Discussion:
Hitler dies Feb 1941
(too old to reply)
d***@minolta.com
2006-02-13 22:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Simple WI:

Hitler dies of a massive coronary on Feb 13, 1941.
What happens next? Specifically:
1. Who takes over? Hess?
2. Does Germany invade the USSR in 1941?
3. Can new leadership make peace with WAllies?

My guess is that a loose coalition takes over - headed by Hess and
Goering, with Himmler and Bormann in the background.

The war continues. The Germans do not inavde the USSR - the economy
isn't ready. The nuttier Nazis get more play time from the coalition -
the Holocaust is even worse.

In December, the USA goes to war against Japan - if the Nazis are smart
(which they aren't), they do everything they can to avoid war - as it
is, the US comes in against them too.

Without Hitler's manic leadership, the army is left more to its own
devices - especially as the upper level Nazis vie for power. This
doesn't help - I'm not one who thinks the German could have won without
Hitler - but it does mean some fiascos are avoided - like Tunisia.

The German Navy is defeated on schedule or earlier - with no Murmansk
run, streched ASW resources can be more concentrated.

The US and Britain face a much more defensive Germany. Oil and gas
flow from Russia, limiting the value of Ploesti. The US and Britain
focus their bomber offensives on the Ruhr, and are savaged by a
not-dead-in-Russia Luftwaffe early on. More advanced Allied aircraft
even it out, but the Germans do better in the air.

With a bulked out German Army in Italy and France, direct action
against Europe is hard. The WAllies pick off the naval-able targets -
like Sardinia, Sicily, Crete and Corsica. In 1943, the big WAllied
offensive is against Norway - the aero-naval balance has swung in the
Allied favor, and the Germans can't reinforce as fast as the Allies
can. However, strong, professional German resistance spooks the
Wallies out of Overlord in 1944.

The A-Bomb gets done a few months early - with no USSR, the US devotes
more to a wonder weapon to even the odds. Overlord comes in May of
1945. A massive Allied army lands in France. The Germans mass huge
panzer forces against it - and are hit by A-bombs both over their
armies and in some cities. Allied airpower massively outnumbers the
Germans, and the WAllied army slogs forward against strong resistance.
Paris isn't liberated until November (make it November 11 for kicks),
and then the Allies are stopped cold. More A-bombs fall, and the
German regime thinks seriously about peace - the German project is
years away from completion.

The WAllies aren't facing Hitler Youth - they're facing the best of the
German Army and lots of it. As they bludgeon their way forward, Stalin
chooses that moment to unlease the Red Army on Poland...

Plausible? Or ASB territory?

Dave Knudson




Dave Knudson
j***@yahoo.com
2006-02-13 22:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Rather a pleasant idea. No final solution, I wouldn't think. I think
the Jews of Europe survive. Mein Kampf is no longer Germany's roadmap,
with the mapmaker dead. Goering had already been discredited through
his failure in the Battle of Britain, so I think Hess probably does
take over. Hess obviously is not planning on invading the Soviet Union
with Germany still at war with England, since he took his little plane
trip over the channel specifically to avoid such a contingency. There
is no operation Barbarossa. At least, not in the near future.

With Hitler dead, I can't see why England would be unwilling to
consider peace negotiations. Particularly, if Germany showed some
flexibility on what happened to France. Would the Nazis have to adopt
more flexible internal policies, as well, in order to achieve such a
peace? Would they be willing and able to do so, with Hitler dead? It
is a very interesting scenario, indeed.

jk
Athos
2006-02-14 03:06:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Rather a pleasant idea. No final solution, I wouldn't think. I think
the Jews of Europe survive. Mein Kampf is no longer Germany's roadmap,
with the mapmaker dead. Goering had already been discredited through
his failure in the Battle of Britain, so I think Hess probably does
take over. Hess obviously is not planning on invading the Soviet Union
with Germany still at war with England, since he took his little plane
trip over the channel specifically to avoid such a contingency. There
is no operation Barbarossa. At least, not in the near future.
With Hitler dead, I can't see why England would be unwilling to
consider peace negotiations. Particularly, if Germany showed some
flexibility on what happened to France. Would the Nazis have to adopt
more flexible internal policies, as well, in order to achieve such a
peace? Would they be willing and able to do so, with Hitler dead? It
is a very interesting scenario, indeed.
What will Gernmany do with France, Holland, Belgium, and Norway that
could possibly be agreeable to Britain?

Germany does not dare pull it's troops out of France because even if
Vichy doesn't fall immediately can Germany take the Chance that France
won't get a new government in the near future that will turn against
them? The same goes for the other occupied nations.

There's also the little issue that Germany has built up this war
machine that it cannot afford and dares not demobilize because they
still have a great many enemies.

The Brits can't accept a peace with a power that now controls most of
the North Sea and the wrong half of the Chanel. It would be like
living with their heads on the block.

And what about Italy, is Germany going to say sorry Duce but we're out
the war. Go back to your old borders. So the Italians spend all this
blood and treasure and get zip for it?

That's not going to make anyone happy and if they don't make peace
Britain finishes off Italian Africa and probably picks up Sardinia and
Sicily. Then Germany has to get back in the war or risk a pro-British
Italy when Il Duce is overthrown.

By 1941 peace is not easy to achieve.

Pete
Post by j***@yahoo.com
jk
Michele Armellini
2006-02-14 09:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Rather a pleasant idea. No final solution, I wouldn't think. I think
the Jews of Europe survive.
Or die at a slower rate, with less well-organized solutions. People like
Himmler and Heydrich are still around, remember.

Mein Kampf is no longer Germany's roadmap,
Post by j***@yahoo.com
with the mapmaker dead.
Some of the routes on that map were approved by many of the people still in
power in Germany, however.

Goering had already been discredited through
Post by j***@yahoo.com
his failure in the Battle of Britain, so I think Hess probably does
take over. Hess obviously is not planning on invading the Soviet Union
with Germany still at war with England, since he took his little plane
trip over the channel specifically to avoid such a contingency.
I really don't think so. First thing, Goering's reputation has taken a dent,
but by February 1941 it's not as great as you may think. The Battle of
Britain has been a failure, but the generals and admirals did not expect
much from it anyway in the first place; as to the reputation with the man in
the street, it dipped with the continuous bombing of German cities, not with
the Battle of Britain. Add that in February 1941 the Blitz is not over, and
while we today can clearly see the end of the Battle of Britain and the
beginning of the Blitz, propaganda-fed Germans at the time probably had not
it all that clear.

Goering has boatloads of charisma, money and actual power; he's the
designated successor. Hess is a party man who was personally very faithful
to Hitler - who's no more - and known to be a bit weird. I wouldn't put my
money on him.

OTOH I agree that Barbarossa is not necessarily carried out. many generals
were raring to go, and Goering is enormously ambitious; but others had
reservations, and Goering's new position may still be a bit shaky.
Post by j***@yahoo.com
With Hitler dead, I can't see why England would be unwilling to
consider peace negotiations. Particularly, if Germany showed some
flexibility on what happened to France.
Sure, Britain could accept peace negotiations. Minimal conditions would be:
- Germany has to move out of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway,
France, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg; the "military mission" to Romania
has to be removed, too.
- Italy has to move out of British Somaliland, France and Albania (the
Greeks have already retaken their own territory at this time); maybe
Ethiopia would be included in the list.
- Germany and Italy have to disarm. In particular their navies.

Frankly I don't think there are much chances the Axis will accept any of
that. Even assuming they really really want peace, Germany would be moving
back West and disarming at a time when the Red Army is mushrooming and the
withdrawal of Germany will leave a power vacuum in the buffer states (and
moreover, Hitler has allowed Stalin to take a step forward in the Baltic,
eastern Poland, and Bessarabia). It's a big big risk for the Germans.

In February 1941, it's already obvious the US industry will back up Britain,
and the same will soon be obvious as to the US Navy. The British are on the
offensive in Africa, and they believe they'll soon be in Tripoli (Rommel
will prove them wrong, but that's what they believe); the Greeks are fending
off the Italians in Albanian territory.
Britain can cultivate the hope that the SU will eventually be both ready for
war and again at odds with Germany (and remember, in June the Germans are
already deep in the red as to all their supply agreements with the SU; they
simply couldn't afford the war machine they had built), and pursue the
classic approach applied every time there's one prevailing continental
power: peripheral strategy, economic blockade, allies. Add the strategic
bombing campaign, which many British planners thought would be a success on
its own.
So why should Britain ask anything less than the status quo?
l***@yahoo.com.au
2006-02-17 12:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michele Armellini
- Germany has to move out of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway,
France, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg; the "military mission" to Romania
has to be removed, too.
- Italy has to move out of British Somaliland, France and Albania (the
Greeks have already retaken their own territory at this time); maybe
Ethiopia would be included in the list.
- Germany and Italy have to disarm. In particular their navies.
Do you think the Nazis negotiations may include (in the most diplomatic
terms of course)"Re-instate the Duke of Windsor, Edward VIII, as King"?
Michele Armellini
2006-02-17 14:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Post by Michele Armellini
- Germany has to move out of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway,
France, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg; the "military mission" to Romania
has to be removed, too.
- Italy has to move out of British Somaliland, France and Albania (the
Greeks have already retaken their own territory at this time); maybe
Ethiopia would be included in the list.
- Germany and Italy have to disarm. In particular their navies.
Do you think the Nazis negotiations may include (in the most diplomatic
terms of course)"Re-instate the Duke of Windsor, Edward VIII, as King"?
No. OTOH, those above are minimal conditions to be imposed on Germany (and
Italy), pointedly abstaining from meddling in internal affairs. Full-scale
conditions would definitely include free elections in Germany (and Italy).
The Horny Goat
2006-02-19 03:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Post by Michele Armellini
- Germany has to move out of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway,
France, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg; the "military mission" to Romania
has to be removed, too.
- Italy has to move out of British Somaliland, France and Albania (the
Greeks have already retaken their own territory at this time); maybe
Ethiopia would be included in the list.
- Germany and Italy have to disarm. In particular their navies.
Do you think the Nazis negotiations may include (in the most diplomatic
terms of course)"Re-instate the Duke of Windsor, Edward VIII, as King"?
Short of a successful Sealion is there ANY British politician who
would not tell Germany to go sod themselves?

I cannot imagine even Mosley agreeing to this demand in 1941-42 and if
you believe he had any serious chance of gaining power after 1 Sept
1939 then you probably think all Hitler had to do to win the war was
to put Charleton Heston in uniform, compel him to wave his staff over
the Channel and charge across as the waters part!
Rich Rostrom
2006-02-14 02:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@minolta.com
Hitler dies of a massive coronary on Feb 13, 1941.
1. Who takes over? Hess?
Hess was Hitler's deputy, not his second-in-command.

Goering was Hitler's officially designated successor.
(This is well known.)
Post by d***@minolta.com
2. Does Germany invade the USSR in 1941?
Possibly. Goering does not have Hitler's charisma
and oaths of fealty. If he decides to go ahead
with BARBAROSSA, enough of the Army leadership may
join the anti-Nazi conservatives for a coup d'etat.

OTOH, by 1941, many of even the realistic Army
leaders had a bad case of victory disease.
Post by d***@minolta.com
3. Can new leadership make peace with WAllies?
No! The Nazis are still the Nazis. Goering is the
man whose bombers burned Coventry. Et cetera.
Post by d***@minolta.com
In December, the USA goes to war against Japan...
Why? Does the U.S. enact an oil embargo at the same date?

Before making such a large assumption casually,
work through the previous year. Lots of stuff
happens, like the Balkan Campaign and North
Africa.

Does Goering (air power fanatic that he is) cancel
BARBAROSSA and step up the 'blitz' on Britain?

What happens in North Africa? If there is no
BARBAROSSA, does Africa get substantially greater
support? Perhaps enough to drive the British out
of Egypt?

If there is no BARBAROSSA, what happens to the
U.S. defense build-up and Lend-Lease? The
renewal of the draft act passed by one vote in
August; if the Communists are still following
Stalin's antiwar line, does it fail? (There
is reason to believe that the vote was
artificially close - that several Nos would
have voted Yea if necessary to pass the bill.
But maybe not...)
Post by d***@minolta.com
The German Navy is defeated on schedule or earlier - with no
Murmansk run, streched ASW resources can be more concentrated.
The Murmansk run was not a major burden on Allied
ASW. There weren't that many convoys there.

What is more important is the availability to
the US/UK of all the stuff that was shipped to
the USSR, and all the shipping that was tied
down carrying it (around Africa to Iran, and
- under Soviet flag - to Vladivostok).
--
| The shocking lack of a fleet of modern luxury |
| dirigibles is only one of a great many things that |
| are seriously wrong with this here world. |
| -- blogger "Coop" at Positive Ape Index |
Les
2006-02-14 15:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Rich Rostrom wrote:

(stuff deleted)
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by d***@minolta.com
Hitler dies of a massive coronary on Feb 13, 1941.
(stuff deleted)
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by d***@minolta.com
In December, the USA goes to war against Japan...
Why? Does the U.S. enact an oil embargo at the same date?
It seems plausible. Japan's military cliques are committed to military
expansion, and the only way they can fund their pointless war in China
is to expand the pointless war, which inevitably means the occupation
of Southern Indochina (as a starting base), which OTL started the oil
embargo.

Note: even without Barbarossa, Germany looks like a winner in 1941,
having subjigated most of Western Europe, which is going to give heart
to Japan's hawks.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Before making such a large assumption casually,
work through the previous year. Lots of stuff
happens, like the Balkan Campaign and North
Africa.
True, but neither of those two events seem to change Japan's behavior
one way or the other. Japan's miltary was known for selectively
interpreting events to fit their desired goals. Witness their 1945
attempt to simultaneously ask for the USSR to be an independent
mediator between them and the US/UK/etc, a trade partner to run the
USN/RN blockade to Japan, and a military ally with Japan.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Does Goering (air power fanatic that he is) cancel
BARBAROSSA and step up the 'blitz' on Britain?
Goering claimed he wanted to do precisely that. As national leader, he
would be further motivated to diminish resources to his army and naval
rivals, so launching Round 2 is the most probable course.
Post by Rich Rostrom
What happens in North Africa?
Most likely, Goering transfers the Luftwaffe from there to support just
"one more push" to break the UK.
Post by Rich Rostrom
If there is no
BARBAROSSA, does Africa get substantially greater
support? Perhaps enough to drive the British out
of Egypt?
(rest of post deleted)

I find it doubtful. There were limits to what the Germans could bring
to the Med. Even if Goering does give it a fair amount of support, all
they will do is take Torbruk (maybe Malta, although that is tougher
than it sounds), advance hundreds of miles over empty desert, only to
run up against RN/RAF naval and air superiority and well-supplied BCE
forces at El Alamein.
BernardZ
2006-02-14 15:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by d***@minolta.com
2. Does Germany invade the USSR in 1941?
Possibly. Goering does not have Hitler's charisma
and oaths of fealty. If he decides to go ahead
with BARBAROSSA, enough of the Army leadership may
join the anti-Nazi conservatives for a coup d'etat.
He would be a new leader with deadly rivals. Probably more interested in
cementing his position then any overseas adventures. In any case Goering
it appears felt negative about going to war against Russia. He felt that
the Luftwaffe would be taxed trying to attack England and Russia at the
same time.

I doubt he would go ahead.
Post by Rich Rostrom
OTOH, by 1941, many of even the realistic Army
leaders had a bad case of victory disease.
Several in the leadership felt quite different eg Ribbentrop.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by d***@minolta.com
3. Can new leadership make peace with WAllies?
No! The Nazis are still the Nazis. Goering is the
man whose bombers burned Coventry. Et cetera.
Goering was probably the only Nazi leader that had any positive charisma
in the West.

He certainly wanted peace with Britain. He probably would have launched
a peace offensive directed at the US to try to delay or stop the US
entry into the war and if possible force Britain into a deal.
--
When the wife wants a baby, her man's sexual performance is continuously
being measured and monitored.

Observations of Bernard - No 96
Michele Armellini
2006-02-14 15:33:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by BernardZ
I doubt he would go ahead.
I agree it's not likely.
Post by BernardZ
Goering was probably the only Nazi leader that had any positive charisma
in the West.
You mean before the war, before Warsaw, before the Blitz, I suppose.
Post by BernardZ
He certainly wanted peace with Britain. He probably would have launched
a peace offensive directed at the US to try to delay or stop the US
entry into the war and if possible force Britain into a deal.
Maybe he would have launched it. Of course it would have competed with
Churchill's war offensive directed at the US, and with the joint planning
that had already been crafted through months of talks and conferences which
ended at the end of March, 1941 with the Joint Staff Agreement. I doubt that
a couple of speeches by Goering and some diplomatic feelers (there is no
time for more than that) would have been able to hijack that agreement.
j***@yahoo.com
2006-02-14 18:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Re: Michele Armellini

With no Barbarossa, how likely is Stalin to initiate hostilities
against Germany? What does he really have to gain, other than one heck
of a fight with a, hitherto, invinceable enemy?

With Germany and the Soviet Union still, ostensibly, allies, will FDR
be as eager to fight a war with Germany after Pearl Harbor? And,
remember, it was Hitler who initiated the hostilities there. Hitler
declared war on the US, first. With Hitler dead, would anyone else in
the Nazi hierarchy be this arrogant or foolish?

I propose, that with the Nazi-Soviet pact intact, and with no Hitler to
force the issue, FDR cannot and does not declare war on Germany, after
Pearl Harbor. The United States is at war with Japan, but not with
Germany. That, would, in turn, tend to force Britain's hand, to being
more flexible with terms in negotiating peace with Germany. They know
they can never beat them, on their own. A compromise, not status quo
pre-1939. Such an arrangement might be acceptable to the Nazis. If,
indeed, they still really are Nazis with Hitler dead.

Jerry Kraus
***@yahoo.com
Athos
2006-02-15 02:32:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Re: Michele Armellini
With no Barbarossa, how likely is Stalin to initiate hostilities
against Germany? What does he really have to gain, other than one heck
of a fight with a, hitherto, invinceable enemy?
Stalin will not initiate hostilities with Germany. What Stalin will do
is to continue to muck about in Eastern Europe and Balkans until
Germany must either give up its position as the power in central Europe
or attack.

Stalin wasn't an idiot, he didn't agree to a non agression pact for
Germany's benefit, he did it for the benefit of the USSR. In Eastern
Europe the interests of the Soviet Union run counter to those of an
expansionistic Germany.

Remember Stalin doesn't want the Germany to beat Britain. He wants
Germany and Britain to bleed each other while the USSR uses the war to
pursue its own interests.

If Germany actually looks like it will take out Britain the Germans
will find themselves short of food and fuel.

As was said up thread the Germans were already becoming indepted to the
USSR. To Stalin Nazi Germany was just a tool to get what he wanted.
Once Germany looked like they would become a threat they would be cut
off.

His mistake was believing that Hitler would not fight a two front war
and that therefore the USSR was safe until Britain was beaten.
Post by j***@yahoo.com
With Germany and the Soviet Union still, ostensibly, allies, will FDR
be as eager to fight a war with Germany after Pearl Harbor? And,
remember, it was Hitler who initiated the hostilities there. Hitler
declared war on the US, first. With Hitler dead, would anyone else in
the Nazi hierarchy be this arrogant or foolish?
The USSR and Nazi Germany were never allies. They had a non-agression
pact and some trade agreements, it's not like the USSR was supplying
guns or troops to help the Germans against the Brits.

Also remember that long before Pearl Harbor and the German declaration
of war against the US the US Navy was hunting U-boats in the Atlantic.
They wouldn't drop depth charges on them but when ever a US Navy ship
or aircraft spotted a U-boat they would broadcast its position to
anyone who might hear. The people listening would of course be the
Brits. It was also sometime in 1941 that the USN started escorting
convoys halfway across. It was only a matter of time before something
happened that would give the US the excuse to jump in.
Post by j***@yahoo.com
I propose, that with the Nazi-Soviet pact intact, and with no Hitler to
force the issue, FDR cannot and does not declare war on Germany, after
Pearl Harbor. The United States is at war with Japan, but not with
Germany. That, would, in turn, tend to force Britain's hand, to being
more flexible with terms in negotiating peace with Germany. They know
they can never beat them, on their own. A compromise, not status quo
pre-1939. Such an arrangement might be acceptable to the Nazis. If,
indeed, they still really are Nazis with Hitler dead.
1) Even if Germany and the US are not at war GB and the US are at war
with Japan so the Brits gain access to all sorts of US goodies for free
just because they are both fighting Japan. After all who in the US is
really going to keep track of whether those tanks are going to India or
North Africa. So if Britain has not given in in November of 41 they
certainly aren't going to give in in December once they are officially
US allies against Japan.

2) Second time is working against Germany, eventually they have to
deal with the USSR or the USSR will deal with them, not militarily but
economically.

3) Time is also working agaist the Germans because eventually either
growing US public opinion or some incident in the Atlantic will bring
the US into the war against them.

4) Finally it has been asked above. What kind of peace can GB settle
for? Germany has to give up its occupation of Norway, Belgium,
Holland, and France. Britain can't settle for anything less, it's
geopolitically impossible.

And what about Africa and Italy? If the Germans stick with the
Italians then they have to keep fighting Britain and if they run out on
Italy then the Itlians are beaten by the Brits and the British get a
new foot hold on the European mainland.

Pete
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Jerry Kraus
BernardZ
2006-02-15 07:32:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athos
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Re: Michele Armellini
With no Barbarossa, how likely is Stalin to initiate hostilities
against Germany? What does he really have to gain, other than one heck
of a fight with a, hitherto, invinceable enemy?
Stalin will not initiate hostilities with Germany. What Stalin will do
is to continue to muck about in Eastern Europe and Balkans until
Germany must either give up its position as the power in central Europe
or attack.
During the Cold war Stalin and later Russia always seem to know when to
stop if it got too hot.
Post by Athos
Stalin wasn't an idiot, he didn't agree to a non agression pact for
Germany's benefit, he did it for the benefit of the USSR. In Eastern
Europe the interests of the Soviet Union run counter to those of an
expansionistic Germany.
Remember Stalin doesn't want the Germany to beat Britain. He wants
Germany and Britain to bleed each other while the USSR uses the war to
pursue its own interests.
Britain and Germany making a deal would be very scary stuff to Stalin.
Post by Athos
If Germany actually looks like it will take out Britain the Germans
will find themselves short of food and fuel.
I doubt it as such a situation occurred about the period form the fall
of France to the attack on Russia, all that Stalin was trying to do was
buy Hitler off. He delivered raw materials and never got paid for them.
Post by Athos
As was said up thread the Germans were already becoming indepted to the
USSR. To Stalin Nazi Germany was just a tool to get what he wanted.
Once Germany looked like they would become a threat they would be cut
off.
His mistake was believing that Hitler would not fight a two front war
and that therefore the USSR was safe until Britain was beaten.
Post by j***@yahoo.com
With Germany and the Soviet Union still, ostensibly, allies, will FDR
be as eager to fight a war with Germany after Pearl Harbor? And,
remember, it was Hitler who initiated the hostilities there. Hitler
declared war on the US, first. With Hitler dead, would anyone else in
the Nazi hierarchy be this arrogant or foolish?
The USSR and Nazi Germany were never allies. They had a non-agression
pact and some trade agreements, it's not like the USSR was supplying
guns or troops to help the Germans against the Brits.
Also remember that long before Pearl Harbor and the German declaration
of war against the US the US Navy was hunting U-boats in the Atlantic.
They wouldn't drop depth charges on them but when ever a US Navy ship
or aircraft spotted a U-boat they would broadcast its position to
anyone who might hear. The people listening would of course be the
Brits. It was also sometime in 1941 that the USN started escorting
convoys halfway across. It was only a matter of time before something
happened that would give the US the excuse to jump in.
Making major concessions by Goring could stop much of this from getting
further. An immediate solution might be to stop all U-boat activity on
the American side of the Atlantic.

Then it really depends what Goring would be willing to offer. Say he
offered to make *major* concessions in Western Europe. Britain might
find it very hard to reject.
Post by Athos
Post by j***@yahoo.com
I propose, that with the Nazi-Soviet pact intact, and with no Hitler to
force the issue, FDR cannot and does not declare war on Germany, after
Pearl Harbor. The United States is at war with Japan, but not with
Germany. That, would, in turn, tend to force Britain's hand, to being
more flexible with terms in negotiating peace with Germany. They know
they can never beat them, on their own. A compromise, not status quo
pre-1939. Such an arrangement might be acceptable to the Nazis. If,
indeed, they still really are Nazis with Hitler dead.
With Russia as an ally, Japan has access to Russian oil so it may not
see the need to strike now while it still has oil. As well part of the
reason that Japan felt it was the ideal time to go to war was because
their Northern border with Russia was safe while Russia was collapsing.
I doubt that Japan go to war with the US if Russia was not engaged with
the war!
Michele Armellini
2006-02-15 09:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by BernardZ
With Russia as an ally, Japan has access to Russian oil so it may not
see the need to strike now while it still has oil.
If I read this correctly, you are assuming that since the Soviet Union was
supplying oil to Germany, it would also supply it to Japan. I don't think
it's a foregone conclusion.


As well part of the
Post by BernardZ
reason that Japan felt it was the ideal time to go to war was because
their Northern border with Russia was safe while Russia was collapsing.
I doubt that Japan go to war with the US if Russia was not engaged with
the war!
The issue is more complicated than that. Just to mention one factor, there
is the clash between the Army and the Navy. The Navy couldn't care less
about the border with Russia, but deemed that leaving the Texans alone,
while
they went for the English and Frisian colonies, was too dangerous.

(this sentence might sound somewhat silly. It's the way your sentences look,
every time you are unable to use the right names for the countries at war)
BernardZ
2006-02-15 15:07:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michele Armellini
Post by BernardZ
With Russia as an ally, Japan has access to Russian oil so it may not
see the need to strike now while it still has oil.
If I read this correctly, you are assuming that since the Soviet Union was
supplying oil to Germany, it would also supply it to Japan. I don't think
it's a foregone conclusion.
Obviously you don't know that before Hitler attack on Russia, the
Soviets had already promised to supply crude oil to the Japanese.
Post by Michele Armellini
As well part of the
Post by BernardZ
reason that Japan felt it was the ideal time to go to war was because
their Northern border with Russia was safe while Russia was collapsing.
I doubt that Japan go to war with the US if Russia was not engaged with
the war!
The issue is more complicated than that. Just to mention one factor, there
is the clash between the Army and the Navy. The Navy couldn't care less
about the border with Russia, but deemed that leaving the Texans alone,
while
they went for the English and Frisian colonies, was too dangerous.
<Sigh>

I hate people that post and don't have a clue about the subject. Okay
its hardy as if the Japanese Navy ruled Japan and solely made the
decision to attack to strike south. What you obviously do not realize is
that the Japanese government was not a totalitarian country under one
ruler Tojo who was an army man not a navy man.

But let me go further what you obviously don't know either is that just
before this time Japan and the Russian fought a major battle on the
border. This was only a short time before.

Furthermore just before Pearl Harbor even though the Russians were
obviously engaged in their own problems with the war with Germany, the
Japanese were so concerned about the possibility of a Soviet attack,
that Japanese ground forces in Manchuria were *strengthened*. In fact
the concern of the Japanese leaders was so much that almost all of the
Japanese army was in this region during WW2 and not used for the strike
South at all.
Post by Michele Armellini
(this sentence might sound somewhat silly. It's the way your sentences look,
every time you are unable to use the right names for the countries at war)
***... Yet another casualty of too much ignorance.

Anyone else like to comment, who knows something of the era?
--
When the wife wants a baby, her man's sexual performance is continuously
being measured and monitored.

Observations of Bernard - No 96
Rich Rostrom
2006-02-16 08:04:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by BernardZ
Post by Michele Armellini
Post by BernardZ
With Russia as an ally, Japan has access to Russian oil so it may not
see the need to strike now while it still has oil.
If I read this correctly, you are assuming that since the Soviet Union was
supplying oil to Germany, it would also supply it to Japan. I don't think
it's a foregone conclusion.
Obviously you don't know that before Hitler attack on Russia, the
Soviets had already promised to supply crude oil to the Japanese.
Japan had concessions for half the oil from the Soviet
part of Sakhalin - these fields having been developed
by Japanese companies during the Japanese occupation
of 1920-27 (or so).
Post by BernardZ
Post by Michele Armellini
As well part of the
Post by BernardZ
reason that Japan felt it was the ideal time to go to war was because
their Northern border with Russia was safe while Russia was collapsing.
I doubt that Japan go to war with the US if Russia was not engaged with
the war!
The issue is more complicated than that. Just to mention one factor, there
is the clash between the Army and the Navy. The Navy couldn't care less
about the border with Russia, but deemed that leaving the Texans alone,
while they went for the English and Frisian colonies, was too dangerous.
<Sigh>
I hate people that post and don't have a clue about the subject.
Mr. Armellini knows far more about the war than you do.
Probably by an order of magnitude. He is making fun of
you.
Post by BernardZ
Okay
its hardy as if the Japanese Navy ruled Japan and solely made the
decision to attack to strike south. What you obviously do not realize is
that the Japanese government was not a totalitarian country under one
ruler Tojo who was an army man not a navy man.
But let me go further what you obviously don't know either is that just
before this time Japan and the Russian fought a major battle on the
border. This was only a short time before.
Yes. Leading to the conclusion that Japan dared
not fight the Soviets again. Leading to the
conclusion that Japan must fulfill its conquering
destiny elsewhere. Leading to Japan doing things
that provoked the US to cut off oil supplies.
Leading to Japan's decision to seize British and
Dutch colonies in SE Asia. Leading to the decision
to attack Pearl Harbor to disable the US Fleet...

The Navy did not decide to go to war against the
Britain, Netherlands, and the US. The Army insisted,
rather than give up its war in China. Everyone in
the Japanese leadership knew that this was a very
dangerous decision, given the immense resources
of the US. It is highly unlikely that they would
have been deterred by the hypothetical threat of
retaliation.
--
| The shocking lack of a fleet of modern luxury |
| dirigibles is only one of a great many things that |
| are seriously wrong with this here world. |
| -- blogger "Coop" at Positive Ape Index |
Michele Armellini
2006-02-16 09:53:16 UTC
Permalink
"Rich Rostrom" <***@rcn.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:rrostrom.21stcentury-***@news.isp.giganews.com...

Thanks for sparing me the bother of replying to poor Bernardz,
Post by Rich Rostrom
Japan had concessions for half the oil from the Soviet
part of Sakhalin - these fields having been developed
by Japanese companies during the Japanese occupation
of 1920-27 (or so).
In fact. And as we know, it was peanuts. If it had not been peanuts, it
would have been enough to fuel the war in China.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Mr. Armellini knows far more about the war than you do.
Probably by an order of magnitude. He is making fun of
you.
Why thanks, I wouldn't be so sure about the first part of your statement,
maybe Bernardz is just not explaining his positions well. But you're 100%
right as to the second part.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Yes. Leading to the conclusion that Japan dared
not fight the Soviets again.
There is that, and the fact that while the Army saw the war as a matter of
winning battles and conquering lands, the Navy saw that those battles were
either defeats (against the Soviets) or inconclusive, and the lands not
always rich in resources. Bernardz must have not noticed that I used the
term "clash" between the two - which should have clued him in to the fact
that I'm at least vaguely aware Japan was not monolithic. But never mind.

Leading to the
Post by Rich Rostrom
conclusion that Japan must fulfill its conquering
destiny elsewhere.
Some richer, fatter place, preferably. There is a reason if Mongolia and
various part of Siberia are almost empty.
BernardZ
2006-02-16 16:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michele Armellini
Thanks for sparing me the bother of replying to poor Bernardz,
You don't have to reply to me ever again.

<kill file>
--
When the wife wants a baby, her man's sexual performance is continuously
being measured and monitored.

Observations of Bernard - No 96
BernardZ
2006-02-16 16:34:02 UTC
Permalink
In article <rrostrom.21stcentury-210478.02042116022006
@news.isp.giganews.com>, ***@rcn.com says...
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by BernardZ
Post by Michele Armellini
Post by BernardZ
With Russia as an ally, Japan has access to Russian oil so it may not
see the need to strike now while it still has oil.
If I read this correctly, you are assuming that since the Soviet Union was
supplying oil to Germany, it would also supply it to Japan. I don't think
it's a foregone conclusion.
Obviously you don't know that before Hitler attack on Russia, the
Soviets had already promised to supply crude oil to the Japanese.
Japan had concessions for half the oil from the Soviet
part of Sakhalin - these fields having been developed
by Japanese companies during the Japanese occupation
of 1920-27 (or so).
Of course they did. Michele Armellini showed he did not know.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by BernardZ
Post by Michele Armellini
As well part of the
Post by BernardZ
reason that Japan felt it was the ideal time to go to war was because
their Northern border with Russia was safe while Russia was collapsing.
I doubt that Japan go to war with the US if Russia was not engaged with
the war!
The issue is more complicated than that. Just to mention one factor, there
is the clash between the Army and the Navy. The Navy couldn't care less
about the border with Russia, but deemed that leaving the Texans alone,
while they went for the English and Frisian colonies, was too dangerous.
<Sigh>
I hate people that post and don't have a clue about the subject.
Mr. Armellini knows far more about the war than you do.
Actually he obviously did not know that the Russians had already agreed
to supply oil to Japan and he certainly exaggerated the Navy influence
on Japan policy.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Probably by an order of magnitude.
I actually know a hell of a lot on WW2. Michele Armellini obviously
knows much less as your own comments show.
Post by Rich Rostrom
He is making fun of
you.
Justice is that the only one laughing is me.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by BernardZ
Okay
its hardy as if the Japanese Navy ruled Japan and solely made the
decision to attack to strike south. What you obviously do not realize is
that the Japanese government was not a totalitarian country under one
ruler Tojo who was an army man not a navy man.
But let me go further what you obviously don't know either is that just
before this time Japan and the Russian fought a major battle on the
border. This was only a short time before.
Yes. Leading to the conclusion that Japan dared
not fight the Soviets again.
(a)
No conclusion was made until almost the end. The magic intercepts show
the Japanese government was quite undecided FDR reading the debate
stated it was "a real drag-down and knock-out fight ... to decide which
way they were going to jump-attack Russia, attack the South Seas [or]
sit on the fence and be more friendly with us."
Post by Rich Rostrom
Leading to the
conclusion that Japan must fulfill its conquering
destiny elsewhere. Leading to Japan doing things
that provoked the US to cut off oil supplies.
Leading to Japan's decision to seize British and
Dutch colonies in SE Asia. Leading to the decision
to attack Pearl Harbor to disable the US Fleet...
The Navy did not decide to go to war against the
Britain, Netherlands, and the US.
Yep. Michele Armellini made a fool of himself when he said that.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The Army insisted,
rather than give up its war in China. Everyone in
the Japanese leadership knew that this was a very
dangerous decision, given the immense resources
of the US. It is highly unlikely that they would
have been deterred by the hypothetical threat of
retaliation.
If you notice in early 1941 Japan is still trying to make deals, after
we can see Japan starting to move.

see (a) where you will note no position for Japan to strike called for
a war on two fronts. It was either Russia or South.
--
When the wife wants a baby, her man's sexual performance is continuously
being measured and monitored.

Observations of Bernard - No 96
Athos
2006-02-15 18:02:00 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by BernardZ
Making major concessions by Goring could stop much of this from getting
further. An immediate solution might be to stop all U-boat activity on
the American side of the Atlantic.
Then it really depends what Goring would be willing to offer. Say he
offered to make *major* concessions in Western Europe. Britain might
find it very hard to reject.
Again I ask, what could Nazi Germany offer Britain to make peace?

Can Germany agree to withdraw from France, Belgium, Holland, and
Norway?

Can Britain agree to any peace where Germany does not withdraw from
those countries?

What about Italy, what does Germany do about Italy's war in the Med?

Pete
bernardz
2006-02-15 23:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athos
<snip>
Post by BernardZ
Making major concessions by Goring could stop much of this from getting
further. An immediate solution might be to stop all U-boat activity on
the American side of the Atlantic.
Then it really depends what Goring would be willing to offer. Say he
offered to make *major* concessions in Western Europe. Britain might
find it very hard to reject.
Again I ask, what could Nazi Germany offer Britain to make peace?
Can Germany agree to withdraw from France, Belgium, Holland, and
Norway?
Can Britain agree to any peace where Germany does not withdraw from
those countries?
Say if Goring decides to follow Bismarck example. Say massive
withdrawals in Western Europe, in exchange for massive economic
benefits and influence in the region and in exchange Britain accepts
the changes of German power in Central and Eastern Europe.


Would it be fair for Britain to continue the war if offered those
conditions. US and Russia are not in the war, the war if it continuous
will ruin Britain and she may not win. Here she gets half of Europe
freed is better then continuing a war that may never be won.
Post by Athos
What about Italy, what does Germany do about Italy's war in the Med?
Presumably the French would lose much of their area in that region.
Post by Athos
Pete
Athos
2006-02-16 01:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by bernardz
Post by Athos
<snip>
Post by BernardZ
Making major concessions by Goring could stop much of this from getting
further. An immediate solution might be to stop all U-boat activity on
the American side of the Atlantic.
Then it really depends what Goring would be willing to offer. Say he
offered to make *major* concessions in Western Europe. Britain might
find it very hard to reject.
Again I ask, what could Nazi Germany offer Britain to make peace?
Can Germany agree to withdraw from France, Belgium, Holland, and
Norway?
Can Britain agree to any peace where Germany does not withdraw from
those countries?
Say if Goring decides to follow Bismarck example. Say massive
withdrawals in Western Europe, in exchange for massive economic
benefits and influence in the region and in exchange Britain accepts
the changes of German power in Central and Eastern Europe.
1) Goering is not Bismarck. No one trusts or likes the Nazis.

2) Within 20 years of Bismarck's victory France was ready for a
rematch. That rematch didn't come till 1914 but by the 1890's France
was again a power to be reconded with.

3) If Germany withdraws from all the occupied nations Britain may
agree to a peace. Of Cource the Brits will be working very hard to
replace all the governments in those nations with anti-Nazi
governments.

Take Holland and Belgium, two neutral nations that tried very hard to
stay neutral. Who in those countries will support Germany once the
German troops are gone?

How can Germany feel safe surrounded by nations that actively dislike
them.

If you think I'm being paranoid remember that Vichy France offered to
send an army to fight in the East if Germany agreed to release its
French POWs. The Germans declined the offer and held on to the POWs
till the end of the war. They knew that most of those Frenchmen wanted
to get even for 1940.
Post by bernardz
Would it be fair for Britain to continue the war if offered those
conditions. US and Russia are not in the war, the war if it continuous
will ruin Britain and she may not win. Here she gets half of Europe
freed is better then continuing a war that may never be won.
Well let's think this through after all it might work. One example,
Germany agrees to a complete withdrawal from the West. The Brits quite
reasonably agree to cease hostilities.

The Germans withdraw from Norway. The Norwegian government in exile
and the royal family return to Norway. Now Norway quite reasonably
wants to rearm to defend itself against a future invasion. Who will
this defence be aimed against?

What kind of meaningful consessions will the Germans be able to get
from Norway and how will this make the typical Norwegian feel toward
Germany.

Now that the Norwegiens know that their tradition of neutrality won't
protect them from invasion by Germany why should they be neutral.

Germany withdraws from France and releases the French POWs. What can
Germany do to France that France didn't do to Germany after WWI and in
20 years Germany was more than ready for a rematch. The Germans know
this. The Brits know this. The French know this.

How long can France maitain a pro-German government without German
occupation troops? In OTL with the Germans holding over 1 million
French POWs and occupying half the country Vichy was the effective
government for about two years.

In this TL with out German troops in metropolitan France and with the
returning POWs and the Free French making noise from outside of France
how long will Vichy last?

The moment that Germany shows any weakness these nations will rearm and
all the guns will be pointed at Germany.
Post by bernardz
Post by Athos
What about Italy, what does Germany do about Italy's war in the Med?
Presumably the French would lose much of their area in that region.
Except the French won't give up any of their overseas empire to the
Italians. That was one of the things that Italy kept pushing for and
that Spain asked for as a condition for entering the war. The French
flatly refused the Italian demands and German pressure. The Germans
were afraid to push too hard because they didn't want Frances overseas
empire to fall into the laps of the Brits.
Just some thoughts. I've tried to come up with a Britain settles in
1940/41 TL in the past and these are the problems I always run into.

No one trusts the Nazis to keep their word. The Nazis trust no one
else to keep their word and the 800 gorilla in the room is the USSR
which most everyone expects to lock horns with Germany sooner or later.

Pete
Mike Stone
2006-02-16 08:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athos
How long can France maitain a pro-German government without German
occupation troops? In OTL with the Germans holding over 1 million
French POWs and occupying half the country Vichy was the effective
government for about two years.
In this TL with out German troops in metropolitan France and with the
returning POWs and the Free French making noise from outside of France
how long will Vichy last?
Oh, it might last, but how long it would remain pro-German once that no
longer seemed expedient is another matter entirely.

--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England


"To be good is noble.

To teach others to be good is yet nobler - and far less trouble."

Mark Twain
BernardZ
2006-02-16 08:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athos
Post by bernardz
Post by Athos
<snip>
Post by BernardZ
Making major concessions by Goring could stop much of this from getting
further. An immediate solution might be to stop all U-boat activity on
the American side of the Atlantic.
Then it really depends what Goring would be willing to offer. Say he
offered to make *major* concessions in Western Europe. Britain might
find it very hard to reject.
Again I ask, what could Nazi Germany offer Britain to make peace?
Can Germany agree to withdraw from France, Belgium, Holland, and
Norway?
Can Britain agree to any peace where Germany does not withdraw from
those countries?
Say if Goring decides to follow Bismarck example. Say massive
withdrawals in Western Europe, in exchange for massive economic
benefits and influence in the region and in exchange Britain accepts
the changes of German power in Central and Eastern Europe.
1) Goering is not Bismarck.
I would not underestimate Goering. He was quite a capable man.


I think he might have been willing to make such a deal.

Before WW2 when asked what his aims were he replied to Hugh Christieon
3rd February, 1937.

Goering replied "We want a free hand in Eastern Europe. We want to
establish the unity of the German peoples (Grossdeutschegemeinschaft)'.


Later on at the BERLIN, REICHSTAG in a speech of MAY 4, 1941

I therefore once more publicly stated that Germany had neither demanded
nor intended to demand anything either from Britain or from France, that
it was madness to continue the war and, above all, that the scourge of
modern weapons of warfare, once they were brought into action, would
inevitably ravage vast territories.
Post by Athos
No one trusts or likes the Nazis.
Democracies have a terrible attitude of giving new leaders of movements
they detested another last chance.
Post by Athos
2) Within 20 years of Bismarck's victory France was ready for a
rematch. That rematch didn't come till 1914 but by the 1890's France
was again a power to be reconded with.
If Britain accepts these terms. France will find it self free but
presumably under some limitation from Germany. Germany will have a much
bigger population then it was in 1914 or even 1939. Economically it
would be much more powerful in that it now controls Eastern Europe.
Probably French economy would depend more on the German one as they
control most of central and Eastern Europe. France ability to take on
Germany will be much less.
Post by Athos
3) If Germany withdraws from all the occupied nations Britain may
agree to a peace. Of Cource the Brits will be working very hard to
replace all the governments in those nations with anti-Nazi
governments.
Actually the same comments apply to Britain.
Post by Athos
Take Holland and Belgium, two neutral nations that tried very hard to
stay neutral. Who in those countries will support Germany once the
German troops are gone?
Well to both these countries it would be clear that neither Britain or
France could defend them when Germany was much weaker so why would they
believe that these countries could save them in this ATL.
Post by Athos
How can Germany feel safe surrounded by nations that actively dislike
them.
Not untypical for Germany.
Post by Athos
If you think I'm being paranoid remember that Vichy France offered to
send an army to fight in the East if Germany agreed to release its
French POWs. The Germans declined the offer and held on to the POWs
till the end of the war. They knew that most of those Frenchmen wanted
to get even for 1940.
I don't think you are being paranoid at all.
Post by Athos
Post by bernardz
Would it be fair for Britain to continue the war if offered those
conditions. US and Russia are not in the war, the war if it continuous
will ruin Britain and she may not win. Here she gets half of Europe
freed is better then continuing a war that may never be won.
Well let's think this through after all it might work. One example,
Germany agrees to a complete withdrawal from the West. The Brits quite
reasonably agree to cease hostilities.
The Germans withdraw from Norway. The Norwegian government in exile
and the royal family return to Norway. Now Norway quite reasonably
wants to rearm to defend itself against a future invasion. Who will
this defence be aimed against?
What kind of meaningful consessions will the Germans be able to get
from Norway and how will this make the typical Norwegian feel toward
Germany.
Now that the Norwegiens know that their tradition of neutrality won't
protect them from invasion by Germany why should they be neutral.
Actually in the ATL I suspect that all the Scandinavian countries will
tend to follow Germany.

To the Norwegians, the Germans could justify there actions as defensive.
The Germans had not done that much bad to them. The Germans did not see
the Norwegians as inferior. In this ATL, the Norwegians would depend on
the German economy. Also it would be clear to them that neither France
or Britain could save them if the war starts up again.

Finland because of Russia,

Sweden well cut off from everyone else they would have little choice. As
well as that the social democrats there got on fine with the Nazi.
Post by Athos
Germany withdraws from France and releases the French POWs. What can
Germany do to France that France didn't do to Germany after WWI and in
20 years Germany was more than ready for a rematch. The Germans know
this. The Brits know this. The French know this.
The WW1 settlement failed because neither the French or the British were
willing to enforce the agreement. I suspect that Goering would have be
able to enforce the agreement.
Post by Athos
How long can France maitain a pro-German government without German
occupation troops? In OTL with the Germans holding over 1 million
French POWs and occupying half the country Vichy was the effective
government for about two years.
In this TL with out German troops in metropolitan France and with the
returning POWs and the Free French making noise from outside of France
how long will Vichy last?
The moment that Germany shows any weakness these nations will rearm and
all the guns will be pointed at Germany.
I doubt that Goering would show weakness. As well as that he has a much
more powerful country and military then Germany had in 1939.
Post by Athos
Post by bernardz
Post by Athos
What about Italy, what does Germany do about Italy's war in the Med?
Presumably the French would lose much of their area in that region.
Except the French won't give up any of their overseas empire to the
Italians. That was one of the things that Italy kept pushing for and
that Spain asked for as a condition for entering the war. The French
flatly refused the Italian demands and German pressure. The Germans
were afraid to push too hard because they didn't want Frances overseas
empire to fall into the laps of the Brits.
Just some thoughts. I've tried to come up with a Britain settles in
1940/41 TL in the past and these are the problems I always run into.
No one trusts the Nazis to keep their word. The Nazis trust no one
else to keep their word and the 800 gorilla in the room is the USSR
which most everyone expects to lock horns with Germany sooner or later.
During the Cold war no one trusted the Communist. Still some rough peace
was made. Stalin will soon rub Goering the wrong way.

The war might start up again.

A very frightening though in this ATL, Nazi Germany will soon have
nuclear bombs and missiles.
Post by Athos
Pete
--
When the wife wants a baby, her man's sexual performance is continuously
being measured and monitored.

Observations of Bernard - No 96
cliff wright
2006-02-17 03:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by BernardZ
Post by Athos
Post by bernardz
Post by Athos
<snip>
Post by BernardZ
Making major concessions by Goring could stop much of this from getting
further. An immediate solution might be to stop all U-boat activity on
the American side of the Atlantic.
Then it really depends what Goring would be willing to offer. Say he
offered to make *major* concessions in Western Europe. Britain might
find it very hard to reject.
Again I ask, what could Nazi Germany offer Britain to make peace?
Can Germany agree to withdraw from France, Belgium, Holland, and
Norway?
Can Britain agree to any peace where Germany does not withdraw from
those countries?
Say if Goring decides to follow Bismarck example. Say massive
withdrawals in Western Europe, in exchange for massive economic
benefits and influence in the region and in exchange Britain accepts
the changes of German power in Central and Eastern Europe.
1) Goering is not Bismarck.
I would not underestimate Goering. He was quite a capable man.
I think he might have been willing to make such a deal.
Before WW2 when asked what his aims were he replied to Hugh Christieon
3rd February, 1937.
Goering replied "We want a free hand in Eastern Europe. We want to
establish the unity of the German peoples (Grossdeutschegemeinschaft)'.
Later on at the BERLIN, REICHSTAG in a speech of MAY 4, 1941
I therefore once more publicly stated that Germany had neither demanded
nor intended to demand anything either from Britain or from France, that
it was madness to continue the war and, above all, that the scourge of
modern weapons of warfare, once they were brought into action, would
inevitably ravage vast territories.
Post by Athos
No one trusts or likes the Nazis.
Democracies have a terrible attitude of giving new leaders of movements
they detested another last chance.
Post by Athos
2) Within 20 years of Bismarck's victory France was ready for a
rematch. That rematch didn't come till 1914 but by the 1890's France
was again a power to be reconded with.
If Britain accepts these terms. France will find it self free but
presumably under some limitation from Germany. Germany will have a much
bigger population then it was in 1914 or even 1939. Economically it
would be much more powerful in that it now controls Eastern Europe.
Probably French economy would depend more on the German one as they
control most of central and Eastern Europe. France ability to take on
Germany will be much less.
Post by Athos
3) If Germany withdraws from all the occupied nations Britain may
agree to a peace. Of Cource the Brits will be working very hard to
replace all the governments in those nations with anti-Nazi
governments.
Actually the same comments apply to Britain.
Post by Athos
Take Holland and Belgium, two neutral nations that tried very hard to
stay neutral. Who in those countries will support Germany once the
German troops are gone?
Well to both these countries it would be clear that neither Britain or
France could defend them when Germany was much weaker so why would they
believe that these countries could save them in this ATL.
Post by Athos
How can Germany feel safe surrounded by nations that actively dislike
them.
Not untypical for Germany.
Post by Athos
If you think I'm being paranoid remember that Vichy France offered to
send an army to fight in the East if Germany agreed to release its
French POWs. The Germans declined the offer and held on to the POWs
till the end of the war. They knew that most of those Frenchmen wanted
to get even for 1940.
I don't think you are being paranoid at all.
Post by Athos
Post by bernardz
Would it be fair for Britain to continue the war if offered those
conditions. US and Russia are not in the war, the war if it continuous
will ruin Britain and she may not win. Here she gets half of Europe
freed is better then continuing a war that may never be won.
Well let's think this through after all it might work. One example,
Germany agrees to a complete withdrawal from the West. The Brits quite
reasonably agree to cease hostilities.
The Germans withdraw from Norway. The Norwegian government in exile
and the royal family return to Norway. Now Norway quite reasonably
wants to rearm to defend itself against a future invasion. Who will
this defence be aimed against?
What kind of meaningful consessions will the Germans be able to get
from Norway and how will this make the typical Norwegian feel toward
Germany.
Now that the Norwegiens know that their tradition of neutrality won't
protect them from invasion by Germany why should they be neutral.
Actually in the ATL I suspect that all the Scandinavian countries will
tend to follow Germany.
To the Norwegians, the Germans could justify there actions as defensive.
The Germans had not done that much bad to them. The Germans did not see
the Norwegians as inferior. In this ATL, the Norwegians would depend on
the German economy. Also it would be clear to them that neither France
or Britain could save them if the war starts up again.
Finland because of Russia,
Sweden well cut off from everyone else they would have little choice. As
well as that the social democrats there got on fine with the Nazi.
Post by Athos
Germany withdraws from France and releases the French POWs. What can
Germany do to France that France didn't do to Germany after WWI and in
20 years Germany was more than ready for a rematch. The Germans know
this. The Brits know this. The French know this.
The WW1 settlement failed because neither the French or the British were
willing to enforce the agreement. I suspect that Goering would have be
able to enforce the agreement.
Post by Athos
How long can France maitain a pro-German government without German
occupation troops? In OTL with the Germans holding over 1 million
French POWs and occupying half the country Vichy was the effective
government for about two years.
In this TL with out German troops in metropolitan France and with the
returning POWs and the Free French making noise from outside of France
how long will Vichy last?
The moment that Germany shows any weakness these nations will rearm and
all the guns will be pointed at Germany.
I doubt that Goering would show weakness. As well as that he has a much
more powerful country and military then Germany had in 1939.
Post by Athos
Post by bernardz
Post by Athos
What about Italy, what does Germany do about Italy's war in the Med?
Presumably the French would lose much of their area in that region.
Except the French won't give up any of their overseas empire to the
Italians. That was one of the things that Italy kept pushing for and
that Spain asked for as a condition for entering the war. The French
flatly refused the Italian demands and German pressure. The Germans
were afraid to push too hard because they didn't want Frances overseas
empire to fall into the laps of the Brits.
Just some thoughts. I've tried to come up with a Britain settles in
1940/41 TL in the past and these are the problems I always run into.
No one trusts the Nazis to keep their word. The Nazis trust no one
else to keep their word and the 800 gorilla in the room is the USSR
which most everyone expects to lock horns with Germany sooner or later.
During the Cold war no one trusted the Communist. Still some rough peace
was made. Stalin will soon rub Goering the wrong way.
The war might start up again.
A very frightening though in this ATL, Nazi Germany will soon have
nuclear bombs and missiles.
Post by Athos
Pete
No one seems to have considered an idea I posted a while ago.
How about Goering (or whoever was in control) ditching the Japanese
alliance, which made no sense according to Nazi racial theories anyway.
The Japanese had already proved themselves to be useless allies in
support of Barbarossa to such an extent that Stalin was able to move
troops West to combat the German advance.
How about Germany denouncing the Pearl Harbor attack and offering
Roosevelt a couple of U boats to atack Japanese targets.
Sure its probably a bit radical, but with a large peace party in the USA
what could Roosevelt do?
Declare war on a nation that had just offered an alliance against a
sneak attacker? If this offer was combined with another posters idea of
a Uboat withdrawl from the western Atlantic it would have probably been
politically impossible for him.
Whether Goering would be astute enough to try this is quite another
matter of course, Oh the benifits of 20-20 hindsight!!!
Regards Cliff Wright.
BernardZ
2006-02-17 04:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by cliff wright
Post by BernardZ
Post by Athos
Post by bernardz
Post by Athos
<snip>
Post by BernardZ
Making major concessions by Goring could stop much of this from getting
further. An immediate solution might be to stop all U-boat activity on
the American side of the Atlantic.
Then it really depends what Goring would be willing to offer. Say he
offered to make *major* concessions in Western Europe. Britain might
find it very hard to reject.
Again I ask, what could Nazi Germany offer Britain to make peace?
Can Germany agree to withdraw from France, Belgium, Holland, and
Norway?
Can Britain agree to any peace where Germany does not withdraw from
those countries?
Say if Goring decides to follow Bismarck example. Say massive
withdrawals in Western Europe, in exchange for massive economic
benefits and influence in the region and in exchange Britain accepts
the changes of German power in Central and Eastern Europe.
1) Goering is not Bismarck.
I would not underestimate Goering. He was quite a capable man.
I think he might have been willing to make such a deal.
Before WW2 when asked what his aims were he replied to Hugh Christieon
3rd February, 1937.
Goering replied "We want a free hand in Eastern Europe. We want to
establish the unity of the German peoples (Grossdeutschegemeinschaft)'.
Later on at the BERLIN, REICHSTAG in a speech of MAY 4, 1941
I therefore once more publicly stated that Germany had neither demanded
nor intended to demand anything either from Britain or from France, that
it was madness to continue the war and, above all, that the scourge of
modern weapons of warfare, once they were brought into action, would
inevitably ravage vast territories.
Post by Athos
No one trusts or likes the Nazis.
Democracies have a terrible attitude of giving new leaders of movements
they detested another last chance.
Post by Athos
2) Within 20 years of Bismarck's victory France was ready for a
rematch. That rematch didn't come till 1914 but by the 1890's France
was again a power to be reconded with.
If Britain accepts these terms. France will find it self free but
presumably under some limitation from Germany. Germany will have a much
bigger population then it was in 1914 or even 1939. Economically it
would be much more powerful in that it now controls Eastern Europe.
Probably French economy would depend more on the German one as they
control most of central and Eastern Europe. France ability to take on
Germany will be much less.
Post by Athos
3) If Germany withdraws from all the occupied nations Britain may
agree to a peace. Of Cource the Brits will be working very hard to
replace all the governments in those nations with anti-Nazi
governments.
Actually the same comments apply to Britain.
Post by Athos
Take Holland and Belgium, two neutral nations that tried very hard to
stay neutral. Who in those countries will support Germany once the
German troops are gone?
Well to both these countries it would be clear that neither Britain or
France could defend them when Germany was much weaker so why would they
believe that these countries could save them in this ATL.
Post by Athos
How can Germany feel safe surrounded by nations that actively dislike
them.
Not untypical for Germany.
Post by Athos
If you think I'm being paranoid remember that Vichy France offered to
send an army to fight in the East if Germany agreed to release its
French POWs. The Germans declined the offer and held on to the POWs
till the end of the war. They knew that most of those Frenchmen wanted
to get even for 1940.
I don't think you are being paranoid at all.
Post by Athos
Post by bernardz
Would it be fair for Britain to continue the war if offered those
conditions. US and Russia are not in the war, the war if it continuous
will ruin Britain and she may not win. Here she gets half of Europe
freed is better then continuing a war that may never be won.
Well let's think this through after all it might work. One example,
Germany agrees to a complete withdrawal from the West. The Brits quite
reasonably agree to cease hostilities.
The Germans withdraw from Norway. The Norwegian government in exile
and the royal family return to Norway. Now Norway quite reasonably
wants to rearm to defend itself against a future invasion. Who will
this defence be aimed against?
What kind of meaningful consessions will the Germans be able to get
from Norway and how will this make the typical Norwegian feel toward
Germany.
Now that the Norwegiens know that their tradition of neutrality won't
protect them from invasion by Germany why should they be neutral.
Actually in the ATL I suspect that all the Scandinavian countries will
tend to follow Germany.
To the Norwegians, the Germans could justify there actions as defensive.
The Germans had not done that much bad to them. The Germans did not see
the Norwegians as inferior. In this ATL, the Norwegians would depend on
the German economy. Also it would be clear to them that neither France
or Britain could save them if the war starts up again.
Finland because of Russia,
Sweden well cut off from everyone else they would have little choice. As
well as that the social democrats there got on fine with the Nazi.
Post by Athos
Germany withdraws from France and releases the French POWs. What can
Germany do to France that France didn't do to Germany after WWI and in
20 years Germany was more than ready for a rematch. The Germans know
this. The Brits know this. The French know this.
The WW1 settlement failed because neither the French or the British were
willing to enforce the agreement. I suspect that Goering would have be
able to enforce the agreement.
Post by Athos
How long can France maitain a pro-German government without German
occupation troops? In OTL with the Germans holding over 1 million
French POWs and occupying half the country Vichy was the effective
government for about two years.
In this TL with out German troops in metropolitan France and with the
returning POWs and the Free French making noise from outside of France
how long will Vichy last?
The moment that Germany shows any weakness these nations will rearm and
all the guns will be pointed at Germany.
I doubt that Goering would show weakness. As well as that he has a much
more powerful country and military then Germany had in 1939.
Post by Athos
Post by bernardz
Post by Athos
What about Italy, what does Germany do about Italy's war in the Med?
Presumably the French would lose much of their area in that region.
Except the French won't give up any of their overseas empire to the
Italians. That was one of the things that Italy kept pushing for and
that Spain asked for as a condition for entering the war. The French
flatly refused the Italian demands and German pressure. The Germans
were afraid to push too hard because they didn't want Frances overseas
empire to fall into the laps of the Brits.
Just some thoughts. I've tried to come up with a Britain settles in
1940/41 TL in the past and these are the problems I always run into.
No one trusts the Nazis to keep their word. The Nazis trust no one
else to keep their word and the 800 gorilla in the room is the USSR
which most everyone expects to lock horns with Germany sooner or later.
During the Cold war no one trusted the Communist. Still some rough peace
was made. Stalin will soon rub Goering the wrong way.
The war might start up again.
A very frightening though in this ATL, Nazi Germany will soon have
nuclear bombs and missiles.
Post by Athos
Pete
No one seems to have considered an idea I posted a while ago.
How about Goering (or whoever was in control) ditching the Japanese
alliance, which made no sense according to Nazi racial theories anyway.
The Japanese had already proved themselves to be useless allies in
support of Barbarossa to such an extent that Stalin was able to move
troops West to combat the German advance.
How about Germany denouncing the Pearl Harbor attack and offering
Roosevelt a couple of U boats to atack Japanese targets.
Sure its probably a bit radical, but with a large peace party in the USA
what could Roosevelt do?
Declare war on a nation that had just offered an alliance against a
sneak attacker? If this offer was combined with another posters idea of
a Uboat withdrawl from the western Atlantic it would have probably been
politically impossible for him.
Whether Goering would be astute enough to try this is quite another
matter of course, Oh the benifits of 20-20 hindsight!!!
Regards Cliff Wright.
The Japanese already had assurance that if they did go to war with the
US that Germany would declare war.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Berlin
To: Tokyo
29 November 1941
(Purple)
#1393 (In 3 parts, complete)

Ribbentrop: "Should Japan become engaged in a war against the United
States Germany, of course, would join the war immediately. There is
absolutely no possibility of Germany's entering into a separate peace
with the United States under such circumstances. The Fuehrer is
determined on that point."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Also once Pearl Harbour occurs it would be very hard for Germany to dump
Japan who everyone saw as her ally.

However say Goering puts in his peace proposal breaking the axis or even
just before Pearl Harbor refuses to agree to go to war with the US
before Pearl Harbor say publicly. Then dumps Japan on hearing about
Pearl Harbor, he might get away with it at least for a while.
--
When the wife wants a baby, her man's sexual performance is continuously
being measured and monitored.

Observations of Bernard - No 96
Rich Rostrom
2006-02-17 17:59:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by BernardZ
The Japanese already had assurance that if they did go to war with the
US that Germany would declare war.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Berlin
To: Tokyo
29 November 1941
(Purple)
#1393 (In 3 parts, complete)
Ribbentrop: "Should Japan become engaged in a war against the United
States Germany, of course, would join the war immediately. There is
absolutely no possibility of Germany's entering into a separate peace
with the United States under such circumstances. The Fuehrer is
determined on that point."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Also once Pearl Harbour occurs it would be very hard for Germany to dump
Japan who everyone saw as her ally.
Especially since Japan has also attacked Britain,
which is at war with Germany.
--
| The shocking lack of a fleet of modern luxury |
| dirigibles is only one of a great many things that |
| are seriously wrong with this here world. |
| -- blogger "Coop" at Positive Ape Index |
Michele Armellini
2006-02-17 08:40:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by cliff wright
No one seems to have considered an idea I posted a while ago.
I seem to remember discussing this. Maybe not with you here.
Post by cliff wright
How about Goering (or whoever was in control) ditching the Japanese
alliance, which made no sense according to Nazi racial theories anyway.
The Japanese had already proved themselves to be useless allies in
support of Barbarossa to such an extent that Stalin was able to move
troops West to combat the German advance.
How about Germany denouncing the Pearl Harbor attack and offering
Roosevelt a couple of U boats to atack Japanese targets.
Sure its probably a bit radical, but with a large peace party in the USA
what could Roosevelt do?
1. Turn down the offer. The US Navy don't need no help by stinkin' U-boats,
and the USA don't need no alliance with the stinkin' Nazis.
2. Refrain from declaring war on Germany, of course; you are right that it
would not be possible - immediately.
3. Continue as before for a while.

The scenarios proposed until now attempted to do away with Barbarossa. Your
PoD, OTOH, has Germans already being kicked back in their frozen asses in
front of Moscow in those same months of December 1941. This means that for
the time being, direct involvement of US ground troops in the MTO/ETO is not
needed. The USA can train up their Army and continue shipping supplies to
the UK. If the Germans make good on their offer, they are not attempting to
stop the convoys before Iceland, nor sinking anything along the vulnerable
US Atlantic coast. Therefore the British get resupplied, and they can also,
mainly as a political gesture, funnel some US goods to the Soviets. There is
no particular reason why the Vladivostok run cannot be opened, too.
After that, just keep pushing the envelope in the Atlantic. The peace
movement in the USA has taken a whopping blow with Pearl Harbor. The
agreements as to the Atlantic policies, and the concept that Germany is the
more dangerous threat, are already in place. Sooner or later the Germans
will sink another US destroyer, closer to the British coast. That will be
the casus belli.

It is possible, of course, that this casus belli arrives later than
convenient, thus delaying US participation to Torch, and given the political
realities, probably delaying the whole of Torch. In this case, there's a
more interesting Rommel-Montgomery match for Tripolitania.
Michele Armellini
2006-02-16 09:35:23 UTC
Permalink
"Athos" <***@aol.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

(snip things I agree upon)
Post by Athos
Just some thoughts. I've tried to come up with a Britain settles in
1940/41 TL in the past and these are the problems I always run into.
No one trusts the Nazis to keep their word. The Nazis trust no one
else to keep their word and the 800 gorilla in the room is the USSR
which most everyone expects to lock horns with Germany sooner or later.
In fact, Bernardz's proposals are totally unrealistic. On top of all the
serious issues you raised, one should always remember the unsexy part of
making war.
As of 1939, the German state's income per year in taxes was around 15
billion Reichsmarks. The spending for that year, however, was, get ready for
it, over 30 billion Reichsmarks. And the already cumulated state debt was
over 40 billion Reichsmarks.
At that point, stealing the German Jews' properties and borrowing from
abroad and from its own citizens wouldn't solve this near-bankrupt situation
for long. Germans had to act like the robber barons of old. They had to
use the steel to rob the gold to pay for the steel. And they did exactly
that. It's one of the key reasons why the Sudeten weren't enough.

By 1941, they have been plundering a slew of other countries. But at the
same time, they have been consuming up their steel, and oil, and aircraft.
They are importing raw materials, most importantly oil, from the SU, and
they aren't paying it back.

Suppose they withdraw from France, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark and
Norway. Let's also suppose they take away everything they can. It will be,
however, the last take away. They will have no longer any income from the
occupied territories in Western Europe. They will have, just to make an
example, some dozens of divisions equipped with French trucks and French AT
guns - but they will be no longer in control of the factories that can
produce the spare parts and ammo.
The steel gets blunter and blunter.

The French rearm, and the Belgians and Dutch forego neutrality, ally with
them, and the Maginot Line stretches from Switzerland to the sea.
The wind changes in Sweden. Now, those able to apply pressure are the
Norwegians and the British (the Norwegians, of course, also abandon
neutrality). The Germans find that importing their iron ore is, for some
reason, increasingly difficult. of course they are not getting any nickel
from Petsamo, either.
Sometime in 1942, the SU denounces the economic treaties and stop supplying
Germany.

The domino effect continues with Italy. Either Italy also quits, or it keeps
fighting. In either case, the results are the same: out of Greece, out of
Somaliland, at least out of Eastern Libya (they might keep Tripoli), out of
Albania. Italy licks its wounds and stays out anything else.
The Yugoslavs go pro-British as in OTL, only the Germans can't just invade
and redress things; so the Balkans see a neutral Bulgaria, a pro-British
block of Greece and Yugoslavia (Albania's status is unimportant, but it's
part of this block in any case), and Hungary and Romania who are now
wondering if they have jumped on the right bandwagon.

And of course the Red Army is growing greater and better by the minute. The
T-34s are rolling out, and in far greater numbers than the improved Pz IVs
(about which, in 1940, the Soviets said something like: "hey, the Germans
won't show us their _real_ heavy tanks!")
Meanwhile, the British aircraft industries are outproducing the German ones
as per OTL; it's peace of sorts, but the British don't want to see victory
in the jaws of defeat etc. again.

In the spring of 1943, the Germans do something egregiously repressive and
bloody in occupied Poland. France and Britain, leading a coalition of states
that call themselves the Allies, state that they want the previous
agreements discussed again, and this time they do the right thing and
recruit the SU. Just out of precaution, the Allies and the SU immediately
start mobilization, while they wait for the German reply.
Rich Rostrom
2006-02-16 07:47:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by BernardZ
With Russia as an ally, Japan has access to Russian oil so it may not
see the need to strike now while it still has oil.
Umm, no. The only oil from Soviet sources which
can be delivered to Japan is from Sakhalin. Half
of this is already going to Japan under concessions
made in the 1920s (when Japan occupied the northern
half of Sakhalin and then withdrew).

This oil was useful, but not anywhere near enough
for Japan's needs. The Siberian oilfields are
1000s of km to the west, and there was no pipeline
to the east.
--
| The shocking lack of a fleet of modern luxury |
| dirigibles is only one of a great many things that |
| are seriously wrong with this here world. |
| -- blogger "Coop" at Positive Ape Index |
Oliver Neukum
2006-02-16 08:00:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by BernardZ
With Russia as an ally, Japan has access to Russian oil so it may not
see the need to strike now while it still has oil.
Umm, no. The only oil from Soviet sources which
can be delivered to Japan is from Sakhalin. Half
of this is already going to Japan under concessions
made in the 1920s (when Japan occupied the northern
half of Sakhalin and then withdrew).
This oil was useful, but not anywhere near enough
for Japan's needs. The Siberian oilfields are
1000s of km to the west, and there was no pipeline
to the east.
You can move oil by rail. It's less efficient but routine.

Regards
Oliver
Michele Armellini
2006-02-16 08:53:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oliver Neukum
You can move oil by rail. It's less efficient but routine.
You can but you won't. If you are giving oil basically for free to the thug
who's got a foot in your doorstep, that doesn't mean you'll also give it,
for free or not, to the other thug who's all the way behind the 6-ft wall at
the back of the garden, a thug you've just beaten BTW.
Oliver Neukum
2006-02-16 14:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michele Armellini
Post by Oliver Neukum
You can move oil by rail. It's less efficient but routine.
You can but you won't. If you are giving oil basically for free to the
thug who's got a foot in your doorstep, that doesn't mean you'll also give
it, for free or not, to the other thug who's all the way behind the 6-ft
wall at the back of the garden, a thug you've just beaten BTW.
If you've just beaten him and would like a few concessions in China,
why not pocket the money you can use and sell with a surcharge?

Regards
Oliver
Michele Armellini
2006-02-16 14:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oliver Neukum
Post by Michele Armellini
Post by Oliver Neukum
You can move oil by rail. It's less efficient but routine.
You can but you won't. If you are giving oil basically for free to the
thug who's got a foot in your doorstep, that doesn't mean you'll also give
it, for free or not, to the other thug who's all the way behind the 6-ft
wall at the back of the garden, a thug you've just beaten BTW.
If you've just beaten him and would like a few concessions in China,
why not pocket the money you can use and sell with a surcharge?
1. What concessions would the SU ask, and what concessions would Japan be
ready to grant?
2. The bit about money is also tricky. There is a reason if the agreements
between Germany and the SU were refined versions of barter.
3. Finally, Stalin is the likeliest leader to remember a certain sentence
about selling your enemy the rope with which he'll hang you. And given that
as of mid-1941 the divisions facing the Japanese threat were the best
trained, led and armed in the Red Army, evidently he did not consider the
Japanese as friends.
k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2006-02-17 03:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michele Armellini
You can but you won't.
There is also the problem of Soviet railways in Siberia. As far
as I know it was working to capacity anyway. Just about anything
transported in Siberia had to go by rail. Adding extra oil
transport into the mix could have caused a complete breakdown.

Most people seem to be under the impression that railways were
as efficient in 1939 as in 1999. They were not. Maximum trailing
load was much smaller using steam. Most freight did not have a
continuous brake limiting maximum speed, and the old axle boxes
were not that happy at high speed anyway. Far more was required
in the way of rolling stock and maintenance facilities as well.

Ken Young
BernardZ
2006-02-17 04:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Michele Armellini
You can but you won't.
There is also the problem of Soviet railways in Siberia. As far
as I know it was working to capacity anyway. Just about anything
transported in Siberia had to go by rail. Adding extra oil
transport into the mix could have caused a complete breakdown.
Most people seem to be under the impression that railways were
as efficient in 1939 as in 1999. They were not. Maximum trailing
load was much smaller using steam. Most freight did not have a
continuous brake limiting maximum speed, and the old axle boxes
were not that happy at high speed anyway. Far more was required
in the way of rolling stock and maintenance facilities as well.
Ken Young
Why bother with railways? Ships are much cheaper and easier. If Russia
and Japan are not at war, the oil can be shipped by either countries
ships.
--
When the wife wants a baby, her man's sexual performance is continuously
being measured and monitored.

Observations of Bernard - No 96
David Johnson
2006-02-17 05:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by BernardZ
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Michele Armellini
You can but you won't.
There is also the problem of Soviet railways in Siberia. As far
as I know it was working to capacity anyway. Just about anything
transported in Siberia had to go by rail. Adding extra oil
transport into the mix could have caused a complete breakdown.
Most people seem to be under the impression that railways were
as efficient in 1939 as in 1999. They were not. Maximum trailing
load was much smaller using steam. Most freight did not have a
continuous brake limiting maximum speed, and the old axle boxes
were not that happy at high speed anyway. Far more was required
in the way of rolling stock and maintenance facilities as well.
Ken Young
Why bother with railways? Ships are much cheaper and easier. If Russia
and Japan are not at war, the oil can be shipped by either countries
ships.
You do realize this means Russian or Japanese tankers filling up at a
Baltic port, going clear around Europe (where there's a war going on,
with ships and subs likely to shoot first and go "oops!" later), then
clear around Africa (or through another naval war zone in the Med), then
clear across the Indian Ocean and back up the Pacific to Japan.

Heck, are there even any tankers that can make that trip back then...I
mean and still arrive with any oil in them?

This is not a viable option...

David
--
David Johnson http://home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan
"You're a loony, you are!"
"They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..."
"Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too."

Remove "_nospam" to email
BernardZ
2006-02-17 08:24:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnson
Post by BernardZ
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Michele Armellini
You can but you won't.
There is also the problem of Soviet railways in Siberia. As far
as I know it was working to capacity anyway. Just about anything
transported in Siberia had to go by rail. Adding extra oil
transport into the mix could have caused a complete breakdown.
Most people seem to be under the impression that railways were
as efficient in 1939 as in 1999. They were not. Maximum trailing
load was much smaller using steam. Most freight did not have a
continuous brake limiting maximum speed, and the old axle boxes
were not that happy at high speed anyway. Far more was required
in the way of rolling stock and maintenance facilities as well.
Ken Young
Why bother with railways? Ships are much cheaper and easier. If Russia
and Japan are not at war, the oil can be shipped by either countries
ships.
You do realize this means Russian or Japanese tankers filling up at a
Baltic port, going clear around Europe (where there's a war going on,
with ships and subs likely to shoot first and go "oops!" later), then
clear around Africa (or through another naval war zone in the Med), then
clear across the Indian Ocean and back up the Pacific to Japan.
With the war on you are probably right. You would use trains.
Post by David Johnson
Heck, are there even any tankers that can make that trip back then...I
mean and still arrive with any oil in them?
Yes. The distance is not the problem.
Post by David Johnson
This is not a viable option...
David
--
When the wife wants a baby, her man's sexual performance is continuously
being measured and monitored.

Observations of Bernard - No 96
David Johnson
2006-02-17 19:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by BernardZ
Post by David Johnson
Post by BernardZ
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Michele Armellini
You can but you won't.
There is also the problem of Soviet railways in Siberia. As far
as I know it was working to capacity anyway. Just about anything
transported in Siberia had to go by rail. Adding extra oil
transport into the mix could have caused a complete breakdown.
Most people seem to be under the impression that railways were
as efficient in 1939 as in 1999. They were not. Maximum trailing
load was much smaller using steam. Most freight did not have a
continuous brake limiting maximum speed, and the old axle boxes
were not that happy at high speed anyway. Far more was required
in the way of rolling stock and maintenance facilities as well.
Ken Young
Why bother with railways? Ships are much cheaper and easier. If
Russia and Japan are not at war, the oil can be shipped by either
countries ships.
You do realize this means Russian or Japanese tankers filling up at a
Baltic port, going clear around Europe (where there's a war going on,
with ships and subs likely to shoot first and go "oops!" later), then
clear around Africa (or through another naval war zone in the Med),
then clear across the Indian Ocean and back up the Pacific to Japan.
With the war on you are probably right. You would use trains.
Except that this brings us right around full circle to the problem that
Ken Younk pointed out - the trains in place then couldn't handle it.

So, you have two options:

1) Ship oil by trains - which they can't do because the rail system is
inadequate.

or

2) Ship oil by...ship* - which they can't do because this requires
sending tankers through a couple of war zones.

Net result of these options: the Soviet Union isn't going to be shipping
any useful loads of oil to the Japanese during this alt-WWII.

David

* Of course, even shipping by train is going on a ship _eventually_ -
Japan is an island, after all. _Now_ you've got the problem that
Vladivostok basically closed for business in the winter...
--
_______________________________________________________________________
David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan

"You're a loony, you are!"
"They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..."
"Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too!"
David Johnson
2006-02-17 19:56:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnson
Post by BernardZ
Post by David Johnson
Post by BernardZ
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Michele Armellini
You can but you won't.
There is also the problem of Soviet railways in Siberia. As far
as I know it was working to capacity anyway. Just about anything
transported in Siberia had to go by rail. Adding extra oil
transport into the mix could have caused a complete breakdown.
Most people seem to be under the impression that railways were
as efficient in 1939 as in 1999. They were not. Maximum trailing
load was much smaller using steam. Most freight did not have a
continuous brake limiting maximum speed, and the old axle boxes
were not that happy at high speed anyway. Far more was required
in the way of rolling stock and maintenance facilities as well.
Ken Young
Why bother with railways? Ships are much cheaper and easier. If
Russia and Japan are not at war, the oil can be shipped by either
countries ships.
You do realize this means Russian or Japanese tankers filling up at a
Baltic port, going clear around Europe (where there's a war going on,
with ships and subs likely to shoot first and go "oops!" later), then
clear around Africa (or through another naval war zone in the Med),
then clear across the Indian Ocean and back up the Pacific to Japan.
With the war on you are probably right. You would use trains.
Except that this brings us right around full circle to the problem that
Ken Younk pointed out - the trains in place then couldn't handle it.
Ken _Young_ - yeah, I can spell, really...

David
--
_______________________________________________________________________
David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan

"You're a loony, you are!"
"They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..."
"Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too!"
cliff wright
2006-02-18 02:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnson
Post by David Johnson
Post by BernardZ
Post by David Johnson
Post by BernardZ
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Michele Armellini
You can but you won't.
There is also the problem of Soviet railways in Siberia. As far
as I know it was working to capacity anyway. Just about anything
transported in Siberia had to go by rail. Adding extra oil
transport into the mix could have caused a complete breakdown.
Most people seem to be under the impression that railways were
as efficient in 1939 as in 1999. They were not. Maximum trailing
load was much smaller using steam. Most freight did not have a
continuous brake limiting maximum speed, and the old axle boxes
were not that happy at high speed anyway. Far more was required
in the way of rolling stock and maintenance facilities as well.
Ken Young
Why bother with railways? Ships are much cheaper and easier. If
Russia and Japan are not at war, the oil can be shipped by either
countries ships.
You do realize this means Russian or Japanese tankers filling up at a
Baltic port, going clear around Europe (where there's a war going on,
with ships and subs likely to shoot first and go "oops!" later), then
clear around Africa (or through another naval war zone in the Med),
then clear across the Indian Ocean and back up the Pacific to Japan.
With the war on you are probably right. You would use trains.
Except that this brings us right around full circle to the problem that
Ken Younk pointed out - the trains in place then couldn't handle it.
Ken _Young_ - yeah, I can spell, really...
David
I must confess that I'm a bit nonplussed at the illogic of some
suggestions about this ATL.
Ok the Nazi's were untrustworthy. OK they had a bad record of invading
neutral countries (but so had Britain, Norway etc). So why was it
impossible for them to dump the Berlin/Tokyo axis?
Yes I know what Ribbentrop said, but he was probably a member of the
Nazi government whose role in losing WW2 for Germany is often
underestimated. In brief he was a pompous fool!
That was the whole problem of the Partie. The "one leader" clause.
Adolphus makes a mistake and noone can correct it.
Does anyone know how Goering and Ribbentrop got on with each other?
If they didn't it might be quite likely that Goering would have removed
him soon after the leader's demise.
Anyone got any reliable information on this point?
Regards Cliff Wright.
Michele Armellini
2006-02-20 08:41:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by cliff wright
I must confess that I'm a bit nonplussed at the illogic of some
suggestions about this ATL.
I'm afraid they do seem logical to many of the posters.
Post by cliff wright
Ok the Nazi's were untrustworthy.
Exactly. So why make a deal with them?


OK they had a bad record of invading
Post by cliff wright
neutral countries (but so had Britain, Norway etc).
_This_ is an example of logical fallacy.

I'll assume that by mentioning "Britain, Norway" you are not implying that
Britain and Norway both had a record of invading neutral countries, but
rather that Britain invaded neutral Norway.

This is historically not true, but for the sake of the discussion let's
assume Britain did indeed invade neutral Norway.
...So what?

The problem should not be assessed from the impartial point of view of an
external observer, who might, if misinformed, deem that Britain had invaded
neutral Norway and therefore was as "guilty" as Germany.

That is not the right POV because, you see, the ones assessing Germany's
untrustworthiness are not impartial observers. They are, well, _the
British_.
And they won't care about what _they_ have done (or not, as the case is),
but about what _Germany_ has done.
Maybe this is not fair, but it's the way things would go.

Besides, behavior during the war is one thing. The British however would be
assessing the likely, foreseeable Nazis' behavior during the post-war peace.
During wartime, the British may have struck some questionable blows. But in
peacetime, the Nazis had anschlussed Austria, seized the Sudeten,
dismembered Czechoslovakia, strong-armed Memel away, and finally attacked
Poland. Not to mention minor things like re-militarizing the Rhineland or
supporting Franco. It's quite a track record for peacetime.
bernardz
2006-02-21 05:34:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by cliff wright
Post by David Johnson
Post by David Johnson
Post by BernardZ
Post by David Johnson
Post by BernardZ
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Michele Armellini
You can but you won't.
There is also the problem of Soviet railways in Siberia. As far
as I know it was working to capacity anyway. Just about anything
transported in Siberia had to go by rail. Adding extra oil
transport into the mix could have caused a complete breakdown.
Most people seem to be under the impression that railways were
as efficient in 1939 as in 1999. They were not. Maximum trailing
load was much smaller using steam. Most freight did not have a
continuous brake limiting maximum speed, and the old axle boxes
were not that happy at high speed anyway. Far more was required
in the way of rolling stock and maintenance facilities as well.
Ken Young
Why bother with railways? Ships are much cheaper and easier. If
Russia and Japan are not at war, the oil can be shipped by either
countries ships.
You do realize this means Russian or Japanese tankers filling up at a
Baltic port, going clear around Europe (where there's a war going on,
with ships and subs likely to shoot first and go "oops!" later), then
clear around Africa (or through another naval war zone in the Med),
then clear across the Indian Ocean and back up the Pacific to Japan.
With the war on you are probably right. You would use trains.
Except that this brings us right around full circle to the problem that
Ken Younk pointed out - the trains in place then couldn't handle it.
Ken _Young_ - yeah, I can spell, really...
David
I must confess that I'm a bit nonplussed at the illogic of some
suggestions about this ATL.
Ok the Nazi's were untrustworthy. OK they had a bad record of invading
neutral countries (but so had Britain, Norway etc). So why was it
impossible for them to dump the Berlin/Tokyo axis?
I read the following in Ribbontrop by Michael Bloch p378

"On 8 December, the United States Congress declared war on
Japan....Roosevelt's speech contained no reference to the possibility
of
war with Germany and Italy. (The President and Cordell Hull had
considered including such a reference, but decided against it as they
had been reading the Japanese codes and knew that the onus of formal
declaration could be left to the Axis.)"

In other words the writer is stating that US leadership intended to go
to war against Germany immediately after Pearl Harbour and only decided
against it as they knew that Germany would do so.

So it would be impossible for Germany to dump the Berlin/Tokyo axis
after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
bernardz
2006-02-21 05:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnson
1) Ship oil by trains - which they can't do because the rail system is
inadequate.
Why do you think that Russians cannot ship the oil by train to Japan?

Germany was able to receive oil from Russia over the same rail system.
David Johnson
2006-02-21 17:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by bernardz
Post by David Johnson
1) Ship oil by trains - which they can't do because the rail system is
inadequate.
Why do you think that Russians cannot ship the oil by train to Japan?
Okay, watch closely:

This part of the thread started when it was suggested the Soviets could
ship oil by train to Japan (or, more correctly, to ships in Vladivostok
to ship to Japan).

Then Ken Young (and others) pointed out that, no, neither the Soviet rail
system in general, nor the TransSiberian in specific had the extra
capability to ship oil - it was maxed out.

At which point you said "okay, they can use ships."

Then I pointed out that probably wasn't going to fly, what with the need
to run those ships through two or three war zones.

So you said "that's okay, they can use trains."

See the problem?

If your solution to _not_ being able to use trains is ships - and then
your solution to not being able to use the ships is the trains...well,
the circle isn't really solving the problem, is it?

David
--
_______________________________________________________________________
David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan

"You're a loony, you are!"
"They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..."
"Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too!"
bernardz
2006-02-22 00:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnson
Post by bernardz
Post by David Johnson
1) Ship oil by trains - which they can't do because the rail system is
inadequate.
Why do you think that Russians cannot ship the oil by train to Japan?
This part of the thread started when it was suggested the Soviets could
ship oil by train to Japan (or, more correctly, to ships in Vladivostok
to ship to Japan).
Then Ken Young (and others) pointed out that, no, neither the Soviet rail
system in general, nor the TransSiberian in specific had the extra
capability to ship oil - it was maxed out.
At which point you said "okay, they can use ships."
Then I pointed out that probably wasn't going to fly, what with the need
to run those ships through two or three war zones.
So you said "that's okay, they can use trains."
See the problem?
If your solution to _not_ being able to use trains is ships - and then
your solution to not being able to use the ships is the trains...well,
the circle isn't really solving the problem, is it?
The questionI asked was simple "Why do you think that Russians cannot
ship the oil by train to Japan?"

Please answer that question. Its yours statement so we are entitled
under the rules of the usenet and this group charter to ask what
evidence you have to back up this statement.

So I would say an appropriate respond would be

1) A list reasons why you believe this statement to being true.
2) Say that you have no reasons to back it up but you believe it to be
true.
3) Say you are wrong.
4) You don't know

I wait your response.
Post by David Johnson
David
--
_______________________________________________________________________
David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan
"You're a loony, you are!"
"They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..."
"Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too!"
David Johnson
2006-02-22 01:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by bernardz
Post by David Johnson
Post by bernardz
Post by David Johnson
1) Ship oil by trains - which they can't do because the rail system is
inadequate.
Why do you think that Russians cannot ship the oil by train to Japan?
This part of the thread started when it was suggested the Soviets
could ship oil by train to Japan (or, more correctly, to ships in
Vladivostok to ship to Japan).
Then Ken Young (and others) pointed out that, no, neither the Soviet
rail system in general, nor the TransSiberian in specific had the
extra capability to ship oil - it was maxed out.
At which point you said "okay, they can use ships."
Then I pointed out that probably wasn't going to fly, what with the
need to run those ships through two or three war zones.
So you said "that's okay, they can use trains."
See the problem?
If your solution to _not_ being able to use trains is ships - and
then your solution to not being able to use the ships is the
trains...well, the circle isn't really solving the problem, is it?
The questionI asked was simple "Why do you think that Russians cannot
ship the oil by train to Japan?"
Please answer that question. Its yours statement so we are entitled
under the rules of the usenet and this group charter to ask what
evidence you have to back up this statement.
So I would say an appropriate respond would be
1) A list reasons why you believe this statement to being true.
2) Say that you have no reasons to back it up but you believe it to be
true.
3) Say you are wrong.
4) You don't know
I wait your response.
Okay, to begin my response, here is the original message that started this sub-thread:
_________
Post by bernardz
You can but you won't.
There is also the problem of Soviet railways in Siberia. As far
as I know it was working to capacity anyway. Just about anything
transported in Siberia had to go by rail. Adding extra oil
transport into the mix could have caused a complete breakdown.

Most people seem to be under the impression that railways were
as efficient in 1939 as in 1999. They were not. Maximum trailing
load was much smaller using steam. Most freight did not have a
continuous brake limiting maximum speed, and the old axle boxes
were not that happy at high speed anyway. Far more was required
in the way of rolling stock and maintenance facilities as well.

Ken Young

________

and here is your reply:
________

In article <***@pipex.net>,
***@cix.compulink.co.uk says...

[snip inserted by David as it's just the quote of above]

Why bother with railways? Ships are much cheaper and easier. If Russia
and Japan are not at war, the oil can be shipped by either countries
ships.

________

"1) A list reasons why you believe this statement to being true"

A) Because I tend to trust Ken's posts.

B) Because I know something of the history of the Trans-Siberian railway and know that
a single track line through a couple of thousand miles of howling wilderness is _very_
easy to "max out" and even easier to suffer delays - which lowers its total thru-put -
from a variety of problems ranging from mechanical problems on engines and railcars
having to several thousand miles all in one go - repeatedly - to the tracks themselves
disappearing into a bog or being upthrust by permafrost or just plain wearing out and
now you have to get the parts from a couple of thousand miles away...over the same line
now full of backed up trains.

C) And finally, because _you_ obviously felt it at least _could_ be true or you
wouldn't have suggested 'they use ships instead then.'"

"2) Say that you have no reasons to back it up but you believe it to be true."

I could probably do a full research project to figure out the maximum number of tons
shipable on the early 1940's Transiberian, then research the number of tons needed for
Soviet uses, and then do a subtract to see how much - if anything - was leftover for a
hypothetical oil shipment to the Japanese. Then I could research available oil tankers,
available oil handling equipment, and available oil cars to see if _they_ could handle
a useful sized shipment.

Then, for fun, I could figure in Soviet maintainence work on railway equipment, how old
all that equipment was, and what was their capacity for supplying replacements...

But since I see no real need to put all that research into answering an rather unlikely
AH scenario - and, anyway, no one will remember the question three, four months from
now when I'm done - I'll just say "I believe it to be true" and leave it to _you_ to
prove otherwise with the above three months worth of research. Have fun!.

"3) Say you are wrong."

Why? I'm not.

"4) You don't know."

Well, I don't know why you keep asking me why trains won't work when the whole reason
you suggested ships in the first place - to which I made _my_ first comment on - was
Ken's comment that _trains won't work_. Seems rather silly to me.

Why didn't you instead argue (hopefully, with more useful arguments than you've used on
me) with Ken that "trains _will_ work" instead of suggesting ships, if their working is
so easy to imagine?

David
--
David Johnson http://home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan
"You're a loony, you are!"
"They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..."
"Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too."

Remove "_nospam" to email
bernardz
2006-02-22 03:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnson
Post by bernardz
Post by David Johnson
Post by bernardz
Post by David Johnson
1) Ship oil by trains - which they can't do because the rail system is
inadequate.
Why do you think that Russians cannot ship the oil by train to Japan?
This part of the thread started when it was suggested the Soviets
could ship oil by train to Japan (or, more correctly, to ships in
Vladivostok to ship to Japan).
Then Ken Young (and others) pointed out that, no, neither the Soviet
rail system in general, nor the TransSiberian in specific had the
extra capability to ship oil - it was maxed out.
At which point you said "okay, they can use ships."
Then I pointed out that probably wasn't going to fly, what with the
need to run those ships through two or three war zones.
So you said "that's okay, they can use trains."
See the problem?
If your solution to _not_ being able to use trains is ships - and
then your solution to not being able to use the ships is the
trains...well, the circle isn't really solving the problem, is it?
The questionI asked was simple "Why do you think that Russians cannot
ship the oil by train to Japan?"
Please answer that question. Its yours statement so we are entitled
under the rules of the usenet and this group charter to ask what
evidence you have to back up this statement.
So I would say an appropriate respond would be
1) A list reasons why you believe this statement to being true.
2) Say that you have no reasons to back it up but you believe it to be
true.
3) Say you are wrong.
4) You don't know
I wait your response.
_________
Post by bernardz
You can but you won't.
There is also the problem of Soviet railways in Siberia. As far
as I know it was working to capacity anyway. Just about anything
transported in Siberia had to go by rail. Adding extra oil
transport into the mix could have caused a complete breakdown.
This is not giving a reason, this is just a statement of judgement
based on what?
Post by David Johnson
Most people seem to be under the impression that railways were
as efficient in 1939 as in 1999. They were not. Maximum trailing
load was much smaller using steam. Most freight did not have a
continuous brake limiting maximum speed, and the old axle boxes
were not that happy at high speed anyway. Far more was required
in the way of rolling stock and maintenance facilities as well.
Ken Young
I am not asking you to defend Ken Young statements unless you want too.
Post by David Johnson
________
________
[snip inserted by David as it's just the quote of above]
Why bother with railways? Ships are much cheaper and easier. If Russia
and Japan are not at war, the oil can be shipped by either countries
ships.
________
"1) A list reasons why you believe this statement to being true"
A) Because I tend to trust Ken's posts.
B) Because I know something of the history of the Trans-Siberian railway and know that
a single track line through a couple of thousand miles of howling wilderness is _very_
easy to "max out" and even easier to suffer delays - which lowers its total thru-put -
from a variety of problems ranging from mechanical problems on engines and railcars
having to several thousand miles all in one go - repeatedly - to the tracks themselves
disappearing into a bog or being upthrust by permafrost or just plain wearing out and
now you have to get the parts from a couple of thousand miles away...over the same line
now full of backed up trains.
C) And finally, because _you_ obviously felt it at least _could_ be true or you
wouldn't have suggested 'they use ships instead then.'"
"2) Say that you have no reasons to back it up but you believe it to be true."
I could probably do a full research project to figure out the maximum number of tons
shipable on the early 1940's Transiberian, then research the number of tons needed for
Soviet uses, and then do a subtract to see how much - if anything - was leftover for a
hypothetical oil shipment to the Japanese. Then I could research available oil tankers,
available oil handling equipment, and available oil cars to see if _they_ could handle
a useful sized shipment.
Then, for fun, I could figure in Soviet maintainence work on railway equipment, how old
all that equipment was, and what was their capacity for supplying replacements...
But since I see no real need to put all that research into answering an rather unlikely
AH scenario - and, anyway, no one will remember the question three, four months from
now when I'm done - I'll just say "I believe it to be true" and leave it to _you_ to
prove otherwise with the above three months worth of research. Have fun!.
"3) Say you are wrong."
Why? I'm not.
"4) You don't know."
Well, I don't know why you keep asking me why trains won't work when the whole reason
you suggested ships in the first place - to which I made _my_ first comment on - was
Ken's comment that _trains won't work_. Seems rather silly to me.
Why didn't you instead argue (hopefully, with more useful arguments than you've used on
me) with Ken that "trains _will_ work" instead of suggesting ships, if their working is
so easy to imagine?
David
--
David Johnson http://home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan
"You're a loony, you are!"
"They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..."
"Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too."
Remove "_nospam" to email
k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2006-02-17 15:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by BernardZ
Why bother with railways? Ships are much cheaper and easier.
If Russia and Japan are not at war, the oil can be shipped by
either countries ships.
To ship oil you have to get it to a port, Vladivostok in this
case, a port that is not viable in the winter.

Ken Young
bernardz
2006-02-21 05:24:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by BernardZ
Why bother with railways? Ships are much cheaper and easier.
If Russia and Japan are not at war, the oil can be shipped by
either countries ships.
To ship oil you have to get it to a port, Vladivostok in this
case, a port that is not viable in the winter.
Ken Young
Okay why do you think that Russians cannot ship the oil by train to
Japan? The could ship oil mto Germany why not Japan, same people, same
network, same equipment etc.
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2006-02-21 05:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by bernardz
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by BernardZ
Why bother with railways? Ships are much cheaper and easier.
If Russia and Japan are not at war, the oil can be shipped by
either countries ships.
To ship oil you have to get it to a port, Vladivostok in this
case, a port that is not viable in the winter.
Okay why do you think that Russians cannot ship the oil by train to
Japan? The could ship oil mto Germany why not Japan, same people, same
network, same equipment etc.
Trains are not exactly renowned for their ability to cross the Sea of Japan.
BernardZ
2006-02-21 07:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by bernardz
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by BernardZ
Why bother with railways? Ships are much cheaper and easier.
If Russia and Japan are not at war, the oil can be shipped by
either countries ships.
To ship oil you have to get it to a port, Vladivostok in this
case, a port that is not viable in the winter.
Okay why do you think that Russians cannot ship the oil by train to
Japan? The could ship oil mto Germany why not Japan, same people, same
network, same equipment etc.
Trains are not exactly renowned for their ability to cross the Sea of Japan.
Much trade did cross this sea back and forwards including oil.
--
When the wife wants a baby, her man's sexual performance is continuously
being measured and monitored.

Observations of Bernard - No 96
Juan Valdez
2006-02-21 17:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by BernardZ
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Trains are not exactly renowned for their ability to cross the Sea of Japan.
Much trade did cross this sea back and forwards including oil.
Wait wait wait... you kill-filed someone for what you perceived to be
their stupidity? Excuse me...

Bwahahahah!

I don't even know why you bother posting- all that happens is that
you're
proven wrong again and again. It's that combination of rudeness,
arrogance, and wrongness, that reminds one of nails on a chalkboard. Why
you haven't retired to wargaming, I'll never know.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
bernardz
2006-02-22 00:16:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juan Valdez
Post by BernardZ
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Trains are not exactly renowned for their ability to cross the Sea of Japan.
Much trade did cross this sea back and forwards including oil.
Wait wait wait... you kill-filed someone for what you perceived to be
their stupidity? Excuse me...
Bwahahahah!
What is to excuse? He was looking for a flamewar, probably as going by
the lack of response that other showed to his posts, so like a kid
ignored he decided to attack someone to make attension to himself and I
don't have time for his nonsense.

I notice that you don't talk to him either.
Post by Juan Valdez
I don't even know why you bother posting- all that happens is that
you're
proven wrong again and again. It's that combination of rudeness,
arrogance, and wrongness, that reminds one of nails on a chalkboard. Why
you haven't retired to wargaming, I'll never know.
This does not even make sense nor does it make sense.

Anyway my dear Juan Valdez

Okay since you are so smart and not interested in a flamewar tell us
why could the Japanese Merchant navy not carted Russian oil across the
Sea of Japan.

For extra points tell us why the Russian railway system if Stalin had
ordered the oil to go to Japan not Germany the Russian railway would
not have been able to cart it by rail.

We all wait in anticapation for your learned answer!
Post by Juan Valdez
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Juan Valdez
2006-02-22 00:23:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by bernardz
Okay since you are so smart and not interested in a flamewar tell us
why could the Japanese Merchant navy not carted Russian oil across the
Sea of Japan.
I'm hardly an expert, but this is what I do know:

Most Soviet Oil production and refining centered around Western Siberia
and Astrakhan. You're suggesting the Soviets had the ability to
transport the oil either through non-existant pipelines, else through
overburdened rails. Russian and/or Japanese shipping cannot transport
the oil out there.
Post by bernardz
For extra points tell us why the Russian railway system if Stalin had
ordered the oil to go to Japan not Germany the Russian railway would
not have been able to cart it by rail.
Easy. It's an acronym you might've heard of called GULAG.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
bernardz
2006-02-22 03:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juan Valdez
Post by bernardz
Okay since you are so smart and not interested in a flamewar tell us
why could the Japanese Merchant navy not carted Russian oil across the
Sea of Japan.
Most Soviet Oil production and refining centered around Western Siberia
Which means that the oil has to move very far by rail to get Japan!
Post by Juan Valdez
and Astrakhan. You're suggesting the Soviets had the ability to
transport the oil either through non-existent pipelines, else through
overburdened rails.
Again why do you have to say the Russian rail network were
overburdened?

Using the same rail network that you reckoned was overburden, early
they were able to move an army with heavy equipment by train East
quickly to Nomonhan and supply the army there. The problem there was
not the railways but getting the trucks so that the goods could be
transported by the railways to the front. That of course is a different
issue.

A bit later again using the same rail network that you reckoned was
overburden, the Russians were able to move an Army from Siberia to
Moscow to defend Moscow.

Throughout this WW2 period again using this same rail network that you
reckoned was overburden, the Russians were able to move by train much
larger quantities of goods and men to the war in the West against
Hitler then what they did move in this period.
Post by Juan Valdez
Russian and/or Japanese shipping cannot transport
the oil out there.
Why not once its in West Siberia? They may have some trouble in the
Winter but other then that its fine.
Post by Juan Valdez
Post by bernardz
For extra points tell us why the Russian railway system if Stalin had
ordered the oil to go to Japan not Germany the Russian railway would
not have been able to cart it by rail.
Easy. It's an acronym you might've heard of called GULAG.
Okay so Russia has almost unlimited manpower that can be ordered into a
region to build railways where ever her leaders required. How does it
help your arguments?

<Note I corrected some of your spelling mistakes but made sure that it
did not change the meaning>
Juan Valdez
2006-02-22 03:54:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by bernardz
Which means that the oil has to move very far by rail to get Japan!
Post by Juan Valdez
and Astrakhan. You're suggesting the Soviets had the ability to
transport the oil either through non-existent pipelines, else through
overburdened rails.
Again why do you have to say the Russian rail network were
overburdened?
Yow! GULAG, man, GULAG! You know, those prison camps featured in
_The GULAG Archipelago_.
Post by bernardz
Using the same rail network that you reckoned was overburden, early
they were able to move an army with heavy equipment by train East
quickly to Nomonhan and supply the army there. The problem there was
not the railways but getting the trucks so that the goods could be
transported by the railways to the front. That of course is a different
issue.
Oil in lieu of anything else... and for militarily significant amounts
of oil, it needs to be delivered in millions of barrels. So 50 million
barrels of oil translates into 1 million tons of freight- not including
the containers and trains themselves.
Post by bernardz
Throughout this WW2 period again using this same rail network that you
reckoned was overburden, the Russians were able to move by train much
larger quantities of goods and men to the war in the West against
Hitler then what they did move in this period.
With terribly slow delivery times and also while handling GULAG
prisoners.
Post by bernardz
Post by Juan Valdez
Russian and/or Japanese shipping cannot transport
the oil out there.
Why not once its in West Siberia? They may have some trouble in the
Winter but other then that its fine.
Not militarily significant quantities.
Post by bernardz
Post by Juan Valdez
Post by bernardz
For extra points tell us why the Russian railway system if Stalin had
ordered the oil to go to Japan not Germany the Russian railway would
not have been able to cart it by rail.
Easy. It's an acronym you might've heard of called GULAG.
Okay so Russia has almost unlimited manpower that can be ordered into a
region to build railways where ever her leaders required. How does it
help your arguments?
Hardly unlimited. They can't feed themselves, spend 1/3 their economy
on military hardware, and produce enough trucks and spare parts... for
example.

GULAG is completely insulated from price signals and is extremely
wasteful of human capital. True, the USSR wasted plenty on white
elephant projects, but what's your point? Why should I expect an island
of efficiency in the USSR?
Post by bernardz
<Note I corrected some of your spelling mistakes but made sure that it
did not change the meaning>
Wow, you have access to spellczech? And you think that's notable
because you think my refusal to copy and paste my text into a word
processing program harms the quality of my content? Your 'favor' says
more about you than it does about me.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
BernardZ
2006-02-22 09:13:50 UTC
Permalink
In article <9b4ece32e60d801fe4971baf5600549e.100325
@mygate.mailgate.org>, ***@yahoo.com says...
Post by Juan Valdez
Post by bernardz
Which means that the oil has to move very far by rail to get Japan!
Sarcasm never works on the Usenet!
Post by Juan Valdez
Post by bernardz
Post by Juan Valdez
and Astrakhan. You're suggesting the Soviets had the ability to
transport the oil either through non-existent pipelines, else through
overburdened rails.
Again why do you have to say the Russian rail network were
overburdened?
Yow! GULAG, man, GULAG! You know, those prison camps featured in
_The GULAG Archipelago_.
Yep. So what?
Post by Juan Valdez
Post by bernardz
Using the same rail network that you reckoned was overburden, early
they were able to move an army with heavy equipment by train East
quickly to Nomonhan and supply the army there. The problem there was
not the railways but getting the trucks so that the goods could be
transported by the railways to the front. That of course is a different
issue.
Oil in lieu of anything else... and for militarily significant amounts
of oil, it needs to be delivered in millions of barrels. So 50 million
barrels of oil translates into 1 million tons of freight- not including
the containers and trains themselves.
Where did you get 50 million barrels from?

Japan imports of oil in 1940 was 37 million barrels which is about 5
million tons but that included a large amount used to add to her
strategic reserves so probably you could half that figure.

Required is say 2.5 million tons.

Now a Soviet train carried about 2,000 tons of supplies and a railroad
car loads usually carried from 40 to 50 tons with about 45 railroad car
per train. My figures from Dunn Jr., Walter S. Soviet Blitzkrieg: The
Battle for White Russia, 1944.

2.5 million tons of oil / 45 tons per railroad car = Works out to 55,556
railroad car loads......(a)

Okay during the months of May-July 1945, the Trans-Siberian railroad had
136,000 railroad car loads which moved Russian assault units to the Far
Eastern border areas. During the peak troop redeployment in June and
July, an average of 22-30 trains per day moved Russian units.

So basically we are talking of 3 months, in theory the Russians could
move in this region 136,000 * 12 (months a year) / 3 (months for
redeployment) = 816,000 railroad car loads......(b)

To transport the oil to Japan we need 55,556 railroad car loads.....(a)
/ 816,000 ( (b) = theoretical max railroad car loads) * 100% = 7% of
peak capacity.
Post by Juan Valdez
Post by bernardz
Throughout this WW2 period again using this same rail network that you
reckoned was overburden, the Russians were able to move by train much
larger quantities of goods and men to the war in the West against
Hitler then what they did move in this period.
With terribly slow delivery times and also while handling GULAG
prisoners.
What evidence do you have for the Russians having particularly slow
delivery times by trains?
Post by Juan Valdez
Post by bernardz
Post by Juan Valdez
Russian and/or Japanese shipping cannot transport
the oil out there.
Why not once its in West Siberia? They may have some trouble in the
Winter but other then that its fine.
Not militarily significant quantities.
Well the fact is that oil was transported over the Sea of Japan and it
was militarily significant.
Post by Juan Valdez
Post by bernardz
Post by Juan Valdez
Post by bernardz
For extra points tell us why the Russian railway system if Stalin had
ordered the oil to go to Japan not Germany the Russian railway would
not have been able to cart it by rail.
Easy. It's an acronym you might've heard of called GULAG.
Okay so Russia has almost unlimited manpower that can be ordered into a
region to build railways where ever her leaders required. How does it
help your arguments?
Hardly unlimited. They can't feed themselves, spend 1/3 their economy
on military hardware, and produce enough trucks and spare parts... for
example.
GULAG is completely insulated from price signals and is extremely
wasteful of human capital. True, the USSR wasted plenty on white
elephant projects, but what's your point? Why should I expect an island
of efficiency in the USSR?
No need to assume any such thing. The fact is that the Russians did use
slave laborers on the railway system.
Post by Juan Valdez
Post by bernardz
<Note I corrected some of your spelling mistakes but made sure that it
did not change the meaning>
Wow, you have access to spellczech? And you think that's notable
because you think my refusal to copy and paste my text into a word
processing program harms the quality of my content? Your 'favor' says
more about you than it does about me.
Its notable in the sense that I did not want you complaining that I
changed your comments. So I told you why I changed them, it was my spell
checker that found your bad spelling.
--
People were participants not observers in history.

Observations of Bernard - No 97
Michele Armellini
2006-02-22 10:06:13 UTC
Permalink
"BernardZ" <***@Nospam.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:***@news...

.
Post by BernardZ
Now a Soviet train carried about 2,000 tons of supplies and a railroad
car loads usually carried from 40 to 50 tons with about 45 railroad car
per train. My figures from Dunn Jr., Walter S. Soviet Blitzkrieg: The
Battle for White Russia, 1944.
2.5 million tons of oil / 45 tons per railroad car = Works out to 55,556
railroad car loads......(a)
Okay during the months of May-July 1945, the Trans-Siberian railroad had
136,000 railroad car loads which moved Russian assault units to the Far
Eastern border areas. During the peak troop redeployment in June and
July, an average of 22-30 trains per day moved Russian units.
So basically we are talking of 3 months, in theory the Russians could
move in this region 136,000 * 12 (months a year) / 3 (months for
redeployment) = 816,000 railroad car loads......(b)
Yes guys, Bernardz is using figures for 1945 as if they applied in 1940.
Probably nobody told him that, even with the war on, the Soviet rolling
stock pool was far larger by then, and that US built locomotives were being
sent to the Soviet Union, and that the Transsiberian infrastructures had
been greatly enhanced for the very purpose of having US supplies delivered
from Vladivostok to the front.

Also note how he assumes the Transsiberian traffic capacity in December is
the same as in July.

Also note how he's unaware that the vast majority of the railroad cars used
for moving full divisions are unsuitable for carrying oil. Either one uses
specific tank cars, which I have no figure for but I doubt were available in
the tens of thousands, or he has to use intermediate containers. This brings
to waste (through spillage; it has been calculated it was above 5% in the
desert), spends an astounding amount of man-hours, requires the jerrycans or
other containers, and cuts into the load of the rail cars (since the
containers have a weight of their own).
Of course, everything can be worked around. I suppose Bernards could suggest
the Soviets only have to build the tankers. Given that metal-working
factories had more pressing tasks in 1940, that's not terribly likely.
Post by BernardZ
To transport the oil to Japan we need 55,556 railroad car loads.....(a)
/ 816,000 ( (b) = theoretical max railroad car loads) * 100% = 7% of
peak capacity.
And finally note how here he still makes that magical jump... he still talks
about transporting the oil _to Japan_ with railroad car loads.

Of course we are talking about the hows. Somehow the main issue, the whys,
has been lost in the thread. Why should Stalin sell oil to the Japanese? And
in exchange for what? Why should he forget that sentence about the fools who
sell their enemies the rope with which their enemies will hang them?

Unfortunately Bernardz has decided not to read what I write, but maybe the
above will be of interest to other readers.
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2006-02-22 10:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michele Armellini
Post by BernardZ
To transport the oil to Japan we need 55,556 railroad car loads.....(a)
/ 816,000 ( (b) = theoretical max railroad car loads) * 100% = 7% of
peak capacity.
And finally note how here he still makes that magical jump... he still talks
about transporting the oil _to Japan_ with railroad car loads.
Of course we are talking about the hows. Somehow the main issue, the whys,
has been lost in the thread. Why should Stalin sell oil to the Japanese? And
in exchange for what? Why should he forget that sentence about the fools who
sell their enemies the rope with which their enemies will hang them?
Unfortunately Bernardz has decided not to read what I write, but maybe the
above will be of interest to other readers.
For what it's worth, I'm still reading what you write, and I'm interested in
it. It's insightful into the nature of Soviet infrastructure, amongst other
things. I notice Bernardz continues to blithely ignore the point I made as
well - that he's talking about _rail_ capacity when getting it to Japan
(okay, all the parts that matter) requires _shipping_... trains still won't
cross the Sea of Japan, no matter how much he talks as if they will.

ObWI: Gustav Stresemann made for a very interesting character in the history
of the Weimar Republic, and had astute political and diplomatic talents.
His death of a heart attack in 1929 removed one of the most likely German
leaders to steer the Weimar Republic through the Great Depression as best as
anyone could. Effects on German history if Stresemann persists for another
decade or so?
mike
2006-02-22 14:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by BernardZ
To transport the oil to Japan we need 55,556 railroad car loads.....(a)
/ 816,000 ( (b) = theoretical max railroad car loads) * 100% = 7% of
peak capacity.
For what it's worth, I'm still reading what you write, and I'm interested in
it. It's insightful into the nature of Soviet infrastructure, amongst other
things. I notice Bernardz continues to blithely ignore the point I made as
well - that he's talking about _rail_ capacity when getting it to Japan
(okay, all the parts that matter) requires _shipping_... trains still won't
cross the Sea of Japan, no matter how much he talks as if they will.
When US Oilmen went to Baku during the War to help the Soviets
increase their output, they were aghast- a real step back into time
for 1910 era Refinery methods- mostly Straight Run from the most
basic form of Thermal Cracking- 'cooking' the crude and collecting the
desired product at the right time. This means relatively small
fractions
of high octane Gasoline, but a whole lot of Kerosene and Tar

The US/UK/Dutch had long switched to impoved methods using
alkylation and catalyzation to mix up the hydrocarbon chains
to get more usefull fractions of 'good stuff' and less Tar and Bunker
Oil, as well as less gases like Propane that were nearly all
unrecoverable
using older methods, to reform to more usable compounds like octane
boosters for AvGas

Baku was World Class- for PreWWI when the Tzar brought in outside
help to expand production, and hardly improved during the later 5 Year
Plans-and the Far East was worse,thrown up to supply local Soviet
industry, and not export driven for the Hydrocarbon fractions that the
Japanese would be interested in,in the amounts they needed.

The Dutch, however, had their modern plants set for nearly all
export.

Going for a railbased Oil transport system, well, the USA did in 1942,
but the USA had the tanker cars to do so when the U-boats made
sailing oiltankers hazardous. The Soviet would need to build
rail marshalling yards, CTC gear and new heavier rail line besides
the tankercars, and then loading facilities at their ports to store
that
oil as its transferred from tanker car to floating tanker, unless a
bucket
brigade is the plan.

To export Oil, and not just move Crude Oil, capacity would need to be
increased, as Soviet Industry still needs their Cut- and the 'Easy'
Oil was already pumping. The Soviets don't have the deep drilling
tech to get at anything more, even had they decent Geologists
who were good at finding likely areas to stick a hole miles deep
in permafrost.

**
mike
**
bernardz
2006-02-23 00:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by mike
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by BernardZ
To transport the oil to Japan we need 55,556 railroad car loads.....(a)
/ 816,000 ( (b) = theoretical max railroad car loads) * 100% = 7% of
peak capacity.
For what it's worth, I'm still reading what you write, and I'm interested in
it. It's insightful into the nature of Soviet infrastructure, amongst other
things. I notice Bernardz continues to blithely ignore the point I made as
well - that he's talking about _rail_ capacity when getting it to Japan
(okay, all the parts that matter) requires _shipping_... trains still won't
cross the Sea of Japan, no matter how much he talks as if they will.
When US Oilmen went to Baku during the War to help the Soviets
increase their output, they were aghast- a real step back into time
for 1910 era Refinery methods- mostly Straight Run from the most
basic form of Thermal Cracking- 'cooking' the crude and collecting the
desired product at the right time. This means relatively small
fractions
of high octane Gasoline, but a whole lot of Kerosene and Tar
The US/UK/Dutch had long switched to impoved methods using
alkylation and catalyzation to mix up the hydrocarbon chains
to get more usefull fractions of 'good stuff' and less Tar and Bunker
Oil, as well as less gases like Propane that were nearly all
unrecoverable
using older methods, to reform to more usable compounds like octane
boosters for AvGas
Baku was World Class- for PreWWI when the Tzar brought in outside
help to expand production, and hardly improved during the later 5 Year
Plans-and the Far East was worse,thrown up to supply local Soviet
industry, and not export driven for the Hydrocarbon fractions that the
Japanese would be interested in,in the amounts they needed.
The Dutch, however, had their modern plants set for nearly all
export.
Going for a railbased Oil transport system, well, the USA did in 1942,
but the USA had the tanker cars to do so when the U-boats made
sailing oiltankers hazardous. The Soviet would need to build
rail marshalling yards, CTC gear and new heavier rail line besides
the tankercars, and then loading facilities at their ports to store
that
oil as its transferred from tanker car to floating tanker, unless a
bucket
brigade is the plan.
To export Oil, and not just move Crude Oil, capacity would need to be
increased, as Soviet Industry still needs their Cut- and the 'Easy'
Oil was already pumping. The Soviets don't have the deep drilling
tech to get at anything more, even had they decent Geologists
who were good at finding likely areas to stick a hole miles deep
in permafrost.
Well Russia was exporting large quaninties of oil and other raw
materials in 1940 to Germany. Also it was allowing transhipments of war
material though Russia from Japan, Afghanistan and surprisingly Iran.
Post by mike
**
mike
**
mike
2006-02-23 02:00:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by bernardz
Well Russia was exporting large quaninties of oil and other raw
materials in 1940 to Germany.
No argument there, as I had in my post, Baku was important to
Imperial Russia, and the Oil Boom there provided Oil to Europe
from that date, and until WWI was able to compete with Standard Oil
Royal Dutch and BP(called AIOC at this time) for that market.

Not all was RR, as much was shipped via barges from the Black
Sea and then up the Danube or out the Dardanelles on Tankers

Then the Revolution, which changed the whole dynamic

However, by 1939 they were undercut on the World Market by the
US/UK/Dutch Majors: the USA alone was producing(and selling)
over half of the entire Worlds output, at cheap $$ amounts the
Soviets couldn't make much money on for the customers they did have.

USSR was 12%, behind Venezuela.

Most of the Soviet exports were Europe via RR and Barge, very little
by Sea. Somewhere I recall seeing a figure that the Soviets had
about a quarter of the Oil Business in Europe, but most of Soviet Oil
was used incountry
Post by bernardz
Also it was allowing transhipments of war
material though Russia from Japan, Afghanistan and surprisingly Iran.
The Iranian shipments happened because the USA rebuilt most
of the Persian Railway to allow the LL shipments to get thru.

Much of US LL aid to them was in the form of railway equipment,
and US Army Military Railway Service

feeling lazy, so here's a bit from the Wiki
----------
Statistics

The Allied supply efforts were enormous. The Americans alone
delivered 175.5 million long tons (178.3 million metric tonnes) to
the Soviets during the war, via numerous routes, including the
ports of Murmansk and Vladivostok. The Persian Corridor was
the route for 4,159,117 long tons (4,225,858 metric tonnes) of these;
-----<snip>----
. All told, about 7,900,000 long tons (8,000,000 metric tonnes) of
shipborne cargo from Allied sources were unloaded in the Corridor,
most of it bound for Russia ------------

**
mike
**
bernardz
2006-02-23 03:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by mike
Post by bernardz
Well Russia was exporting large quaninties of oil and other raw
materials in 1940 to Germany.
No argument there, as I had in my post, Baku was important to
Imperial Russia, and the Oil Boom there provided Oil to Europe
from that date, and until WWI was able to compete with Standard Oil
Royal Dutch and BP(called AIOC at this time) for that market.
Not all was RR, as much was shipped via barges from the Black
Sea and then up the Danube or out the Dardanelles on Tankers
Then the Revolution, which changed the whole dynamic
However, by 1939 they were undercut on the World Market by the
US/UK/Dutch Majors: the USA alone was producing(and selling)
over half of the entire Worlds output, at cheap $$ amounts the
Soviets couldn't make much money on for the customers they did have.
I was wondering why the Soviets were so quick to agree to supply oil to
Germany and Japan. This explains why the Soviets were willing and able
to supply the Germans as any one that had access to the world oil
market would find the Russian oil to expensive.
Post by mike
USSR was 12%, behind Venezuela.
Most of the Soviet exports were Europe via RR and Barge, very little
by Sea. Somewhere I recall seeing a figure that the Soviets had
about a quarter of the Oil Business in Europe, but most of Soviet Oil
was used incountry
And to supply all of Japans oil requirements, the Soviets would have to
dramatically increase oil production.
Post by mike
Post by bernardz
Also it was allowing transhipments of war
material though Russia from Japan, Afghanistan and surprisingly Iran.
The Iranian shipments happened because the USA rebuilt most
of the Persian Railway to allow the LL shipments to get thru.
What I found surprising is that the British had enormous influence in
Iran is a bit earlier in 1940 yet despite the British economic boycott,
the Iranians did trade with Nazi Germany in this period.
Post by mike
Much of US LL aid to them was in the form of railway equipment,
and US Army Military Railway Service
feeling lazy, so here's a bit from the Wiki
----------
Statistics
The Allied supply efforts were enormous. The Americans alone
delivered 175.5 million long tons (178.3 million metric tonnes) to
the Soviets during the war, via numerous routes, including the
ports of Murmansk and Vladivostok. The Persian Corridor was
the route for 4,159,117 long tons (4,225,858 metric tonnes) of these;
-----<snip>----
. All told, about 7,900,000 long tons (8,000,000 metric tonnes) of
shipborne cargo from Allied sources were unloaded in the Corridor,
most of it bound for Russia ------------
Which is all much higher tonnage then Japans imports of oil in 1940.
Post by mike
**
mike
**
mike
2006-02-23 16:27:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by bernardz
What I found surprising is that the British had enormous influence in
Iran is a bit earlier in 1940 yet despite the British economic boycott,
the Iranians did trade with Nazi Germany in this period.
The Oil Majors then, as now, made it that you had to use Dollars to
buy that cheap Oil, or charge for in that. The Shah wasn't too happy
over that, or the hold the AIOC had over the Persian Oil business.

Problem was, the Axis members had very low Gold reserves
to buy Dollars to use on the Oil Market, and their Credit wasn't
so good, either.

Enter Barter agreements, and the shah's government took a
ProNazi tilt.

After the War started that Shah was given the Boot and his son
installed, and regime denazified
Post by bernardz
Which is all much higher tonnage then Japans imports of oil in 1940.
that was after years of infrastructure work done mostly by the USA

**
mike
**
bernardz
2006-02-24 05:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by mike
Post by bernardz
What I found surprising is that the British had enormous influence in
Iran is a bit earlier in 1940 yet despite the British economic boycott,
the Iranians did trade with Nazi Germany in this period.
The Oil Majors then, as now, made it that you had to use Dollars to
buy that cheap Oil, or charge for in that. The Shah wasn't too happy
over that, or the hold the AIOC had over the Persian Oil business.
Problem was, the Axis members had very low Gold reserves
to buy Dollars to use on the Oil Market, and their Credit wasn't
so good, either.
Enter Barter agreements, and the shah's government took a
ProNazi tilt.
After the War started that Shah was given the Boot and his son
installed, and regime denazified
Thanks. Makes a lot of sense.
Post by mike
Post by bernardz
Which is all much higher tonnage then Japans imports of oil in 1940.
that was after years of infrastructure work done mostly by the USA
**
mike
**
Juan Valdez
2006-02-22 18:35:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by BernardZ
Post by Juan Valdez
Yow! GULAG, man, GULAG! You know, those prison camps featured in
_The GULAG Archipelago_.
Yep. So what?
So 1mil people transported per year. 33% of 45 ton cars is 15 tons or
about 230 people. Otherwise 4,348 cars, assuming the other supplies
can be fit in the rest of the rail car. We could fill the cars to 100%
but then all the occupants might be DOA.
Post by BernardZ
Where did you get 50 million barrels from?
As a militarily significant quantity of oil.
Post by BernardZ
Japan imports of oil in 1940 was 37 million barrels which is about 5
million tons but that included a large amount used to add to her
strategic reserves so probably you could half that figure.
Ok.
Post by BernardZ
Required is say 2.5 million tons.
You mean, 250k tons.

[Train carried 2000 tons, cars 40-50 tons]

Ok, even still...
Post by BernardZ
2.5 million tons of oil / 45 tons per railroad car = Works out to 55,556
railroad car loads......(a)
Actually, it's 11,112 carloads, because 50 barrels of oil = 1 ton (iirc)
Post by BernardZ
Okay during the months of May-July 1945, the Trans-Siberian railroad had
136,000 railroad car loads which moved Russian assault units to the Far
Eastern border areas. During the peak troop redeployment in June and
July, an average of 22-30 trains per day moved Russian units.
1945? What about 1940, which is what we're talking about. Seems like
the USSR would be lucky to have half that. So with 68k carloads in the
good season, and another 17k in the winter, we'll call it 85k for the
year, using your calculations. Are 10% of all cars containers? Even then
we can't even deliver our 25m barrels of oil in a year as that's only
8.5k cars to 11.112k requirement. I think it's more likely that only
5% of cars are tankers. That means 4.25k cars a year. That means
9.5 million barrels of oil, and a percentage of that must go to Siberian
consumption. So even if the Japanese get 80% of that on their merchant
shipping, that means 7.65m barrels. If your number of 37m barrels of
oil imported in 1940 is accurate, for an already oil starved Japanese
military, that's strategically significant, but barely.

Still, we have to solve the problem of Japanese pick-up and delivery. I
don't know how to make the calculation, because I don't have enough
info. In the end though, I think my calculations are very generous and
they still show that there's not that much oil going to Japan.
Post by BernardZ
What evidence do you have for the Russians having particularly slow
delivery times by trains?
Solzhenitsin saying it took him months to get to his labor camp.
Post by BernardZ
Well the fact is that oil was transported over the Sea of Japan and it
was militarily significant.
I've established a limit of about 7.65m barrels of oil getting to
Vladivostok. I have no idea if the Soviets had the capacity to store
that oil there, but I doubt it. So the Japanese have to develop just
in time supply chains thirty years early!
Post by BernardZ
No need to assume any such thing. The fact is that the Russians did use
slave laborers on the railway system.
Presumably to get it to your 1945 levels. Still, this is 1940.
Post by BernardZ
Its notable in the sense that I did not want you complaining that I
changed your comments. So I told you why I changed them, it was my spell
checker that found your bad spelling.
You spent far more words on this than warrented. Had you spent fewer,
perhaps your calculation above (which materially affected the POD in
your favor) might have been done correctly.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
bernardz
2006-02-22 23:54:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juan Valdez
Actually, it's 11,112 carloads, because 50 barrels of oil = 1 ton (iirc)
Wrong.

http://www.eppo.go.th/ref/UNIT-OIL.html

1 ton of crude oil = appr. 7.3 barrels of crude oil


You better redo your post as your calculations are much to high.
Juan Valdez
2006-02-23 00:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by bernardz
http://www.eppo.go.th/ref/UNIT-OIL.html
1 ton of crude oil = appr. 7.3 barrels of crude oil
You better redo your post as your calculations are much to high.
Ok, but that only suppliments my argument you know...
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
bernardz
2006-02-23 01:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juan Valdez
Post by BernardZ
Post by Juan Valdez
Yow! GULAG, man, GULAG! You know, those prison camps featured in
_The GULAG Archipelago_.
Yep. So what?
So 1mil people transported per year. 33% of 45 ton cars is 15 tons or
about 230 people. Otherwise 4,348 cars, assuming the other supplies
can be fit in the rest of the rail car. We could fill the cars to 100%
but then all the occupants might be DOA.
People cannot be transported like freight and we are talking here about
freight.

For the record the Russian packed in cars like sardines prisoners about
45 per railway car. Most thankfully arrived alive.

http://www.polandinexile.com/henry.htm
Post by Juan Valdez
Post by BernardZ
Where did you get 50 million barrels from?
As a militarily significant quantity of oil.
Japan already had this about 43 million barrels in reserve already. So
this is not an issue unless they want to increase this further.
Post by Juan Valdez
Post by BernardZ
Japan imports of oil in 1940 was 37 million barrels which is about 5
million tons but that included a large amount used to add to her
strategic reserves so probably you could half that figure.
Ok.
Post by BernardZ
Required is say 2.5 million tons.
You mean, 250k tons.
Your figure we now agree is a dramatic underestimation.
Post by Juan Valdez
[Train carried 2000 tons, cars 40-50 tons]
Ok, even still...
Post by BernardZ
2.5 million tons of oil / 45 tons per railroad car = Works out to 55,556
railroad car loads......(a)
Actually, it's 11,112 carloads, because 50 barrels of oil = 1 ton (iirc)
I stand by my figure and I think you will agree that its more accurate
then yours.
Post by Juan Valdez
Post by BernardZ
Okay during the months of May-July 1945, the Trans-Siberian railroad had
136,000 railroad car loads which moved Russian assault units to the Far
Eastern border areas. During the peak troop redeployment in June and
July, an average of 22-30 trains per day moved Russian units.
1945? What about 1940, which is what we're talking about. Seems like
the USSR would be lucky to have half that. So with 68k carloads in the
good season, and another 17k in the winter, we'll call it 85k for the
year, using your calculations. Are 10% of all cars containers? Even then
we can't even deliver our 25m barrels of oil in a year as that's only
8.5k cars to 11.112k requirement. I think it's more likely that only
5% of cars are tankers. That means 4.25k cars a year. That means
9.5 million barrels of oil, and a percentage of that must go to Siberian
consumption. So even if the Japanese get 80% of that on their merchant
shipping, that means 7.65m barrels. If your number of 37m barrels of
oil imported in 1940 is accurate, for an already oil starved Japanese
military, that's strategically significant, but barely.
Actually considering what was lost in WW2, Russia in 1940 probably had
more railway cars then in 1945.

In any case as I pointed out the Russians were able to move large
armies East and West from Siberia before WW2 first to face the Japanese
and then in 1941 to face the Germans at Moscow.

Also they were able in 1940 to send by rail large quantities of raw
material to Germany and carry transhipments from other countries to
Germany over there rail net work.
Post by Juan Valdez
Still, we have to solve the problem of Japanese pick-up and delivery. I
don't know how to make the calculation, because I don't have enough
info. In the end though, I think my calculations are very generous and
they still show that there's not that much oil going to Japan.
(b)
A WW2 cargo SHIP carried about 20,000 tons. So to ship the oil across
the Sea of Japan we need about 2.5 million tons/ 20,000 tons = 125
trips. As its a small sea so it would not take long to cross. Probably
loading and unloading would take most of the turnabout time. In any
case probably a few ships could do the job.
Post by Juan Valdez
Post by BernardZ
What evidence do you have for the Russians having particularly slow
delivery times by trains?
Solzhenitsyn saying it took him months to get to his labour camp.
Another prisoner see (a) above

Reported 10 days of travel from Moscow to Murmansk just before WW2.
Nothing wrong with that speed.

The Japanese and German diplomats travelled by rail to Moscow and did
not report that it was particularly slow.
Post by Juan Valdez
Post by BernardZ
Well the fact is that oil was transported over the Sea of Japan and it
was militarily significant.
I've established a limit of about 7.65m barrels of oil getting to
Vladivostok. I have no idea if the Soviets had the capacity to store
that oil there, but I doubt it. So the Japanese have to develop just
in time supply chains thirty years early!
They don't need it see (b) above. Beside the Japanese were shipping in
that much oil before the boycott so their supply chain could handle it.
Post by Juan Valdez
Post by BernardZ
No need to assume any such thing. The fact is that the Russians did use
slave labourers on the railway system.
Presumably to get it to your 1945 levels. Still, this is 1940.
You will find that they did use slave labour for their railways long
before 1940.
Post by Juan Valdez
Post by BernardZ
Its notable in the sense that I did not want you complaining that I
changed your comments. So I told you why I changed them, it was my spell
checker that found your bad spelling.
You spent far more words on this than warranted. Had you spent fewer,
perhaps your calculation above (which materially affected the POD in
your favour) might have been done correctly.
Well now we agree my figures are more right then yours.
Post by Juan Valdez
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
[Note the spell checker changed slightly your spelling again]
k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2006-02-23 05:28:27 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Juan Valdez
You spent far more words on this than warrented. Had you spent
fewer, perhaps your calculation above (which materially
affected the POD in your favor) might have been done correctly.
Off course his calculations seem to ignore the impact that this
oil delivery would have on other traffic. For any railway there
is an absolute limit on the number of trains they can run. It
depends on speed and signalling.

Ken Young
BernardZ
2006-02-23 07:22:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by BernardZ
In article
Post by Juan Valdez
You spent far more words on this than warrented. Had you spent
fewer, perhaps your calculation above (which materially
affected the POD in your favor) might have been done correctly.
Off course his calculations seem to ignore the impact that this
oil delivery would have on other traffic. For any railway there
is an absolute limit on the number of trains they can run. It
depends on speed and signalling.
Ken Young
What evidence do you have that the Russians were anywhere near that
state in 1940. During WW2 rail traffic increased tremendously and the
Russia rail system functioned.
--
People were participants not observers in history.

Observations of Bernard - No 97
The Horny Goat
2006-02-22 03:44:36 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:51:31 +0000 (UTC), "Juan Valdez"
Post by Juan Valdez
I don't even know why you bother posting- all that happens is that
you're
proven wrong again and again. It's that combination of rudeness,
arrogance, and wrongness, that reminds one of nails on a chalkboard. Why
you haven't retired to wargaming, I'll never know.
Hey now - there's nothing wrong with wargaming as such. It's just that
it's easy to disconnect from reality and think you're the world's
greatest general since you pushed a few cardboard counters onto a
hexagon labelled "Moscow" or "Washington".

If it gets you into the library like it did me that's great - James
Dunnigan remains one of my heroes though I've a pretty realistic view
of his role in the scheme of things.

Actually if we have to be off topic at all, I'm looking forward to
hear talk about David Irving's jail sentence today. I wonder how much
of his three years he will actually end up serving?
BernardZ
2006-02-22 07:14:23 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@home.ca
says...
Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:51:31 +0000 (UTC), "Juan Valdez"
Post by Juan Valdez
I don't even know why you bother posting- all that happens is that
you're
proven wrong again and again. It's that combination of rudeness,
arrogance, and wrongness, that reminds one of nails on a chalkboard. Why
you haven't retired to wargaming, I'll never know.
Hey now - there's nothing wrong with wargaming as such. It's just that
it's easy to disconnect from reality and think you're the world's
greatest general since you pushed a few cardboard counters onto a
hexagon labelled "Moscow" or "Washington".
I tend to notice that too. Also if you notice the better player
generally wins.
Post by The Horny Goat
If it gets you into the library like it did me that's great - James
Dunnigan remains one of my heroes though I've a pretty realistic view
of his role in the scheme of things.
I am not so sure.
Post by The Horny Goat
Actually if we have to be off topic at all, I'm looking forward to
hear talk about David Irving's jail sentence today. I wonder how much
of his three years he wil actually end up serving?
He knew what he was doing when he showed up in Austria. Nor is it like
Austria is the only country he has been banned in for inciting racial
hatred.

So I hope most of it.
Michele Armellini
2006-02-21 08:18:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by bernardz
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by BernardZ
Why bother with railways? Ships are much cheaper and easier.
If Russia and Japan are not at war, the oil can be shipped by
either countries ships.
To ship oil you have to get it to a port, Vladivostok in this
case, a port that is not viable in the winter.
Okay why do you think that Russians cannot ship the oil by train to
Japan? The could ship oil mto Germany why not Japan, same people, same
network, same equipment etc.
Trains are not exactly renowned for their ability to cross the Sea of Japan.
Bernardz could reply that there were Japanese units on the continent, and
that fuel could be supplied to them. Of course this would help Japanese
ground troops, so it is no reason for the IJN to be particularly happy about
that.

But apart from that, Bernardz is wrong when he assumes the same network
would be used for supplying both the Germans and the Japanese. The Germans
were supplied along the main, more developed Soviet network. For the
Japanese to be supplied in China, the Transsiberian line would need to be
used and that is _not_ "a network"; it is _a line_. Even a superficial look
at a map will show that.
A line that BTW is already being used to full capacity in order to keep in
supply those same troops that had just given a bloody nose to the same
people Bernardz wants the SU to give oil to.

As to the point about equipment, yes, the same equipment would be used,
rolling stock, locomotives etc. In other words, upon the same amount of
resources that were necessary for catering to Soviet internal needs and to
the traffic with Germany, one would need to add a further strain.
k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2006-02-21 14:38:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michele Armellini
As to the point about equipment, yes, the same equipment would
be used, rolling stock, locomotives etc.
One point I failed to mention so far. Steam locos required
regular resupply. On standard gauge lines the steam depots in
England were between 50 and 70 miles apart. The Soviets using
broad gauge, could spread things out a bit more. However all the
fuel and spares etc had to be transported by rail to these
depots. Increasing traffic in Siberia would mean increasing
supplies thus pushing traffic up farther.

Ken Young
Michele Armellini
2006-02-15 08:53:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athos
Also remember that long before Pearl Harbor and the German declaration
of war against the US the US Navy was hunting U-boats in the Atlantic.
They wouldn't drop depth charges on them
They would, they would. Sometimes they acted as you describe below,
sometimes they attacked. And, of course, it happened that a submerged U-Boot
did not know whether the destroyer hunting it was British or not; so if the
submarine captain fired a torp against what he thought was an enemy
combatant, the US destroyer, having been attacked, had every right to shoot
back. Which it would do.

but when ever a US Navy ship
Post by Athos
or aircraft spotted a U-boat they would broadcast its position to
anyone who might hear. The people listening would of course be the
Brits. It was also sometime in 1941 that the USN started escorting
convoys halfway across. It was only a matter of time before something
happened that would give the US the excuse to jump in.
Exactly.
Michele Armellini
2006-02-15 08:46:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Re: Michele Armellini
With no Barbarossa, how likely is Stalin to initiate hostilities
against Germany?
Not likely. But see below.

What does he really have to gain, other than one heck
Post by j***@yahoo.com
of a fight with a, hitherto, invinceable enemy?
First thing, Stalin does not need to "initiate hostilities" outright. Once
he's satisfied that the Red Army is out of its most critical time of
vulnerability - and that might be already in the summer of 1942 - he just
has to ask the Germans for their arrears. You don't seem to have noticed the
parts of my message where I point out this, so I'll state it again: when the
Germans began Barbarossa, they were already in the red as to their part of
the economic agreements with the SU. The SU was sending oil and other raw
materials West, and the Germans were not sending finished products East.

In 1941, the Germans already had a war machine they couldn't afford. If you
wish to frieze the situation as it is, with a German peace offer on the
table that the British won't touch, the war machine still exists and either
burns resources or rusts away - until the SU stops sending stuff they are
not being paid for.

So the ball is again in German hands. They may still not attack - and their
armed forces will rust away. Or they may be the ones to attack - after
having wasted a year, against a much stronger Red Army.

If they are in doubt, Stalin will be able to provoke the Germans. A surge of
Communist agents' activities in Romania (basically the only other oil tap
for the Germans, apart from the oil the SU itself provided them with) would
alone make the Germans jittery. In OTL, just a few months after the end of
the Winter War, the SU was already attempting to meddle with the economic
interests in the mines of Petsamo (basically the only nickel tap for the
Germans). And so on.
Post by j***@yahoo.com
With Germany and the Soviet Union still, ostensibly, allies,
They were not allies.

will FDR
Post by j***@yahoo.com
be as eager to fight a war with Germany after Pearl Harbor?
Of course yes. He was already extremely eager to do that well before
Barbarossa.
In any case, there is no immediate need to have the USA in an active role in
the MTO. If Germany has switched to a wait-and-see attitude, US supplies to
the British are enough to keep them on the burner.

Also, you should check the chronology. The first act of war between the USA
and Germany came before not only Pearl Harbor, but also before Barbarossa.
On April 10, 1941, the US destroyer Niblack attacked a German submarine.
On April 18, King moved the Western emisphere border to beyond the Azores.

After the Barbarossa date, but way before Pearl Harbor, we have the US
occupation of Iceland. On September 4 there was another engagement involving
British and US units on one side, a German U-Boot on the other. On October
17, the Kearney was damaged by a German torpedo, on October 31 the Reuben
James was sunk. On November 2, the Omaha captured the German cargo Odenwald.

Now, of course, in this scenario, with the new German regime wanting peace
with Britain, the Kriegsmarine could be ordered to hold back. The
consequences would be that on the one hand, some, not all, of these events
would not take place. On the other hand, the British would be resupplied and
supported without difficulty and the war on the seas would become a lopsided
match.


And,
Post by j***@yahoo.com
remember, it was Hitler who initiated the hostilities there. Hitler
declared war on the US, first. With Hitler dead, would anyone else in
the Nazi hierarchy be this arrogant or foolish?
You don't seem to be aware of the Kriegsmarine position on the issue, nor of
the consequences for the Allied shipping, both across the Atlantic and
against the soft underbelly of the US coast.
Again, the new German government could well follow your proposal and don't
declare war. This means supplies flow quite regularly across the Atlantic,
and not one ship is sunk along the American seaboard.
"Quite regularly", of course, means that some engagements take place,
especially in the vicinity of Iceland. And, according to the rules of
engagement the U-Boote were operating under, sooner or later they will sink
another US destroyer, then a US cruiser. Eventually, by late 1942, the US
public opinion will then be ready for a DoW going in the other direction.
FDR will be the one declaring war on Germany.
The fact that the USA are already at war with Japan will make things easier,
not more difficult. It will be a "let's solve everything while we are in it"
attitude. A small country might pause seeing the plate is already full, but
the USA aren't that.
Post by j***@yahoo.com
I propose, that with the Nazi-Soviet pact intact, and with no Hitler to
force the issue, FDR cannot and does not declare war on Germany, after
Pearl Harbor. The United States is at war with Japan, but not with
Germany. That, would, in turn, tend to force Britain's hand, to being
more flexible with terms in negotiating peace with Germany. They know
they can never beat them, on their own. A compromise, not status quo
pre-1939. Such an arrangement might be acceptable to the Nazis. If,
indeed, they still really are Nazis with Hitler dead.
Sorry, it doesn't work because of the reasons above. You don't seem to
realize that the USA were making long-term plans to be at war with Germany,
and that was before, and regardless of, Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor. These
things, together with Germany taking the initiative to declare war, made
things faster and much easier; but they aren't requirements.

Also, the German-Soviet non-aggression pact was conceived as a temporary
arrangement by Hitler... _and by Stalin, too_. Stalin was wrong in
estimating that Hitler would not attack in June 1941, but he was perfectly
right in evaluating that sooner or later they'd have to fight. It just
happened before he was fully ready.

Finally, you seem to be underestimating the industrial aspects, which, for
every country involved, are against your scenario.
Athos
2006-02-14 02:50:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@minolta.com
Hitler dies of a massive coronary on Feb 13, 1941.
1. Who takes over? Hess?
I think that in 41 Goering was the designated successor.
Post by d***@minolta.com
2. Does Germany invade the USSR in 1941?
Probably not in 1941 but soon.
Post by d***@minolta.com
3. Can new leadership make peace with WAllies?
No.
Post by d***@minolta.com
My guess is that a loose coalition takes over - headed by Hess and
Goering, with Himmler and Bormann in the background.
The war continues. The Germans do not inavde the USSR - the economy
isn't ready. The nuttier Nazis get more play time from the coalition -
the Holocaust is even worse.
The problem is can Germany not invade the USSR? By 1941 the USSR was
begining to raise the prices it charged Germany for oil and food amoung
other things. To make matters worse the USSR had used it's non
aggression pact with Germany to snatch a number of provences Romania,
Germany's only other source of oil.

The Soviets were trying to dominate the Balkans and as long as Germany
was at war with Britain they could get away with it.

So the USSR was slowly tightening the screws on Germany and the
question was how long could Germany afford to pay for the resources it
was getting from the USSR and tolerate Soviet interference in the
Balkans.

So the question is how long could Nazi Germany ignore the Soviet Union?
Post by d***@minolta.com
In December, the USA goes to war against Japan - if the Nazis are smart
(which they aren't), they do everything they can to avoid war - as it
is, the US comes in against them too.
Or a U-boat finally sinks a US warship and uses that as an excuse to
come into the war against Germany.
Post by d***@minolta.com
Without Hitler's manic leadership, the army is left more to its own
devices - especially as the upper level Nazis vie for power. This
doesn't help - I'm not one who thinks the German could have won without
Hitler - but it does mean some fiascos are avoided - like Tunisia.
Seems resonable.
Post by d***@minolta.com
The German Navy is defeated on schedule or earlier - with no Murmansk
run, streched ASW resources can be more concentrated.
The US and Britain face a much more defensive Germany. Oil and gas
flow from Russia, limiting the value of Ploesti. The US and Britain
focus their bomber offensives on the Ruhr, and are savaged by a
not-dead-in-Russia Luftwaffe early on. More advanced Allied aircraft
even it out, but the Germans do better in the air.
True
Post by d***@minolta.com
With a bulked out German Army in Italy and France, direct action
against Europe is hard. The WAllies pick off the naval-able targets -
like Sardinia, Sicily, Crete and Corsica. In 1943, the big WAllied
offensive is against Norway - the aero-naval balance has swung in the
Allied favor, and the Germans can't reinforce as fast as the Allies
can. However, strong, professional German resistance spooks the
Wallies out of Overlord in 1944.
I don't think the Allies will be able to land in Norway in 43 not
without the Soviets to suck up German resouces. Maybe 44 followed by
Italy in 45. The stronger German resistance makes Churchill's indirect
approach seem more reasonable.
Post by d***@minolta.com
The A-Bomb gets done a few months early - with no USSR, the US devotes
more to a wonder weapon to even the odds.
I'm not sure that any more would be put into the Manhattan project than
was in OTL. After all no one outside of a few egg heads can really
grasp what the weapon is capable of.
Post by d***@minolta.com
Overlord comes in May of
1945. A massive Allied army lands in France. The Germans mass huge
panzer forces against it - and are hit by A-bombs both over their
armies and in some cities. Allied airpower massively outnumbers the
Germans, and the WAllied army slogs forward against strong resistance.
You really think that the Germans will stay in the fight after their
cities start disappearing at a rate of one or two a month.
Post by d***@minolta.com
Paris isn't liberated until November (make it November 11 for kicks),
and then the Allies are stopped cold. More A-bombs fall, and the
German regime thinks seriously about peace - the German project is
years away from completion.
The WAllies aren't facing Hitler Youth - they're facing the best of the
German Army and lots of it. As they bludgeon their way forward, Stalin
chooses that moment to unlease the Red Army on Poland...
I think that once the a-bomb is available the Allies will dig in and
hold the line until Germany surrenders or you can read by the light of
the glowing slag, which ever comes first.
Post by d***@minolta.com
Plausible? Or ASB territory?
Plausible but it requires the Germans giving the USSR a free hand in
Eastern Europe and I'm not sure how long any German government can do
that.

Pete
Post by d***@minolta.com
Dave Knudson
Dave Knudson
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...