the SOT does not in any way lessen the
demand for wants (aka "luxuries"), it merely means that the citizens
will give the State a limited free pass to get them back *as soon as
possible* ... butter before guns, in effect.

With no real enemies there is no real medium or long term argument the
Nazis could realistically expect to be accepted for not making every
effort to provide for those wants, whether such expectations might be
realistic or not.

"That was *last year*, what have you done for me *today*?"
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Just by the fact of the scenario nothing is ever going to be as it once
was, economically, industrially, politically or socially. So saying it
will take X years to get "back" to a state they're never going to be in
again doesn't seem quite right. I hope that makes sense.
See above. They'll want bulk food on the table, a Volkswagen (after
all, lots of them have already paid for them!) in the garage (with
enough fuel to run around in it) and a Ferhnseeapparat (TV) in the
lounge. Not to mention servants to cook and clean (or Vacuum Cleaners,
Washing Machines etc. in lieu). Movies to go to (and not propaganda
docos either). Plays and Musicals to see. Holidays at exotic locations
(like the North Sea or Baltic Sea coast ;-).

All of which they have been repeatedly promised "real soon now" ...

Not just hardscrabble work for barely enough rationed food, no
holidays, little entertainment and no luxuries at all.

That's "normal"

YMMV.

Phil
Dimensional Traveler
2013-04-27 02:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:12:15 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:08:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
As for decades to satisfy all of Germany's needs, I guess the problem
I'm having with visualizing that is that a lot of it isn't really Needs,
just really really wants. I don't think it would take decades for the
rising production to meet the lowering usage.
Ah. Needs vs Wants. Brings back memories of 3rd Form Commerce! (Year 9
for modern Aussies, or 9th Grade for those of a US persuasion).
I well remember the difference. And the massive fudging that went with
the definition.
So that, for example, needs for a poor family may simply be basic food
and shelter ... but for a wealthy family?! Gourmet meals and a
mansion. Sportscars. Overseas Holidays. Servants (or labour saving
devices at the very least) ... all of which would be mere "wants" for
the "poor" family.
You may or may not be aware that one of the major fears of the Nazi
regime was that their warmaking would make too many demands of their
own citizenry ... while, of course, *proffessing* to not care when it
did! That's why they planned to starve the Poles on conquering them in
1939 ... they *had* too, otherwise they'd have had to institute severe
rationing for their own, and they were afraid of the consequences.
It's why they avoided going to full wartime production until 1941 and
managed to keep their home front full of "wants" by stripping their
conquests economies of food and manufactured goods.
And, except right at the end, from late 1944 on, German citizens
enjoyed a much less stringent rationing regime than the rest of Europe
... because they were ripping off the rest of Europe all along. Yes,
things had gotten worse since 1941, but *less* worse than in Russia,
Benelux, France, Yugoslavia or Greece (for example).
The fact that they're now in the SOT does not in any way lessen the
demand for wants (aka "luxuries"), it merely means that the citizens
will give the State a limited free pass to get them back *as soon as
possible* ... butter before guns, in effect.
With no real enemies there is no real medium or long term argument the
Nazis could realistically expect to be accepted for not making every
effort to provide for those wants, whether such expectations might be
realistic or not.
"That was *last year*, what have you done for me *today*?"
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Just by the fact of the scenario nothing is ever going to be as it once
was, economically, industrially, politically or socially. So saying it
will take X years to get "back" to a state they're never going to be in
again doesn't seem quite right. I hope that makes sense.
See above. They'll want bulk food on the table, a Volkswagen (after
all, lots of them have already paid for them!) in the garage (with
enough fuel to run around in it) and a Ferhnseeapparat (TV) in the
lounge. Not to mention servants to cook and clean (or Vacuum Cleaners,
Washing Machines etc. in lieu). Movies to go to (and not propaganda
docos either). Plays and Musicals to see. Holidays at exotic locations
(like the North Sea or Baltic Sea coast ;-).
All of which they have been repeatedly promised "real soon now" ...
Not just hardscrabble work for barely enough rationed food, no
holidays, little entertainment and no luxuries at all.
That's "normal"
YMMV.
Phil
Actually it occurred to me today that a lot of the Nazi propaganda
played up the "bucolic, pastoral, simple life". Plus the whole reason
for WWII was "living space". I can see the Nazis seeing the situation
as a chance to "go back to the good old days". Move the Reich from an
industrialized country to a "simple" agrarian society by sending people
out to start taming that wilderness. Whether they want to or not. "Ah,
citizen, here is your wagon, horse and a map to your farm (50 miles into
the forest). Oh, you are a member of the Party? Good, good, here is a
saw and hammer, some nails and you are the tax collector for these 50
farms surrounding yours. Off you go!"

They don't need a mechanized army to deal with the natives, guns and
some light artillery is enough. Most of the army was foot infantry and
horse-drawn wagons anyways. Keep a few Stukas around to break up any
large masses of barbarians and cow the natives but that won't require
that much fuel.

I can see the Third Reich becoming something akin to a feudal society.
The less mainstream beliefs of some of the leadership would support that.

Also, if food is short that first winter why waste any feeding the Jews?
--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate
wouldn't tolerate.
Brett Dunbar
2013-04-24 16:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:08:05 +0100, Brett Dunbar
Post by Brett Dunbar
Some of it is going to be on standard maps, in the same way that any
large structure is marked on a map. I'm not sure how detailed Romanian
maps were however unless there are specific security concerns the wells
are going to be marked in routine local maps. There were a number of
operating on shore oil wells in Britain Hardstoft for example, the
Ordnance Survey maps would give the exact position of those wells.
In other words, the Nazis do NOT have exact locations for each
wellhead.
Strike one.
If the maps are typically accurate they'll be marked. Unless you have
some evidence that the locations of large industrial facilities are
routinely falsified they'll be marked. Generally apart from certain
military facilities heavy industrial plant tends to be marked. It's a
fundamental part of mapping to show where things are, oil wells are big
obvious things. If the maps are accurate enough for the purpose for
which they were made then the position of the wellheads will be accurate
enough that you'll hit the actual oil deposit.

The burden of proof is, I think, on you to demonstrate that the Romanian
maps omitted thing that you would expect to be present in a map. You
would also expect the position of roads, rivers, towns, churches &c. to
be shown fairly accurately.

No strike.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
And do you have independent evidence to show that the local landforms
that were used to register the locations of those individual wellheads
will still be recoggnizable 3000+ years in the past?
Some things will be, burial mounds and other archaeology the exact
position of mountains and other things that are pretty certain to still
be in the same place. Germany has perfectly adequate
In other words, you have NO evidence that the landforms will be
similar enough (or not covered in literally trackless forest) to
enable the vague and general maps available to the Germans to be worth
much at all.
Strike two.
Again total bollocks. They will be able to exactly locate some stuff.
Glacial geology for example, stuff that has been in exactly the same
place since the glaciers that shaped them melted. Provided that the
mapping was competent locating the sites by basic triangulation would be
well within the surveying capacity of Germany.

The Germans will have the complete series of all official maps, they
won't just have general maps. They'll have the detailed maps. The
triangulation points will be marked and they tend to be things that are
fairly permanent. There will be things that are in exactly the same
position.

For the on shore oil fields in Britain they have maps which are so
detailed they show field boundaries and individual houses. Locating the
exact site of the well head isn't going to be difficult.

No strike.
Post by Phil McGregor
Knowing the general location of an oilfield is NOT the same as knowing
where the actual wellheads were ... even in a productive field, some
wells drilled will be a bust.
The target is fairly large and the Germans know where the productive
wells were dug.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of a huge local demand for oil in
proto-Romania in 1000 BC.
Do you have evidence of this?
Otherwise, sadly, the oil *is* being exported - to GERMANY, as the
above notes should have indicated to anyone actually reading them with
care!
Don't be an idiot I obviously meant German domestic supply. Germany
I'm sorry, when you referred to "they aren't looking to export oil" as
a reason why they don't need any infrastructure at all it seemed
obvious, well, obvious to anyone who a) had a clew and b) had read
what I said and c) had comprehended the nature of the problems raised,
that the only possible meaning of "not export" means *local*
consumption.
I was discussing the quantity required. Germany isn't looking to export
oil. It's looking to import enough for domestic consumption. Pretty much
domestic peacetime consumption.

Romania isn't really the best choice anyway, it requires overland
transport and that needs an inconvenient amount of infrastructure.
Coastal deposits would be easier.
Post by Phil McGregor
Strike three.
No strike.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
needs oil to supply itself. The Dutch British and American oil
industries produced far more than their economies consumed as they were
exporters.
And so did Romania. And, in 1000 BC or earlier the only way to move
the oil *from* pre/proto Romania is by EXPORTING it.
Which means the infrastructure you have wished away.
I wouldn't go for Romanian oil anyway, it needs an inconvenient amount
of infrastructure building through forest. There are oil deposits in
what would be rather more accessible sites. Spindletop for example. It's
near the coast, near the Texas/Louisiana state boundary and had been in
production since 1897.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
They all refer to ACTUAL EXISTING PROBLEMS that Germany had to face
(and proved incapable of solving) during the 1930's and 1940's.
While the Royal Navy had closed down the sea lanes and they were
fighting a major war against other industrialised powers. None of which
applies three thousand years ago. At that point all of the world's
combined military power is incapable of even mildly inconveniencing the
Germans.
Are you deliberately channelling Dishonest Al by not reading what was
actually written?
The existence, or lack thereof, of the RN 3000+ years ago is
IRRELEVANT to the problems raised.
It is not irrelevant. Germany had to use Romanian oil as that was
accessible overland and it was the only major deposit Germany could get
to at all. Without the RN Germany has complete control of all the
world's oceans and can import anything by sea. The absence of the RN
dramatically alters the entire position.
Post by Phil McGregor
The problems I pointed out were ACTUAL EXISTING PROBLEMS that Germany
had to face (and proved incapable of solving) during the 1930's and
1940's and none of those mentioned had anything at all to do with the
existence (or not) of the RN, or, for that matter, the Swiss Navy.
Strike four.
Oh.
Wait.
It's *three* strikes and you;re out, isn't it?
Without the RN or the USA Germany can drill at Spindletop and other
sites that were entirely inaccessible during the second world war.

No strike.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
places where there were natural seepages, Hardstoft in Derbyshire for
example. You know for an absolute fact that there is oil there very
close to the surface. You can collect from the surface or you can
improve the flow by drilling a shallow well. I didn't claim that they
would be able to supply Germany fully by seepages just that there is
some oil available with minimal effort and virtually no exploration.
Minimal effort for minimal oil = worthless.
To get the *industrial* quantities Germany needs there needs to be
considerable infrastructure, as I noted and as your wishful thinking
fantasy world ignores.
Strike *five*.
It gives them locations where to drill and some oil for immediate vital
uses while proper facilities are under construction.

Again no strike.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
Note that Germany did NOT have enough tankers to move PoL in the real
world and the need to build them ... well, it took about a year to
build a merchant ship in the 1930's.
Converting a freighter to act as a tanker could be done more quickly.
Germany doesn't have to worry about hostile powers.
And you have specific citable sources to show a) that this WAS done
and b) that it took less than a year?
Sticking a tank in the hold of a ship is a fairly simple job. It's not a
good tanker certainly nothing more than a stop gap while you actually
build a proper tanker but it will work.
Post by Phil McGregor
Germany and Italy built almost no tankers in WW2 and, as far as I am
aware, converted exactly NO merchies INTO tankers.
As the Royal Navy had closed all of the sea lanes and would sink or
seize any German merchant ship it encountered and Britain and it's
allies controlled pretty much all the oil wells outside Europe there
wasn't that much point. None of this applies in this scenario.
Post by Phil McGregor
They transported POL in tankers by putting them in 44 gallon drums and
loading the drums manually.
And *that* proved a piss poor and inadequate way of doing things that
couldn't even properly supply the DAK.
Let alone the whole German industrial economy.
Strike *six*
Germany isn't having to do this while fighting a major war, this frees
up a huge amount of resources and vastly reduces consumption. The
chemicals industry can be shifted to fertiliser and the relatively
limited quantity of explosives needed in peacetime. Huge amounts of
other military industry can be re-purposed.

Again no strike.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
I never said Germany couldn't EVENTUALLY solve the above problems,
just that Dishonest Al's claims it could all be done in two years were
fantasy.
Insofar as you *seem* to be supporting rididulous timeframe, you are
completely wrong as well. For the many reasons indicated.
After a couple of years the short term crisis should be over.
No, after a couple of years there would be moves afoot that would
eventually solve the problem. The "crisis" would not be over in any
meaningful sense ... not that I believe that the "crisis" would ever
have been enough, for example, to cause more than severe rationing.
We appear to actually be in agreement here. There is some difference in
use of language but that's all.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
They use this thing called "iron" (and its subset, "steel") and
Germany didn't have enough.
They know where the existing easily accessible deposits are and there
are no real obstacles to taking whatever they want. A lot of stuff that
was either controlled by hostile powers or had simply been mined out
would be there.
Except the complete, total, utter lack of infrastructure to access,
mine and then transport said iron.
How much infrastructure is actually needed to dynamite rocks on the
coast and load the rubble onto ships?
Germany has the smelting facilities to process the ore, a high
explosives manufacturing capacity scaled to fight a major war and ships.
Iron ore is fairly plentiful
YYour handwaving is approaching Freckian proportions ... and you are
about to achieve Orbital Escape Velocity.
You have obviously been incapable of grasping what I said.
Where is this rubble and on what coast?
1 Iron ore is a fairly common mineral.

2 There are surface deposits on coastlines.

3 Germany has a vast capacity for manufacturing high explosive

4 Having used the high explosives to turn the iron ore in rubble
you can load it onto ships without much infrastructure.
Post by Phil McGregor
And where are the nearest (nonexistent, of course) ports and loading
facilities for this mythical rubble?
You really are clewless.
Strike *s*e*v*e*n*
Putting rocks onto ships isn't that difficult. Even in the Elizabethan
period John Cabot was able to collect hundreds of tons from Canada using
the equipment he brought with him.

Again no strike.

I repeat the question how much infrastructure is actually needed?

Once the rock is onboard a ship it can easily be taken to Germany.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Brett Dunbar
I think you are seriously overestimating the difficulties. The likely
course of events would be a couple of difficult years, then world
empire.
No, I believe the problem is entirely in the ballpark of you not
reading what I said ... which was that Germany could do it in a period
of 10 years or more (likely more), but that it was impossible in
Dishonest Al's 2 year fantasyland scenario.
How long do *you* think it would take?
6 months?
2 Years?
10 Years?
Maybe two years to get over the initial crisis and dislocation. Clearing
land and getting more modern agriculture into effect sufficiently to
solve the food problems would take about that long. Once the
organisational issues are dealt with world conquest wouldn't be
difficult. The nazis started the second world war six years after
seizing power and that was against militaries far more capable than
anything that existed three thousand years ago.
Again, this is all insane hanwaving ... and you have simply achieved
solar system escape velocity through your own efforts.
Strike EIGHT.
No strike.

The Conquistadors conquered the Mesoamerican and Andean civilisations
with tiny forces and a far smaller technological and military advantage.
Nazi Germany was able to build a war machine capable of conquering most
of Europe from scratch in six years. Being able to deploy an army of a
thousand or so anywhere on earth is a much easier job.


Is it possible for you to disagree with an argument without insulting
the person making it?
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/
Brett Dunbar
Phil McGregor
2013-04-25 00:30:44 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:22:42 +0100, Brett Dunbar
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:08:05 +0100, Brett Dunbar
Post by Brett Dunbar
Some of it is going to be on standard maps, in the same way that any
large structure is marked on a map. I'm not sure how detailed Romanian
maps were however unless there are specific security concerns the wells
are going to be marked in routine local maps. There were a number of
operating on shore oil wells in Britain Hardstoft for example, the
Ordnance Survey maps would give the exact position of those wells.
In other words, the Nazis do NOT have exact locations for each
wellhead.
Strike one.
If the maps are typically accurate they'll be marked. Unless you have
You have no idea whatsoever about what you are talking about, or,
indeed, what maps were available, do you?

You really are supremely ignorant or compleat troll.

1) The only mapping authority worth spit in Europe before the war that
even attempted to include archaeological elements on a regularised
basis on maps was HM Ordnance Survey. Others did, or didn't, mostly,
much less frequently. And the Ordnance Survey's historical maps of
Roman, Dark Ages and pre-Roman Britain are all well and truly post
war.

2) Maps worth spit for these sorts of (military, in effect) purposes,
were NOT widely available. Both the Germans and the British (and, I
presume, other nationalities) relied on *tourist* reports of terrain
and facilities in the other countries that were not shown on the maps
available to them ... where official maps from those countries were
available at all.

3) Eastern European governments did not have mapping authorities worth
spit. The chances of accurate maps showing the location of individual
wellheads or anything that small is *nil*.

Even modern maps don't, except at very small scales, and the scale
level required for accurate placement don't exist outside of mapping
Databases based on satellite or aerial photograph imagery ... none of
which were available in 1939 or before.

So, the Germans have

a) No maps of the area worth spit because ...

b) No maps of the area worth spit *exist* and

c) What maps of the area might exist won't be able to be accurately
meshed with the landforms as they exist in 1000+ BC and in the
literally trackless forest that covers most of Europe since they don't
regularly show then extant sites (and Eastern Europe is even less well
mapped archaeologically speaking even today than the rest of the
continent).

You really are trolling or massively stupid.

Has to be the former.

The rest of your post is the same, full of massive ignorance
masquerading as argument ... or, more likely, deliberate trolling.

If you ever do get a clew, which is unlikely, then there may be some
point in continuing the discussion ... however, since it seems obvious
that you are merely trolling, that will never happen.

I won't feed the troll any more.

Strike and Out on Dunbar.

Phil
Brett Dunbar
2013-04-25 14:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:22:42 +0100, Brett Dunbar
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:08:05 +0100, Brett Dunbar
Post by Brett Dunbar
Some of it is going to be on standard maps, in the same way that any
large structure is marked on a map. I'm not sure how detailed Romanian
maps were however unless there are specific security concerns the wells
are going to be marked in routine local maps. There were a number of
operating on shore oil wells in Britain Hardstoft for example, the
Ordnance Survey maps would give the exact position of those wells.
In other words, the Nazis do NOT have exact locations for each
wellhead.
Strike one.
If the maps are typically accurate they'll be marked. Unless you have
You have no idea whatsoever about what you are talking about, or,
indeed, what maps were available, do you?
You really are supremely ignorant or compleat troll.
No you clearly are however. You seem to completely ignore that not
having to do things while fighting a major war is going to make a big
difference to what Germany can do. Land transport outside Germany
becomes much more difficult, however at the same time sea transport
becomes a lot easier.

As I've indicated, I don't think Ploesti is the best choice in this
scenario. Spindletop looks more promising. Hardstoft would have very
accurate maps available.
Post by Phil McGregor
1) The only mapping authority worth spit in Europe before the war that
even attempted to include archaeological elements on a regularised
basis on maps was HM Ordnance Survey. Others did, or didn't, mostly,
much less frequently. And the Ordnance Survey's historical maps of
Roman, Dark Ages and pre-Roman Britain are all well and truly post
war.
Even if a systematic attempt to show them isn't made. Megaliths and
burial mounds are big obvious things that have been in the same place
for thousands of years. They get marked for the same sort of reason that
other landmarks are shown.

The issue is can you establish common locations and line up the maps
with the terrain enough to actually hit the oil?

Ancient monuments are just an example of prominent landmarks that
haven't moved.

Ploesti is in a mountainous area there will be various geological forms
that are going to be the same. Hard geology doesn't move much 3000 years
of erosion isn't going to make a big difference. Aligning the mapping is
not the big issue. Availability of accurate maps may be an issue.

You don't need the precise location it depends on the actual size of the
deposit.

The transport to Ploesti's not that difficult, it's in the foothills of
the Carpathians. Historically the Danube was navigable up to the Iron
Gates so a relatively short railway line would be needed.
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/
Brett Dunbar
Phil McGregor
2013-04-26 00:57:43 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:40:51 +0100, Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:22:42 +0100, Brett Dunbar
Post by Brett Dunbar
Post by Phil McGregor
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:08:05 +0100, Brett Dunbar
Post by Brett Dunbar
Some of it is going to be on standard maps, in the same way that any
large structure is marked on a map. I'm not sure how detailed Romanian
maps were however unless there are specific security concerns the wells
are going to be marked in routine local maps. There were a number of
operating on shore oil wells in Britain Hardstoft for example, the
Ordnance Survey maps would give the exact position of those wells.
In other words, the Nazis do NOT have exact locations for each
wellhead.
Strike one.
If the maps are typically accurate they'll be marked. Unless you have
You have no idea whatsoever about what you are talking about, or,
indeed, what maps were available, do you?
You really are supremely ignorant or compleat troll.
And your nonsense response merely proves it by, as is your pattern,
wildly handwaving away any and all facts that trash your deluded
fantasy and providing only assertions in the face of fact.

I'd suggest reading some books so you will not be so ignorant -
Tooze's "Wages of Destruction", Van Crevelds "Supplying War" and
Overy's "Why the Allies Won" (which can also be thought off as "Why
the Germans Lost") and Maiolo's "Cryy Havoc" to get a grasp of the
industrial and logistical problems that you have not the slightest
concept of ... nor, being an obvious Troll, any interest in at all.

Then you wouldn't be such an ignorant fool.

Phil
Bradipus
2013-04-24 16:55:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Goodman
A country is sent back several thousand years into the past.
(Occupying
the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which
wouldn't?
I suspect Nazi Germany would manage to get itself defeated in
war.
From our time into the past? Don't know.
From several thousand years in the future into our time?
I am wondering what if fascist Italy is sent back from 1930 to
70 BC.
--
o o
Dan Goodman
2013-04-24 18:17:44 UTC
Permalink
A country is sent back several thousand years into the past. (Occupying
the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?
I suspect Nazi Germany would manage to get itself defeated in war.
From our time into the past? Don't know.
From several thousand years in the future into our time?
I am wondering what if fascist Italy is sent back from 1930 to 70 BC.
It would survive, I think.

If it didn't pour too many resources into conquering the Balkans and then
keeping that area peaceful.
--
Dan Goodman
Bradipus
2013-04-26 16:56:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Goodman
Post by Bradipus
Post by Dan Goodman
A country is sent back several thousand years into the past.
(Occupying
the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which
wouldn't?
I suspect Nazi Germany would manage to get itself defeated
in war.
From our time into the past? Don't know.
From several thousand years in the future into our time?
I am wondering what if fascist Italy is sent back from 1930
to 70 BC.
It would survive, I think.
If it didn't pour too many resources into conquering the
Balkans and then keeping that area peaceful.
Uh, I think Mussolini didn't speak Latin very well.
--
o o
Dan Goodman
2013-04-26 21:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradipus
Post by Dan Goodman
Post by Dan Goodman
A country is sent back several thousand years into the past.
(Occupying the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which
wouldn't?
I suspect Nazi Germany would manage to get itself defeated in war.
From our time into the past? Don't know.
From several thousand years in the future into our time?
I am wondering what if fascist Italy is sent back from 1930 to 70 BC.
It would survive, I think.
If it didn't pour too many resources into conquering the Balkans and
then keeping that area peaceful.
Uh, I think Mussolini didn't speak Latin very well.
He had underlings.
--
Dan Goodman
Phil McGregor
2013-04-27 00:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Goodman
He had underlings.
And the Catholic Clergy did, many of them, especially the Jesuits ;-)

Phil
Phil McGregor
2013-04-27 00:37:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradipus
Uh, I think Mussolini didn't speak Latin very well.
Well, they do say that French, Spanish and Portugese are all variants
of lower class, provincial, Latin, with loanwords.

Italian would be similar ;-)

Phil
Bradipus
2013-04-27 16:12:10 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:56:27 +0200, Bradipus
Post by Bradipus
Uh, I think Mussolini didn't speak Latin very well.
Well, they do say that French, Spanish and Portugese are all
variants of lower class, provincial, Latin, with loanwords.
Italian would be similar ;-)
Phil
Indeed.

Pater noster qui es in coelis
Padre nostro che sei nei cieli
...
--
o o
Bradipus
2013-04-27 16:11:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradipus
Post by Dan Goodman
Post by Bradipus
I am wondering what if fascist Italy is sent back from 1930
to 70 BC.
It would survive, I think.
If it didn't pour too many resources into conquering the
Balkans and then keeping that area peaceful.
Uh, I think Mussolini didn't speak Latin very well.
But he spoke in German with Hitler (I am not sure Adi understood
him) so language was not a problem.


Now the problem is: from where Italy gets coal for its
factories?

IIRC Romans didn't use mined coal.

They have to exploit Britannia and invade Germania.

Then they would try to extract petroleum from Mesopotamia and
ship it to Mediterraneum (on camelback?)
--
o o
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...