The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2 - OIL
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ก.พ. 2018
- Oil was in desperately short supply for the Axis powers in WW2. One historian describes it as 'The First War for Oil' - such was the severity of the shortage. Oil was probably the biggest factor that Germany lost world war 2, and it explains many of the previous reasons why the German Wehrmacht fought the way it did.
Please see the pinned comment in the comment section for more information, including timestamps, links, additional notes, and the sources/biography I used.
Special mention goes to Richard Stokes for providing several articles for this topic. Thank you Richard!
Don't forget to subscribe if you like history or gaming! And hit the little bell icon to be notified when videos like this are uploaded.
Please consider supporting me on Patreon and help make more videos like this possible / tikhistory
As a follow up to this video, I highly recommend the Toprani video “Oil and Grand Strategy: Great Britain and Germany, 1918--1941” which can be found here - • Oil and Grand Strategy...
And my more recent video: Why did Synthetic OIL not solve the AXIS OIL Crisis? • Why did Synthetic OIL ...
*Timestamps* + *Links* + *Notes* + *Biography/Sources*
00:00 Hook
01:09 Introduction
02:20 Part 1: The Age of Oil
06:12 Part 2: Crisis 1940-41
11:28 Part 3: Decision to Invade the Soviet Union
17:13 Part 4: Heading to Moscow?
24:40 Part 5: 1942 - The Last Chance
31:37 Part 6: No Economic Collapse 1943-1945
33:52 Part 7: Hitler’s ‘Stand Fast’ Orders!
39:56 Part 8: Dunkirk
44:20 Conclusion
As a follow up to this video, I highly recommend the Toprani video “Oil and Grand Strategy: Great Britain and Germany, 1918--1941” which can be found here - th-cam.com/video/RgxEBGAXNRU/w-d-xo.html
Also check out my BIG Stalingrad Airlift Myth video if you haven’t seen it already th-cam.com/video/feeYOqQkr3M/w-d-xo.html
And my “filthy detailed and super accurate” WW2 ‘Battlestorm’ documentaries th-cam.com/play/PLNSNgGzaledgHIszXQVDreX-ZC1Xejf9Y.html
Next Battlestorm Documentary will be Operation Crusader 1941-1942 and I am still working on my Stalingrad Documentary (research from March 2017-present).
Please consider supporting me on *Patreon* and help make these videos as good as they can be www.patreon.com/TIKhistory And thank you again to all my Patreons - you guys are awesome! Special mention goes to _Richard Stokes_ for providing several articles about this topic (listed below) as well as supporting my on Patreon. Thank you Richard!
*Notes and Additions* :
German tank numbers come from Enduring the Whirlwind.
Peiper driving over mines comes from Page 351 in Snow & Steel.
From Too Little Too Late by Hayward - “...on 21 November, [Göring] presided over an oil conference in Berlin. Maikop, which had yet to produce oil for Axis troops (and never would, except a few dribbles), remained at the forefront of his mind. "I'm fed up," he exclaimed. "Months have passed since we captured the first oil wells, yet we still aren't getting any benefit."29 He astounded his audience of technical experts when, referring to the concrete plugs dropped down the bores, he naively demanded to know: "Can't you just drill them out with something like a gigantic corkscrew?"
This was the same conference where Göring was when Jeschonnek indicated to Hitler (who was then convinced this was the right course of action) that the Sixth Army could be supplied by air at Stalingrad.
The situation was so bad for Germany that their tank training schools were forced to use gas-powered tanks. See this website for more details - www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/gas-powered-fahrschulwanne-tanks.php
The term “Revisionist Historian” makes no sense. A historian should question every source he reads, weighing up the reliability of each source, and looking for biases. This applies to both primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. If you do not do this, you are a bad historian. People are using the term as a weapon against those who are questioning the “traditional narratives” of history. The problem isn’t that historians and history buffs are questioning the old out-of-date narratives (because that’s what historians are supposed to do when new evidence or new perspectives comes to light) but that some people think that the old narratives were somehow indisputably correct and are completely unwilling to consider new evidence, claiming that it’s “biased” or “propaganda”. I have news for you: *all evidence is biased* and the old narratives are equally filled with propaganda. This is why you should not completely trust any source and be willing to change your opinion when new evidence emerges. Evidence and new sources are constantly being discovered or reconsidered that will have an impact on the “accepted” narrative. This is good! This is what’s meant to happen. If this doesn’t happen, then we’re not doing history right.
*Selected Biography*
*Books* -
Caddick-Adams, P. “Snow and Steel: The Battle of the Bulge 1944-45.” Arrow Books, 1988.
Citino, R. “Death of the Wehrmacht: The German Campaigns of 1942.” University Press of Kansas, 2007.
“Germany and the Second World War Volume IV/I: The Attack on the Soviet Union.” Oxford University Press, 2015. [Referred to as the “German Official History” in the video.]
Fritz, S. “Ostkrieg: Hitler’s War of Extermination in the East.” University Press of Kentucky. 2011.
Hayward, J. “Stopped at Stalingrad: The Luftwaffe and Hitler’s Defeat in the East 1942-1943.” University Press of Kansas, 1998.
Guderian, H. “Panzer Leader.” Penguin Books, 2000.
Kershaw, I. “Hitler: Nemesis 1936-1945.” Penguin Books, 2001.
Liedtke, G. “Enduring the Whirlwind: The German Army and the Russo-German War 1941-1943.” Helion & Company, 2016.
Manstein, E. “Lost Victories.” Zenith Press, 2004.
Overy, R. “Why the Allies Won.” Pimlico Edition, 2006.
Shirer, W. “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.” Pan Books, 1960.
Stahel, D. “Operation Barbarossa and Germany’s Defeat in the East (Cambridge Military Histories).” Cambridge University Press: 1st Edition, Kindle Edition, 2009.
Tooze, A. “Wages of Destruction: The Making & Breaking of The Nazi Economy.” Penguin Books, 2007.
*Articles* -
Hayward, J. “Too Little Too Late.” From Journal of Military History 64 (July 2000): 769-94.
Toprani, A. “Oil and Grand Strategy: Great Britain and Germany, 1918-1941.” PhD Dissertation. Georgetown University, 2012.
Toprani, A. “The First War for Oil: The Caucasus, German Strategy, and the Turning Point of the War on the Eastern Front, 1942.” From The Journal of Military History 80 (July 2016): 815-854.
Toprani, A. “Germany’s Answer to Standard Oil: The Continental Oil Company and Nazi Grand Strategy, 1940-1942.” From the Journal of Strategic Studies 37 (December 2014): 949-973.
Thank you all for watching! Share this video and let people know about it!
+TIK Finally someone who knows how close the axis powers came to winning and why they couldn`t and wasn`t just because of America`s help! lol! As I`m watching this advert for a series showing what Hitler`s plans were when he was to win WW2! It based on plans that he wrote down, have you heard of this series on the channel yesterday? Terror!
Amazing video as always!
I think Hitler was not really as much as a tyrannical dictator that he is made out to be. Most of the time it seems that hitler is looking for peace, or is looking for a reason to make peace. De example people often criticise Hitler’s choice to attack during the Battle of or bulge, however it makes sense considering that he wanted to make peace with the U.S and Britain. There’s countless times throughout WW2 where the Pro-War Diplomats and governments deliberately push aside germanys offer of peace.
Most notably would be Bernard M Baruch, a zionist who seems to profit from the war.
Some words of critcism: You do realise that Germans could look at Barbarossa from two perspectives, you either try to catch oil fields which are 2500 km away from the nearest point of your control in 4 months, or you go all in and try to destroy the enemy by taking the biggest city, greatest logistical hub in the country and political/ideological center. Now we know that both of these objectives were near impossible but you have to admit that covering 2500 km by any standard of 1940 is utterly impossible. Even assuming low resistance after first victories, it took 8 days for Germans from 4 June to 12 June to cover 130 km in France.
Mark Ant
At no time were the Axis winning. Spectacular gains but nothing conclusive.
There are two anecdotes of Afrika Korps soldiers who immediately realized that the war was lost as soon as they arrived at the prison camp.
One, when he saw a soldier get out of the jeep he was driving, leaving the engine running for a few minutes, and another when he saw that the allied soldiers had toilet paper.
I need to read this😂😂😂 where is the source
@@curiousman3655 One was Georg Gärtner, a soldier who remained all his life in the US, fearing to be shot by the Soviets, which have captured his home town. I saw the other story in some video, I don't remember exactly where.
This exactly what happened to German soldiers during the First World War. What prisoners in French camps were being fed as compared to the saw dust bread and imitation coffee that were normal staples in the German field. That and the starvation rations on the home front during leave in the last 2 years of the war. It must’ve been a massive shock to many.
@@SouthBaySteelers Weird, since the German Army and, specially the Navy (that barely participated during WW1) are the ones that spread the myth that "we weren't defeated in the battlefield, politicians surrendered", not realizing that Germany lost due to the naval blockade and it's economy collapsed.
Have you heard about the Toilet Paper Pandemic? It was horrible. Thank God, we survived it.
Oil isn't the only reason. Germany also fought in WW 2 against X-mens, Transformers, Captain America, Olympian gods...
Yes and Superman was a conscientious objector
We can't forget the vital contributions made by the commandos disguised as POWS at Stalag 13. It's surprising how well they operated there while the German guards saw NO-THING!
@@TheNoonish Haha! Hogan ran that outfit like clockwork :).
Not the only reason, but a big one.
@@fightfairloseeasy8920 superman nick name is man of steel. Stalin is the man of steel. 🤔
Do not forget that once the US Navy figured out that all of the Japanese oil tankers from the Dutch East Indies had to sail through either the Luzon Straits or through the Formosa (Taiwan) Straits to get home, they just positioned their submarines across those two narrow shipping lanes and the oil that Japan needed never got through.
Wasn't that quite late in the war when the US had forward naval operations out of captured islands?
@@joenelson4235 -- Yes. But remember the Mark 14 torpedo was garbage until mid 1943. The best forward base was Saipan which the Marines and Army captured in mid 1944. Once all that came together, Japan's oil sea lanes were close enough to keep the submarines on station much longer. The end was inevitable.
@@the_answeris6694 pretty sure the US was producing 90% of the world's crude oil at this point and Japan had no source of steel except buying US. 2 things needed for war I'd say the outcome was inevitable from day 1.
@@joenelson4235 Remember though, the Japanese knew they couldn't "win," in the traditional sense, against the US. What they could do was grab enough territory that to make America's retaking it such a bloody and painful that the US would seek terms to spare itself such deadly victories. Those terms would secure Japan's access to sufficient oil and steel as to keep their economy going and thus the militants in power. This, even though it would mean Japan had "lost" the war in the traditional sense - i.e. it had to "conditionally surrender" to the US and Allied forces.
Hence Japan's tactics of seizing as many islands as possible and planning to defend each "to the last man" in hopes of exhausting American will to keep on bleeding itself out taking each of them in turn.
From the perspective of a weaker party with no ability to fight on equal terms against its vastly larger and more powerful opponent, that's a strategy with some validity. Bloody minded and inhumane in terms of planning for the deliberate loss of so many of its own troops, yes. But, a rational one from that perspective.
@@Thorr97 Correct. The vast majority of decisions made by the Japanese command were completely logical and rational. The war was just never in their favor they always had to compromise whether it be saving natural resources or using unconventional methods. There's a few doctrines that could change but in the grand scheme of things it is the reason they lasted as long as they did against an industrial giant and a country with 10x its population. They didn't want this war but they were left with no choice after the US oil embargoes strangled Japan. Most people unfortunately have a biased view of what happened.
after watching this vid, it almost makes complete sense why Hilter made the questionable choices that he did, and it was true that his generals were more to blame than him at times
Read about _"Case Blue"._
@@yannick245What about it? The thing people question about the German plan to take the Baku fields is why Hitler decided it was a good idea to also attack St. Petersburg and Moscow at the same time, dividing their armed forces and ultimately losing in the three fronts. No one argues that Fall Blau was a bad idea.
Dangit steiner
As a shut-in, disabled vet I want to say how much I appreciate your fine programs.
I love studying history and it's channels like yours that help bring the classroom to my bedside.
Thank you!
God bless.
*hmmmmmmm I would say the same different approaches are presented also he reads a lot not just guess work or what if cases*
Hope you're doing okay mate
All the best mate. Hope you are doing okay.
Sarge thank YOU and GOD bless you...keep the Faith 😇
While there are other important factors to consider when discussing "why Germany lost", this is nevertheless an outstanding video. Loved every minute of it!
Behind German invasion of Soviet Union you can find a lot of American and British ingests. One has to understand that Romanian oil was controlled by Standard Oil
HistoryMarche It is a poor video....
@ Tim Rut
No fair making chit up out of thin air. Goering bought out all of the owners -- who were Belgian and French interests, IIRC. Standard Oil was never a player at Ploesti. Rockefeller was super invested in BAKU -- which was MUCH, MUCH bigger. Baku was an "elephant" - whereas Ploesti was poodle.
Baku could pump 1,000,000 bbl/day for decades on end.
Ploesti was in trouble when one tried 50,000 bbl/day.
At such flows, the geology is disturbed.
The Axis so abused Ploesti that its production was collapsing of its own accord.
As to why the Axis permitted huge tank farms around the drill rigs... who can say? It was totally crazy.
The VERY first thing any defender should do is pump away ALL crude, draining the tanks down to nothing. Flood them with soapy water, as necessary.
Then bury every pipe that its possible to bury. Box out as required and pour concrete lids over all critical valves.
Just figure on the bombers getting through. FLAK will not be enough to stop them. So you HAVE to harden the target.
None of the above steps was even attempted, BTW.
The Germans BLEW IT. So much for supermen.
@Heineken
Stop letting the beer do your thinking and talking.
WWII essentially wiped out Jewry in Europe. They were so powerless that they couldn't even run away -- couldn't even buy their way out. (They were turned back even by Cuba! )
And the last time I checked Britain and Russia were WHITE.
Even America had a classic White culture.
The screwy rise of the Frankfurt shul was years off in the future.
Critical theory = ideological siege warfare.
It works best on women and fools.
No the damage to Heritage America occurred during the Cold War.
It then accelerated when that war was won by the USA.
The US Constitution = thesis.
Bolshevism = anti-thesis.
Frankfurt shul = some sick twisted syn-thesis.
Think of the Frankfurt crew as being in power competition with Moscow... for the heart and mind of despotism.
This entirely explains how Communist HRC could be anti-Moscow while actually being on Putin's arm.
It wasn't just oil. Germany didn't have enough of anything including soldiers and workers. They are a tiny country compared to the USSR and the United States. They never had a chance. The United States gets nuclear weapons in 1945 and Germany has no navy. It was completely and utterly hopeless. It was hopeless even without nuclear weapons.
I always knew that that the Germans were short on oil throughout most of World War 2, but I never really realized just how severe Germany's oil crisis really was until I saw this video. Thanks, TIK. This video was awesome!
He could've gotten it without invading the soviet union he just should've focused on the middle east wich also would've gave another part to invade to soviets and they also would've cut the soviets of, had they also attacked from the south via the middle east and that would've turned thing around the soviets themselves would've been cut of from it...
@@henkschrader4513 Wouldn't that have forced them to contend with troops from British held India?
@@paulharland7280 british held india was already trying to get independent and if the Germans would've promised/helped them then the indian people would've fought for the germans and possibly signed a treaty with them
they were short of oil because the uk were straight up evil and pressured neutral countries to stop helping germany
the irony is the dutch trading company was started by those you can’t talk about who were involved in slave trade, slave owners in the us, reason why christopher columbus is hated today, and who helped murder jesus
give up
@@henkschrader4513 don’t think he could get enough troops and supplies to invade through so much territory and then go through the Soviet Union in the south
Your ideas on the Dunkirk "pause" make total sense. I've often wondered why our "armada of little ships weren't straffed to pieces by a dominant luftwaffe. It makes little sense to me how the germans could not have stopped the successful withdrawal of 400,000 troops. Well done. Loved it.
.....that was the Aliens that did that , not Hitler. Hitler was working undercover as a crap watercolour artist so that he could bankrupt the global oil paint industry thus bringing about a massive rise in Oil , Gas and non binary underwear price's!.
What about if Hitler had captured all the British troops there and held them for ransom (Peace w/ Britain)? 400,000 men will die unless you surrender now.
They still tried though. And managed to cause *a lot* of casualties. While it's true that the Germans didn't make a super big huge attack on Dunkirk, they did fight constantly.
Whenever I hear that line about "History is written by the victors", Halder is my go-to counter. No. History is written by the _survivors._
Which is why Franz Halder is in the thumbnail
the truth is always somewhere in beetwen
it depends on what you mean by "writen by victors"
do they mean, written in history book or in education and historical knowledge of the world population
or the histiry hav ebeen made and by victors
@Muslimcel No; just survivors. A victor who did not survive does not write history. The only people who can write history are people who are alive; hence, survivors.
@@Werrf1 lol why would‘nt the victor be alive. Most of them Are alive. So the statement is correct. „The Victor writes history“Just look at Europe 1945...
Who Else would even Write history of Not the Victor/ Surviver. In that context it means the Same...
@@mrtrizzle3653 24 Million dead Sowjets would like to have a word with you.
I thought WW2 was the part of history I knew the most about. It turns out I didnt know anything.
You can never know everything :)
We are all ignorants - just some of us aware of it and others things they know everything.
cTrix lol how didn't you know about the oil crises lol.
@I have crippling depression Simple, watch TV documentaries on ww2. Very very few mention the oil at all and most of them if they mention it it's just a short phrase and after that it's back on kissing allied ass.
predattak Some mention the oil crisis,but the majority don’t.I also agree that they are heavily biased towards the allies.
And people say Hitler went for Stalingrad because he wanted the city with Stalin's name 🤭
I just watched a Netflix documentary that says specifically this, and it's like come on... And they say TH-cam is full of false information...
@@Rofl890 Think Stalingrad as a target for its name is one of the reasons. Propaganda victory for whoever wins I believe. But idk.
@@sponandspon92 Nah TIK disproves this in one of the other videos, the soviets may have been more interested in keeping it due to its name tho. For the Germans it was just strateg
@@Rofl890 Mm Ic.
@@sponandspon92 the Germans had already taken Stalino. So even if that mattered, it had already been done
Mate you are doing a WONDERFUL JOB. Few historians are able to explain historical events like you do. Your WWII perception is simply one of the best I have seen! From the land of Alexander the Great and Leonidas a huge WELL DONE and KEEP IT UP!
...... that's true actually, .... I don't know of any Historians who can explain historical events like this wacko does 👍😁
Germany used wood burning steam engine tanks for training their tank crews. This is how desperate they were for oil. Also when the allies were bombing the crap out of German cities in 1944 and 1945, Germany had hundreds of Me-262 jets sitting on the ground with no fuel and no pilots, and no fuel to train new pilots. So all the people who say if they hadn't "wasted" resources on the V-2, which used Hydrogen peroxide and alcohol as fuel, they could have built thousands of more planes. How would thousands of more planes helped if there was no fuel or pilots to fly them?
Bretton Ferguson Do you know some Me 262 jets Hidden Privately?
@Bretton
They also had no engines.
THAT was the problem with the jet program.
Fuel was never an issue with them.
They ran on cr%p, which the Nazis never ran out of.
Sorry.
There were ALWAYS pilots queued up for the ME 262.
The engines were only able to last about 20 hours. (!!!!!!!!!)
And only if you babied them. They also spooled up slowly.
THAT was the problem with the jet program.
BTW the V-2 ( nee A-4 ) used a totally trivial amount of H2O2.
The propellants were 150 proof booze, yep, and liquid oxygen.
Peroxide only powered the turbo pumps.
THE critical component proved to be its batteries. (!) They cost a mint.
BTW, after the Big Week, MOST of the Luftwaffe was being destroyed on the ground. Yeah, it was that bad.
Speer was producing stupendous numbers of fighters, and yet couldn't fuel them.
When the Americans over ran the ME 262 'factories' ie the woods factories, they found an astounding number of jets... virtually complete... but without engines.
The argument I read about the V rockets is that the resources could have been made into more artillery pieces, including AA, and their ammunition, which would have been more efficient as a harm-delivery method, because much more aimable.
V-2s used aviation grade aluminum alloys and such. So the real burn was in technical talent, not materials. Von Braun ultimately had hundreds of Germany's best engineers dedicated to his program. We're talking about world class geniuses, not ordinary Joes.
Bretton Ferguson actually, wood gas fueling of piston engines
Hitler was constantly telling his generals that "They didn't understand the economic aspects of war."
I find it funny how this explaination makes Hitler sound like a failed economics teacher trying to teach a disruptive class.
@@Stellar001100 most underrated comment😂
@beaujolais : HOW TRUE ???? TRUE BLUE !!!!!!!
I have a feeling that German Officers were too militaristic , to the point where they utterly lacked knowledges in other fields. Back in the First World War, they made a plan to attack France through Belgium; Despite the the fact that this would caused UK to enter the war against Germany.
Yes. They, pretty much, ignored political and economic aspect of the war.
Bismarck had some of the same problems with von Moltke and the general stab during the Franco Prussian war in 1870, but that was about the political aspect
I was always told that American farm boys knew how to operate tractors and therefore could transition to tanks easily and that German forum boys more familiar with horses and that’s why they use horses. Your emphasis of oil makes a lot of sense
In 1939-41, the idea that US farm boys knew how to operate tractors is probably only VERY RARELY true.
In the 1940's, we were still often building roads (etc) using mules to do what we now use bulldozers and graders/maintainers to do.
I've also seen many pictures taken from 1930-1950 with those farm boys still using horses and mules to do what we now use tractors, etc. to do.
A more likely source of tank drivers...
People who already had some kind of experience driving vehicles are the CITY boys... driving delivery vehicles/taxis, buses, etc.
As for the overall myth... yeah... the reason Germany used horses was to save oil... AND probably other reasons... like horses being less likely to get stuck in mud... even tracked vehicles like tanks get stuck FAR more easily than a horse.
2-3" of mud, enough to over-match the depth of the cleats on the treads is all it takes (in some cases) to get a tank stuck. To get a horse/mule stuck, you need to get it up past his knees.
ALSO... this was still during PEOPLE'S transition from horses to "horseless carriages", regardless of which nation. This is the reason that Germany was able to GET so many REPLACEMENT horses... until even those horses had been killed/eaten.
The US still had horse-mounted cavalry in 1941... and horse-drawn artillery, too.
There are lots of pictures from WWII, of pretty much every combatant nation, using horses and mules.
My dad (pacific) and uncle captured at the bulge, both were farm boys. They would have to put coals under old model t so it would start in winter before war. So yes they wouldn't hesitate to fix anything with nothing. After the war dad would fix personal radios on the Navy base on guam. He would swap his services for ice cream rations. Dad was a simple humble man but he liked his ice cream till he was 90 years old.
@@nyetzdyec3391 I commented above about my farm boy dad and uncle.dads family had a old crappy model t. Enough to learn how to tear apart. Dad Remembered when a radio came in.house, he became radio man from a have nothing farm boy. The basics of old world tech hinges on gates put tools in hand to use on motors. They got part time jobs as young teens in factories,( hat making , potatoes chips, valves, motor winding.). Been using tools myself since toddler. So I can attest to this machinery ability. I can attest to the development of the magic of working with simple tools as the family business is 76 years old, started in 1946. Right after the war
@@marckg6950 A *lot* of people came back from WWII with new and useful skills.
The military still teaches those.
@@nyetzdyec3391 You are correct 100%. The USA was still very much horse powered agriculturally up until about 1950. Pre war the US was in the world wide depression and new tractor sales were slow to say the least. It wasn't until 1946 that the explosion of powered farming took off
This is refreshing. It is always good to understand history from multiple angles.
My father, a veteran of the Kriegsmarine, always said that the war was lost because of a lack of fuel.
He would, wouldn't he?
It's pretty much true. Rubber was also in short supply. Even the Americans realised that getting too far ahead of your fuel supply is deadly after landing at Normandy. Hitler wasted most of their fuel supply at Stalingrad, this was fuel put aside for Rommel's army in North Africa.
@Corn Flakerr0 it was a funny light hearted response imo
But if they turn south, how do they protect the newly acquired oil fields if the Russian army is in the north and then going to a attack?
patrick kelly Easy. You don’t invade Russia and you take the oil fuels in North Africa instead.
The Wehrmacht is like all those toys that say "batteries not included"
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Except most of those toys are more durable
@@coaxill4059 ain't good when you don't have batteries
"What's the use of buying a car if you don't have gasoline?"
@@johanmikkael6903 Odd reply.
I wasn't commenting on batteries, or whether something would be good without them. Obviously nothing that requires power will operate without it.
My comment is mocking the poor longevity and excessive complexity of German vehicles. The implication is that modern toys are more durable than their WW2 tanks. This bit of hyperbole isn't strictly speaking a statement of fact, but was meant to hopefully make the reader consider if the Germans could have won even if they had their resource requirements met- with a little dry humour to make it more palatable.
I'd much rather hear what you think about that.
@@coaxill4059 Good explanation on your reply, I ain't got nothing to say.
Tik, many thanks for this video about Germany and oil during WW 2. It has changed my entire view of the war in Europe.
TIK, This is my third time watching this; your analysis is great and you present an amazing amount of material. You’re a treasure for all of us that are interested in WW2. Why don’t they teach this material in school? Thanks for all your work!
School is designed to indoctrinate and is usually decades behind the curve…
As someone who constantly tries to understand the truth of WW2, I greatly appreciate this info.
Fallout Bear why dont you start with the truth of ww1?
They dont call it the „urkatastrophe“ for nothing.
Get ready to be mind-fucked since the truth behind WW2 is a deep rabbit hole to go down, it will explain any question you may have about the war, but it also crushes the official story and causes you to question a lot of your own beliefs. It's an uncomfortable ride, but worth it if truth, no matter how harsh, is truly what you value.
@falloutbear check out "the greatest story NEVER told"
This is also why Japan entered the war, the oil sanctions meant they either had to capture oil or be unable to operate.
Why japanese didn't produce syntetic fuel?
They didn't know CTL technology?
I would use it to power my war machine....
@@WadcaWymiaru good point, I'm not sure at the time if it was capable of supporting the planes or tanks
@@grantaum9677
If you look at one plant:
pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabryka_benzyny_syntetycznej_w_Policach#Proces_produkcji
example from my country sad past.
Translation:
Benzyna -> gasoline
Płynny gaz -> liquid gas
That was only one plant, from twelwe in entire Third Reich. Look at the increasing rate of fuel production.
@Pepe Cantero
The factory in Police (town) was able to produce millions of tons. One from 12...
However in game *Heart of Iron 4* you CAN develop this technology.
Władca Wymiaru in a game, not real life
That's what I love about TIK's documentaries. It's all so logical and objective, things do make sense. Hardly any biased opinions, only pure facts, and always an attention to detail, cleverly analising all factors that explain how events evolved the way they did. And finally someone who gives a solid reason for what happened at Dunkirk besides those ridiculous ones such as "the german soldiers run out of anphetamines"...
I've seen a series of videos made showing excavations of German military burials in occupied territories. Many of these had simply been built right over with modern construction, especially in Belarus.
Now, the level of combat wounds was truly horrifying. However, what was more telling was the nature of healed injury from the past. Many of these men had been wounded two and three times (often quite severely), and then sent back to the front again. I also was quite surprised at how many of these men were wearing spectacles, and had severe Dental replacement done for them. A great deal of this would indicate someone had their teeth bashed in in hand-to-hand combat, for instance.
This really drove home to me the idea that the Eastern Front was the graveyard of the German wehrmacht.
You may wish to binge-watch a few of these and then do a video of your own covering findings that you would make from Simply watching their videos serious
Very interesting how the things you say just changes most aspects we believed about WW2.The fact that invading Soviet Union was a mistake, but it was done because as you said Germany had little oil and time left.The same with failure to take Moscow as it was a mistake, when in fact it made perfect sense to take the oil fields instead.And most of all, what so many believed that Hitler was irational and incompetent, when if fact he had a great strategic and economic understanding of the war situation, which his much fabled generals severely lacked.Well done sir !
Thank you! And yes, it's a different perspective, but one that challenges the old idea of "Hitler' the madman" that the German generals promoted after the war. I've been doing more videos challenging the same notion, and I've also been planning on expanding on the oil-view presented in this video. Hopefully I'll have another video on it soon :)
Can't wait mate ! What you say makes sense.We all knew some WW2 ideas we have are either wrong or only half right.So a fresh new look into it is sure nice.
Great video, but not sure it was the "first oil war", I think WW1 was, as it was the German railroad into the Ottoman Empire and Mesopotamian and oil deals and the British and French Empire's interests in the region.
Revisionist history isn't necessarily bad history, Tim. Clearly you've misunderstood what the term actually means (hint, it currently has two meanings) th-cam.com/video/ruqt8uv__18/w-d-xo.html
Germany invaded Russia because its leader wanted to murder people in pursuit of a fantasy. The oil shortage may have put a veneer of rational thought over the idea, but oil was not the real reason Germany invaded Russia.
After playing a lot of Hearts of Iron 4 as Italy, I keep running into this issue. I don't have the fuel to keep my airplanes and ships going because I have very little oil.
MechWarrior894 do prospect for oil focus and build synthetic refineries
build refineries from 1938 onwards to maximize oil production
pulling out of east Africa to focus on the north African campaign and invading Iraq also might help
@@ggtroll1365 You loose your rubber by putting out of Ethiopia and Lybia is very hard to hold if you don't have the German support against France and the Allies down there
Make Etria Somalia and Ethiopia a puppet so Britain doesn’t take it and they have troops there plus you can steal there manpower and resources there. WIN WIN WIN.
Much much needed channel. Videos like this is one of the things that makes the internet a gem.
Victoria historiae magistra
Thank you for the different perspective of the strategic issues of WW2.
It is scary how simple and short-sighted are the common ideas about this war.
And it is all about a war that was like 70-80 years ago which is a tiny fraction of time.
Thank you for the videos! You and Military History Visualized are the top historical channels on this platform! Keep up the good work!
MHV is great! And yes, the reason for the short-sightedness is because everyone is biased and trying to make themselves look good. There's not many people who rise up to the top levels of command/management who are humble and honest. Therefore they want history to remember themselves as being right and everyone else being wrong. Same with the guys writing the history. They have books to sell, so they'll write them in the ways that will sell. Publishers are reluctant to publish non-conforming viewpoints because they want trust and sales. They don't want controversy. They also don't want books on unpopular battles, which is why there's loads written on Rommel but barely anything written on other commanders. Entire campaigns have been "forgotten." In some instances there's not even a Wikipedia page. This is why it's our job to question everything. And why I don't care if I'm controversial or not. I'd rather know what actually happened.
World War 2 was the war that made America the dominating global power for the next century. It's the origin story for the American hegemony. The Americans developed it into a founding myth, not just to pat themselves on the shoulder, but also to make their European allies accept that they are now vassals instead of great powers in their own right. It's a way to make sense not of the war, but of the new post war situation. A situation where the Soviet Union is the true enemy and NATO not just an alliance of desperation, but the forces of Good who are destined to defeat the forces of evil. Just as they have before.
The "classic American narrative" is the way it is, because it makes the western powers believe that this is the way things should be, and that because of this they can not lose.
It's the victors who write history. A case study, try to find out what happened at Waterloo. Every book will tell you a different story. How many stories written by Imperial Rome do you think is accurate?
My favourite military historian is John Keegan. After reading *The Illustrated Face of Battle* which is like an eyewitness account of being at Agincourt, Waterloo and the Somme ..... I collected as many of his books as I can.
But converting coal to oil was relatively unknown, the cost of building the processing plants was enormous and ot would be for inadequate yield which would also take too long to produce. Such plants would be systematically bombed too by the allies. Besides trains, the German vehicles were not fueled by coal. So the problem remains. The quickest way to solve the oil shortage was to get the Oil in the Ukraine.
Yora
Exaclty. My Contemporary History teacher used to say the same thing, WW2 is the founding myth of the modern Western world and its current order.
Great vid!! As a former USAF logistician this makes sense. People from the US have a hard time of relating to not having access to oil which clouds their viewpoint, I think. It’s a huge consideration. The US had a virtually unlimited supply of aviation and other fuel during the war. It gave the Allies options the Axis did not have. The Allies stumbled in 1944 due to not being able to get fuel to units approaching the German frontier. A Fascinating subject!!
Kevin Paulson
After the Normandy breakout the allies had the fuel (via PLUTO), it was getting some of it to the front lines until Antwerp came online. It wasn't just oil, it was all resources the Germans were short of, with grain being the gravest concern. The only reason the allies stumbled in 1944 was because of Eisenhower's broad front strategy, not fuel. The were spread from the North Sea to Switzerland, with none of the front strong enough to punch a hole through.
When you see a film footage of the mountains of gas cans needing to be filled, then stacked on trucks for transport, it drives home the cumbersome problem of fuel resupply. I know how heavy those gas cans are when full and that's a LOT of work expended for a single material. Not to mention all the trucks that are tied up hauling gas cans instead of other war supplies.
The Air Corps did too good a job destroying the French railroads and bridges! The Engineers could not work fast enough. Luckily the French had some of the best roads in the world. Patton knew France well and spoke the language. He once said he did his planning with pre-war Michelin maps.
Judy S.
When Patton went across France no Germans were there until he was near the German border.
@John Burns
Can't you get ANYTHING right?
The 4th Armored had one of its biggest tank fights against Panthers well west of the West Wall. The Germans were crushed.
The 3rd Army was over-running and capturing German soldiers the whole way across France. By the time it had reached the West Wall, 3rd Army had captured as many prisoners as it had men in the ranks.
Ike was the reason that the "Allies stumbled" -- as he cut off 12th Army Group in favor of 21st Army Group -- to make Monty happy and to provide the logistics for MarketGarden.
And my Father had a front row seat to all of this. He and his buddies were forced to sit on their azzes -- back at the PLUTO tank farm -- while the 12th Army Group was starved of gasoline. Yup. Thousands of Red Ball tankers were sitting idle all during this period.
The front was stalled by Ike's order. Bradley, and Patton were fight to be tied.
BTW, best as I can tell, this order did not extend to 6th Army Group, for it was fed out of Marsielle, in southern France. Its trucks were FORDS not GMC.
( All American trucks in the Med were Fords -- all trucks in England// Northwest Europe were GMC -- all trucks in Russia were Studebakers -- all trucks in the Pacific// China// India were Dodges.)
Bradley triggered an ammo crisis by assuming that the Germans were defeated. So he actually stopped the trans-shipment of artillery ammo. (!!!) This crisis was hidden from view -- and most histories -- by getting Devers ( 6th Army Group ) to provide the missing ammo. Because of the truck boundary described above, thousands of Ford trucks delivered ammo to 3rd Army's southern demarcation line where it was humped over to GMC trucks for final delivery to 12th Army Group.
Devers was laughing his azz off. 7th Army ended up supplying 1st, 3rd and 9th Armies for a bit, until regular ammo deliveries could resume. This took a while. This entire affair is the primary reason that the American armies slowed down their attacks.
It's WHY Patton was stalled in front of Metz. Bradley had allowed his armies to run out of artillery ammo. Even 7th Army's stuff was not enough to sustain the prior tempo.
( 7th Army was TINY compared to 12th Army Group. )
I've casually enjoyed WW2 history for decades. Your videos shed new light (to me anyways) and reveal truths about the conflict I havent heard anywhere else. Amazing job.
It just wanted to tell you here, as someone who has a master's degree in American studies, bachelor's degree in history, near Eastern culture and archaeology, Etc,
You nailed it.
It makes me quite disappointed that you receive such a severely negative response, especially when your sources are solid and your analysis is reasonable. If there is a criticism of this video, I can only hope it would go to an equal depth of research instead of just accusing him of being a revisionist. An accurate understanding of history reflects an accurate understanding of life. Thanks for the lesson
A negative response to this video? There's a few people who dislike it, but this isn't one of my more controversial videos. Those people calling me a 'revisionist' have a poor concept of what history is and don't understand that revising history is what historians do. This is why I made my Revisionist video, to help explain the concept th-cam.com/video/ruqt8uv__18/w-d-xo.html
Oh my comment was more of a general statement than a specific one relating to *this* video, but I appreciate the link. I personally have always thought it was already understood, the concept of changing historiography is well established. I think the term 'revisionist' has come to be used sometimes as almost pejorative slang to imply someone that's mis-representing the truth. But I don't really see how namecalling, without any real argument to back it up, really contributes constructively to anything
"severely negative response,"??? 9000 or so positive vs 300 or so negative, what do you mean?
people accuse because they think they know all the answers
@@andersbackman3977 read my other comments in response to TIK before you criticise, take a lesson from him and do your research before commenting :p
I had a relative who drove a wood-fired bus to pick up German conscripts during the last days of the war...
Interesting! Never heard of a wood fired vehicle!
@@r2gelfand www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/01/wood-gas-cars.html
I have read many accounts of WW II, however I don't think any of them highlight the central role of oil. You don't speak to the Japanese situation vis-a-vis access to raw materials in the context of your video re Germany's oil situation. But it's striking just how parallel the two are. Thank you for your efforts to uncover the many things that different sources would rather conceal.
Oil or lack thereof, was also the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The US withheld oil from Japan.
In the 50s as everyone was saying we were entering the “nuclear age” my seventh grade teacher, Mr. Helton, told the class that wasn’t true. He then explained we were in the “oil age” and would remain that way for our entire lifetimes! And, in spite of all the media, he was 100% right. We were then and continue to be in the oil age. With a couple hundred years of oil left we shall be using oil for a very long time. Someday we may be into other things - but not until the market prices become such that the other energies are viable.
Or a world wide virus brings transportation to a stop. Or, later, when ports are inundated. Or later, when WW3 is triggered by mass immigration. Sooner or later.
France has 80% of its electricity from nuclear. We lack the political will.
I’ve heard we have less than a century left of economically viable drilling sites.
"A couple hundred years of oil left" - that's very optimistic of you to assume that we will last that long.
@@pakkazull8370 All oil produced prior to fracking, ~pre 1992, was from natural wells which had seeped from the porous source rock. Fracking that source rock play is estimated to contain more oil than what has been consumed in human history. I'd recommend the book The Domino Effect if you'd like more information with sourcing
31:41 "HANS, get ze flammenwerfer!"
*out of fuel*
"Scheize..."
Bastiaan Wiltjer how clever...*fart noise
*Scheiße
😂
lmao!
@@michelangelobuonarroti4958🤡
Excellently put forward. I’ve read extensively on the Eastern Front and you posit some key pieces to the puzzle.
Is this why the Ploesti oil fields were unexpectedly well defended and expensive to attack? Explains why Guderian was diverted, Fall Blau over extended so much and why Stalingrad was not given up. Interesting work I had not considered as thoroughly as you have, thank you.
Stalingrad was also heavily defended by the USSR for ideological reasons. - the one city named after the Dictator.
@@shaydowsith348 Stalino.....
I've always wondered how Germans went through so many different models of tanks and aircraft in the war while most other allies picked one vehicle and maybe upgraded it once during the war per piece of equipment, your documentary gives it sense:
Germany HAD to keep developing and making newer and better designs because they did not have the energy to run all the available vehicles but they had the ability to produce new ones!
Oil really seems like the puzzle piece that connects all the loose ends in German WW2 decisions.
Thanks TIK!
+Kastor Hallavainio The UK went through the A9, A10, A11, A13 cruisers, Matilda I, II, Valentine and Churchill infantry tanks, and the Cromwell, Challenger, Cavalier, and Comet, and had the Centurion in prototype.. Oh, and the Vickers VI and the Tetrach. So quite a few models. The USA went through (from 1939) the M2, M3 and M5 light tanks, the M2, M3, and M4 medium tanks, and the M26 heavy (so relatively few), but the M10, M18 and M36 were tank destroyers that were relatively tank-like. The USSR had the BT-5, 7, T-26, T-28, KV-1. KV-2, T-50, 60, 70, T-34, and a few other light tanks for specialist tasks.The Italians and Japanese, whose tanks were awful, but relatively fewer in number of types. The French deployed about half-a-dozen types of light tank, one or two mediums (depends on your definition) and a heavy, and that was just in 1939-40.
Well said. When you can’t run thousands of Panzers that are poorer or equal to your enemy, then build smaller numbers of extremely powerful vehicles that require less oil for impressive combat impact.
@@martinlaird4738 sure ,the tanks that were so heavy they broke all the roads required less fuel
This makes no sense. Germans kept making bigger tanks that used even more oil. They didn't focus on a super efective design that used oil in a more efficient way.
@@San_Vito That's because lacking the overall strength, they were forced into going for tactical force-multipliers. Countries winning wars don't design tanks like the Tiger
big fan since years, nice to see such a fan like me at these topics. keep going and ive help needed with something, always welcome to ask bro, respect for you and all your contributes regarding ww2 and dare 2 speak out.
This is a very well made video. It made me reconsider my historical perspective. I was under the notion that western Europe’s loss of hegemony was due to poor diplomatic choices. You raise the insightful argument that it was due to a shift from coal (prevalent in UK, the hegemon of the 19th century) to oil, with the US and Russia, the two biggest oil producers becoming superpowers . I’d never considered that maybe it was a product of fate and not just poor choices of men.
Bravo
This video also explains why Hitler put so much hope and effort to the "Frühlingserwachsen" early 1945. He had the last usable oil field near Zalaegerszeg, Hungary. That was the reason to hold Budapest for a long time, it was vital to hold the Soviets further from the oil fields.
Coincidentally, the Japanese Navy suffered from very much the same thing. It's true that no matter how much oil they have the Americans probably would have smashed them at the same battles, but later in the war most of their major naval assets, like the Yamato-class ships, literally did not have enough oil to sortie.
The Japanese went to war with the US over oil as well. When the US issued the oil embargo against Japan, Japan had no choice but to take as many islands from the US as possible and secure their own oil fields.
Funny name there, Herr Smith, a fan of "The Man in the High Castle" I see
@@jonathanbaron-crangle5093 never heard of it.
@@Darth_Insidious By "their own oil fields" you mean ones they stole from the Dutch and British, of course.
Also, they did have another choice - end their genocidal war in China.
@@brucetucker4847 Of course they had another choice, so did the Germans. Both fronts were fought for and won through oil however.
This video has changed my perception of the war, Thank you TIK.
Regrettably I only recently discovered your videos/channel, so plenty catching up to do, but already am VERY impressed with not only your clear outline of very thorough research (this video alone is incredible insight!); but significantly and distinctly, something that is immensely-rare on the subject of WW2: truly unbiased analysis without perpetrating a tired "us-versus-them" agenda!
As a lifelong history-nerd with an unquenchable thirst for TRUTH (always asking WHY, and not just the other W's), taking in 40+ years of immeasurable materials on subjects far back as it all goes, it's struck me as odd--then eventually repulsive--that, though they may disagree on points, historians are somehow able to give unbiased "just the facts" critiques of every episode in human history except the 20th Century (in particular, WW2). Perhaps it's because the wounds are still raw, or perhaps it's that today's powers-that-be NEED that for their current ongoing agenda (often which caused these avoidable terrible & deadly events in the first place), but regardless it's a disservice and dishonest...not that this matters to agenda-driven folks. Thus, the relentless censorship we see (and that we don't).
Seeking THE truth, not an American nor British nor Soviet nor German nor any other "side's," is a challenge on this subject/era; and even other "historians" who boast of their supposedly unbiased approach, well they simply can't help themselves it seems, they fall back to a particular narrative or the usual lopsided us-versus-them skewed "reporting." They grow dull, as cowards do.
Your impartial fact-based analysis, such as this video, is refreshing & desperately needed; and in the tradition of a classical historian who does future generations a great service...keep it up, and thank you!
I have to say, this may have been the most thought-provoking vid on WW2 that I have seen since I started studying the war about 10 years ago. Like every other WW2 fanatic, I have read and pondered all of the 'mistakes' made by Hitler and company and accepted them as most of us have but, this video has really made me reconsider everything I thought I knew about those missteps Germany took. Of course, I had heard his (Hitler's) comment regarding the economics of war but didn't really know what that entailed until now. This video has finally provided that aha! moment. Thanks for the WW2 educational breakthrough.... seriously well done. Now, I would really like to read a book about the logistics of the war. Any suggestions?
My pleasure :) and I'm glad you're reconsidering the events of WW2. It's good to keep an open mind with history.Logistics isn't something that's been written about (at least not in English) as a study on its own. I would love to find a book that talks purely about the German and Soviet logistics in WW2, but as far as I'm aware, one doesn't exist. I'm therefore suspicious about all these claims about logistics being made across the internet or even in books on the Eastern Front. I think some of it isn't accurate. I suspect that we won't be able to find the truth until a proper study is done.
(same goes with Lend-Lease, which has also got a lack of literature on it)
myplane150 I think the Israelis handle the logistics question the best , each unit leaves it's line with three days of fuel, ammo, water and food, there after it is constantly feed it's average daily use before it is asked for until the finish of the campaign. books about the Yom Kippur war are especially informative in that regard.
@@JohnDoe-ee6qs LOL, compare apples to oranges harder...
Clearly, brainfarto is in command.
@@JohnDoe-ee6qsThat seems a little bit different than logistics for a war spanning multiple continents.
It's kind of funny I'm watching this video while playing Hearts of Iron 4 and am desperately short on resources
And I don't think the oil situation is as bad for Germany in HOI4 as it actually was in reality
TIK I think this is your best video, really changed my whole view of the war in general
i think with the new "fuel" resourse they'll make it so
Dutch Killer cheat codes lol
microsoft,close combat3 ; the russian front, 20 years old video game.try to find it
A very good argued outlook. One I can also after listening and watching cannot disagree with.
Your thinking makes the most sense of anyone I heard talk about the war.
One of the best analysis about WW2 I ever saw !
Thanks! Good to hear :)
Ata Lipsos Indeed!
Ata Lipsos Very impressive, hard to argue.
Also, the best of Tik's introductions that I've seen.
Ata Lipsos need to check out military history visualized
Hello from Russia. Your analysis of ww2 is brilliant. Thank you for you work.
Hope we become friends again, soon.
Only if you take Russians into slavery. Such is western politics, never changes. Look the sanctions fell on Russia. Look at puppet Ukraine, and so many many facts. That is what you do. Respect to you honest naive men.
Дерьмо а не анализ. Извините за натурализм.
@@user-nt2zl1gr8n Bro what
@@1mattadams Go away Ukrainian fanboy.
OMG. For the first time I understand the War & certain decisions etc. Thank you.
Tik, another brilliantly produced video.
The Luftwaffe was using horses to taxi its aircraft to the runway threshold by late 44/Early 45
@alanrtment porter Which is why they are making a comeback in the US with '45'
@@PORRRIDGE_GUN yeah, Harris is a madman. She needs stopped.
In an effort to boost horse power...no doubt!
Well why didn't they built more jeeps and trucks. It wasn't because of lack of oil but because of mismanagement . They build all of those big tanks and guns they could have build enough jeeps and trucks to move their supply lines. Another reason they lost the war. Especially in Russia when they needed them because of the bad weather..
@@robertwhiteside1905 no...if you look at tank losses etc and consumption per loss the German Tanks had more kills per "litre/gallon", so the heavies were sensible ( 1 crew, x amount of build time, y amount of materials) I mean 1 tiger = 20 Shermans. Not to mention the standard '88. So it all comes down to Oil, like today in Yemen, Oil and Oil, so no and no, it seems since the invention of the combustion engine it's always been about....Oil.
How to make Hitler from total lunatic to brilliant strategist in 46 minutes? Well, watch this video...
:)
Before watching your video, I knew about fuel crises in Germany, but not consider it as major problem in that early stage. As you say late 1941, Germany is out of oil. Damn! That makes whole perception of WW2 totally different. This video is the Bible of WW2. I watch documentaries about ww2 from youth. Read many books. True ww2 fanatic. And no documentary explained fuel crises at this point. This video is start and the end of every conversation about german actions in ww2. Oil!
What if Germans make 3000 Tigers? Whats the point, no fuel to run it...
What if Germans had bigger navy? Whats the point? No fuel to run it...
Why they didnt withdraw to fight another day? No fuel to withdrow!
Romanian fields were the only source of oil there was and the soviets demanded the romanian oil fields when they were in the non-agression pact. What would you do if you were in Hitler's place when the soviets are pointing a sword at you having huge armies on the eastern border as the german intelligence had gathered and the soviets were demanding the romanian oil fields? The only solution was to strike the Soviet Union back, as crazy as it was attacking such huge lands of the Soviet Union I see no other solution to this problem that Germans had in 1941.
Friesen Friesen it was NOT the only source.. germany and austria had small oilfields themselves
Just because he was smart enough to see that they needed oil does not make him a brilliant strategist. In fact this whole war is an example of stupid strategy.
Exact same situation with German jet fighters. They managed to build 1000 jet fighters but because of relentless Ailed bombing of jet fuel production facilities the Germans had very little jet fuel.
Outstanding explanation thank you very much.
"The Prize" by Daniel Yergin goes into detail on this subject. It is a fascinating read. It also explains how oil was at the core of nearly every major battle in WWII, and how Japan was defeated in the way they were primarily because of oil as well.
Oil. Maybe a few subtle resources like rubber, but mainly oil.
Very good refreshing analysis on this topic. I have seen some strategic military analysis concluding: 1 - in late 1941 (end of Barbarossa) it was clear that Germany would not win the war 2 - after Stalingrad It was clear that Germany would lose the war but in uncertain terms 3 - after Kursk it was clear that Germany would suffer total defeat. This matches completely with your brilliant oil analysis, so I ask, can we conclude this 3 statements (military and economic views) about Germany in WW2?
Imagine if Germany had waited 5 years and quietly built their oil reserves up to crazy levels before starting the war.
Meanwhile, the Soviets would have gotten their shit in order, the Allies would have fully rearmed, and the US would have recovered from the Great Depression. The Germans, on the other hand, would have suffered a total economic collapse *again* due to the sheer amount of debt the government had built up with MEFO bills.
Sun Tzu: One bag of your enemies rice is more valuable than 9 bags of your own!
U-234 delivers it"s secret cargo (U-235). Nazi Uranium captured and used in the Manhatten project
www.bing.com/videos/search?view=detail&mid=237808DD35C564B5F32D237808DD35C564B5F32D&shtp=GetUrl&shid=3906d4ff-7f1b-4eae-a208-7ba9aabefb85&shtk=VS1ib2F0IFUyMzQgLSBOYXppIFVyYW5pdW0gZm9yIHRoZSBNYW5oYXR0YW4gUHJvamVjdA%3D%3D&shdk=VGhlIFJlYWwgU3Rvcnkgb2YgdGhlIEF0b21pYyBCb21iIGFuZCB0aGUgQmlydGggb2YgdGhlIE51Y2xlYXIgQWdlICJUaGUgdHJhZGl0aW9uYWwgaGlzdG9yeSBkZW5pZXMsIGhvd2V2ZXIsIHRoYXQgdGhlIHVyYW5pdW0gb24gYm9hcmQgVS0yMzQgd2FzIGVucmljaGVkIGFuZCB0aGVyZWZvcmUgZWFzaWx5IHVzYWJsZSBpbiBhbiBhdG9taWMgYm9tYi4gVGhlIGFjY2VwdGVkIHRoZW9yeSBhc3NlcnRzIHRoZXJlIGlzIG5vIGV2aWRlbmNlIHRoYXQgdGhlIHVyYW5pdW0gc3RvY2tzIG9mIFUtMjM0IHdlcmUgdHJhbnNmZXJyZWQgaW50byB0aGUgTWFuaGF0dGFuIFByb2plY3QuLi4gQW5kIHRoZSAuLi4%3D&shhk=82qRO73wH00sPNco39Nwozq899VMYrXxdV8hOEv%2FKxg%3D&form=VDSHOT&shth=OSH.%252F9Zq7VQwEhKa3TT2eyL4IQ
I think he was high when writing that one.
@@terrellwilson251 Yeah that makes no sense at all.
He never said that.
Call me an idiot but I do not understand someone please explain.
At the US National Air and Space Museum Smithsonian campus there is on display a Spitfire and Messerschmitt Bf-109G. Next to them are their engines, the Rolls Royce Merlin and Daimler-Benz 601, and in front of the Merlin is an information board that describes this 27 litre V12 as he in-line engine delivering "the most power per unit displacement" of the war. The DB-601 offered a similar power to weight ratio but at 33 litre displacement. Implicit here is the suggestion that the Merlin was the better engine because it could achieve with 27L what the DB-601 could only manage with 33L. A detail not mentioned was that Germany fought nearly all of its air war with 87-95 octane fuel - more or less the "regular" petrol with which we run our economy cars today, while the Merlin ran on 100-110 to eventually 150 octane Avgas supplied by the oil rigs and refineries of the United States and delivered at great risk in Atlantic convoys. If nothing else this reduced the combat radius and duration of the Bf-109E to a degree that seriously limited its ability to protect Luftwaffe bombers over England (for which it was never designed). Imagine what might have happened had the Luftwaffe had access to 110+ octane fuel in 1940.
Given that the Germans almost invented organic chemistry, I've never quite understood why they failed to overcome this critical limitation. This excellent video offers a background as to explain why. I'll take time to watch the others by TIK.
Very true, I read that the arrival of the first shipment of 100 octane fuel for the RAF from the USA along with the fitting of variable pitch propellers after the fall of France gave the RAF fighters a huge boost in performance from the same fleet of aircraft when the Battle of Britain began. A speed increase and a rise in max altitude, both of about 10% surprised the Germans, eliminated the main advantages of the 109 and forced a tactical rethink on the Germans they didn't need after the start of a major air campaign. Not to mention the RAF having the first integrated air defence system with long range spotting meant they saved fuel, pilot and plane wear and tear by not having to use air patrols to find the enemy. Bad for the Nazis, great for the free world!
tim segulin
‘Given that the Germans invented organic chemistry’
You’ve never heard of Edward Frankland?
@Ian Greenhalgh agree on the engines. A simplistic view of WW2 is that it was won by the Soviet T-34, the American Girand rifle and the British Merlin engine (+ variants in tanks and boats). Think of a successful WW2 Brit plane and it's got a Merlin, the Mustang was a disappointment until it got a Merlin.
As for the fuel, the Germans got most from the Soviets until they invaded. As TIK shows they knew they had a fuel shortage and should have had two main thrust from the start. One to Moscow (traditional strategy) and one to Baku for the oil. Briefly forget the Nazi's need, Stalin's 1,000's of T-34s won't go far without fuel and 80% of their fuel came from Baku.
I am surprised to hear a fuel for diesel engines cannot be made from coal, I would have thought it would be easier to make than petrol. Did you know the Germans made Tigers that ran on wood to train the drivers?...!
@Ian Greenhalgh Watch "Wood Powered Tanks? Lost Technology" on TH-cam
th-cam.com/video/3apnzNVHtLg/w-d-xo.html
The Germans would have lost anyways.
Excellent oil analysis. As to Dunkirk my opinion is it was sudden and fierce French counterattacks, overextended supply lines, tank breakdowns, and lack of any infantry support that were mainly responsible for the order to halt.
great channel, brilliant and little-known guesses, but crucial for understanding the fall of the Third Reich. I am your fan, respect for your objectivity and work on WWII studies. Best wishes from Poland, which first took the blows of Hitler and Stalin in 1939.
Why does this channel only have 10k subs? There's so much work going into these videos, I think youtube should be promoting channels like this rather than comedy central junk.
Because edgelord Weheraboos can't accept the fact that Germany wasn't the uber army full of supermen?
That drunken history stuff?...good god!! Not sure if it is made to teach people history or make them dumber. Black adder series has more historical value then that drunken history program.
Peorhum The hell do you mean ''drunken''? THis guy CLEARLY know what he is talking about you imbecile.
Do you think most people are interested in history?
Drunken history is a new US history TV series made for drunken young people it seems. Not very impressive. I am saying TIK stuff is better
I have never seen someone explain ww2 as well as this. Very impressive. Im subbed.
I'm glad you liked it! More to come :)
His explanation is entirely wrong.
Superbly argued, TIK. Thank you. Interestingly, Fuller also bought into the Halder narrative (‘Decisive battles of the western world’).
It's interesting to note too that most Western countries' intelligence sources, upon Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union, gave the Soviets six weeks, tops, before they collapsed.
TIK, your videos are exemplary. I've been a history buff for several decades and Stalingrad remains one of my 'favorite' topics to read about. Your Battlestorm series on that very battle has opened my eyes to a variety of resources and points that I never was aware of before. I thank you for your time and effort on that, as well as all your other videos. Thank you.
It is underestimated how generals only think on the operational level and assume that they will get all of the oil that they requested to run their operation.
Rommel in North Africa thought that。He would attack and the German High Command would sent him supplies。
Stalin once said the US sailed to war on a sea of oil.
Based stalin again
@tester123532456 yes you're profile picture is fitting (me)
@@tenarmurk your, not you're, stupid virgin squeaker
Based
@tester123532456 That's the most uneducated nonsense comment I have read.
Thank you for helping me understand much more thoroughly, the issues facing Nazi Germany, in this massive struggle.
Congratulations! The most sensible and objective explanation on the matter.
From the onset, history was warped to please the victors' interests and rewriting of it as time goes and generations pass away.
But truth can't be hidden for ever.
And Libya with all that oil under Rommel's dry panzers
Ironic
@vagene_exe stoppedworking bro you just gotta build +9 infrastructure levels. admittedly you have to allocate 15 civilian factories but i assume it's worth it if you get oil
It's Finnick Bitch!! BUT THE CONSUMER GOODS
@@electrom.1703 TOTAL MOBILIZATION!
@joanne chon because he was not in charge of capturing malta. Also, hes a general, not an architect
Jack Ryan times were different, building fortified camps isn’t a priority in a modern, mobile war.
So germany is losing on food which is needed for infantry units and oil for all of their machineries so they are basically playing on hard mode
And don't forget iron and many other types of metals.
Hard mode?
Hitler got Ruhr industry, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Memel port without firing a shot and then allies started a phony war. Civilization AI was never that kind to me, even on easy.
@@Paciat that's not really an accurate comparison though. Compared to the three major Empires that the Germans were fighting against - the British, Russian, and American - they were outclassed and handicapped in pretty much every natural resource. It's true that in terms of personal ingenuity and inventiveness and Industrial efficiency the Germans were quite high, but that was pretty much all from themselves. They didn't really have a whole lot else to fall back on.
@@Laotzu.Goldbug Germany outclassed in every resource. :D How is Germany outclassed compared to Poland. And it is IIIrd Reich who was allied with the Soviet Union till June 1941 (and since 1917 Germans were the biggest friends of the Reds)
If Germany wouldnt start sinking neutral merchant ships they wouldnt get in war with USA too. And both Hitler and Mussolini assumed that the British would surrender after the fall of France, before German backstabbing of USSR, when 30% of German fuel food and rare metals came from USSR. Also Axis powers (with Romania, Hungary, Finland) had more population then the non occupied regions of Soviet Union in 1942-1943.
Both Germans and Japanese did get the oil fields of Grozny, Malikop and Indonesia. They axis huge parts of land that feed them before the allies that you mentioned even started fighting. And this is when Soviets cannot produce quality oil and use lend-lease oil for their airforce.
Finally the myth that Versal made Germany poor. Germany had the most telephones per man in the 20s. But injust Versal myth was created because Germany had created the biggest propaganda machine in the world.
@@Paciat I don't think you read what I said. Poland was an irrelevant player in this game.
Yes, the Germans and Japanese temporarily captured some oil fields are they did not capture the massive infrastructure, that takes decades to build and develop, that the three major Powers had. The United States, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union each _individually_ had more manpower and resources than Germany did. Together, they had four or five times over as many.
The question that people always ask - why did Germany lose - is stupid, because the Germans were always going to lose. They never had a snowball's chance in hell. The real question, the more interesting one is - how did they possibly last so long?
TIK, you really open my eyes regarding the oil, I never been thinking about this before, how important the Oil was during the WWII, this is a really important angle on why the German lost the war.
Fascinating - thankyou so much you have a new subscriber!
One of the most informative ww2 channels
Indiana Jones this guy preaches western propaganda you must be a fool to believe a word
This guy is a WW2 Lindybeige
+GoivaniJony are you calling Indiana jones a fool
+GoivaniJony also look at the likes vs dislikes no one agrees
You forget to mention the other major oil producing region was Indonesia (Dutch East Indies). Not surprisingly the Japanese made this their first objective. Once the Americans cut this off (The Japanese occupied Indonesia right to the end) the Japanese lost complete strategic superiority.
Not so strange that my country's monarchy (who own a part of Royal Shell) wanted to regain Indonesia after the war.
This was why Pearl Harbor. The Japanese knew that America, sitting in the Phillipines right across their shipping route to Indonesian resources, would not stay neutral if Britain was attackec.
Isn't the problem with Japan is although they got the oilfield they can't bring it back to Japan after they lost the naval superiority in the Pacific?
Not alone. Basically, Japan just could not match the manufacturing (or manpower) that America and it's allies could bring to the table. Japanese ships sunk pretty were much non-replaceable once the war began. This is especially true for capital ships.
It was hardly 'forced' on them. Except by their determination to conquer China and establish an Empire, which would require them to throw out the British, Dutch, and Americans from the western Pacific. Had they settled on trade and manufacturing, as they had to after the war, there would have been no problem. The short window was totally accurate. If they got the U.S. to keep out of the western Pacific, they could win. If we didn't give in within 6 months, we were never going to.
History sometimes looks clearer the further you get from the events. Like a jigsaw puzzle it’s easier to understand the pieces when you can see the picture on the box.
Love this page and the information you put forth...You need to be teaching history at a University. Thank you for all this information!
This is the best explained video of the WW2 situation. This guy is amazing!
Thank you for your kind comment :)
I have been studying WW2 for years and not one professor had really highlighted or explained properly how critical the oil situation was for Hitler and Germany and the impact this had on the war. I was always puzzled by some of Hitlers decisions which seemed strange at the time but now makes perfect sense. Well done.
If we like the swallow mainstream propaganda, yeah :)
Germany lost because the banksters who started the war had what they wanted and decided to end it. The rest is detail for illustration.
tosser. bansters blah blah. jews blah blah
@@anjaylGermany started it by invading Poland
I hear so many people say "If Germany hadn't built the V2 they could have built thousands of more planes." I think they had hundreds of Me-262s sitting on the ground with no fuel or pilots when the bombers were flying over leveling Dresden. So how would thousands of more grounded planes have helped Germany?
Herr Speer wrote that of ALL the projects that he regretted -- the V2 was by far at the top of the list -- it was virtually a gift to the Allies.
1) It sucked down ASTOUNDING amounts of premier design talent -- away from virtually every other aircraft project.
2) It sucked down war critical resources -- starting with aluminum -- and a lot more.
3) It tied up hardened factories that would've been ideal for vacuum tube and optics manufacture.
4) If thought of, the tunnel boring effort could've been used to create bomb-proof synthetic oil plants. Small scale versions of such plants were actually constructed. They were pathetically too small to affect the war.
The one project that had the Allies tearing their hair out: the V-1.
Even though it was a fuel pig, if the V-2 staff had been re-directed towards the V-1, London might well have been destroyed. V-1s were THAT cheap to crank out. They were immediately mimicked by the USAAF// USAF after the war. Such cruise missiles had priority over the captured V-2s and their off-spring.
The USAF saw them as a very viable stand-off weapon. Late in WWII, the Luftwaffe was air-launching V-1s from HE-111 bombers -- well away from England. Using this gambit, the Luftwaffe could totally side-step the AAA guns that lined the English Channel. Fortunately for the British, the Germans had run out of gas by such a time. Only a pathetic number of such attacks were launched. The USAF analysis showed that air-launching cruise missiles was absolutely the way to go. When launched from a high speed moving platform, the wings can be further reduced -- meaning that drag drops all the more, range goes up, or the required fuel load drops.
Research: 'Hounddog.'
+David Himmelsbach The RAF was already countering the air launched V-1s by using at least one Wellington with radar, as the first AEW station, along with Mosquitos to take out the He-111s prior to launching the V-1s. It was also adding large rocket batteries around London that could saturate areas of the sky, and was close to introducing SAMs. It would have diverted resources, of course. In reality, the RAF was stripping out AAA during the war and sending them to France, etc., where they mostly got used as direct fire infantry support for lack of air targets.
They could have hoisted them up on huge great big sticks and made aeroplane noises and threatened bombers away.
They could have!
@@thegreathadoken6808 get out
Well done.
Thanks for making.
Tanks TIK, excellent educational history.
Well this video is certainty a paradigm shift in the way of looking at WWII
Especially when you take into consideration the coming Peak Oil.
Actually every legitimate historian has looked at this war from this angle even before it began, the Allies knew of the natural resources, they can read a map too, Americans knew the Pelozi oil fields, (may have the spelling wrong) were the only truely rich source for straight fuel, other wise they had to make it from coal (delicate and time consuming), there's a few other tricks but the jest is they are all far more difficult than pumping it out and refining it, which is another matter in which Americans had a leg up on everyone else in refining the best fuel (100+ octane) as it was complex to refine to that point, the U.S. supplied most of Russia's Aviation fuel due to their aircraft requiring that kind for the best performance, along with radios and waterproof cables lol, James F Dunnigan's; World War Two, is my source, and btw shit hit the fan when the Pelosi fields were in danger, Hitler sent nearly every new heavy tank that was produced, over there and that did nothing but help the Allies, as Hitler really was the best general, least on the Allied side XD the decisions he makes just gasssh too funny sometimes, best fighter craft in the world you say? Lets strap bombs on it with no bombsight so they are dropped blindly and cant even report BDA (bomb damage assessment) lmfso
@Commander Alderson shut up and stop spreading propaganda
@@bluemobster0023 You can't factually disprove it tho
@@waffleyumboyr5342 its been disproven before just that everything that's pointed out you idiots say it's fake and that I should learn "real" history. Which is just horrific amounts of racism used to justify your hate
This is one of the best videos I have ever watched. Thank you so much for putting so much effort into this. You gave me a brand new perspective on Germany's position in WWII.
No worries, glad to hear you're considering a new perspective :)
Excellent perspective on the facts!!
Perfect understanding great video Tik.
Every so-called historian needs to listen to this outstanding video!!!
Sure!.... and take not of Peak Oil.
Same analysis applies to the Pacific War, Japan needed oil, the US embargoed them. Pearl Harbor.
Forgot some things and in the wrong order: Japan goes to war and invades Manchuria, China, French Indochina, etc, perpetrates atrocities like the Rape of Nanking, and announces The New Order in East Asia. The United States, supplier of 80% of their oil, cuts them off in protest. Japan needs oil to continue conquests. Pearl Harbor.
barfcoswill, you are correct. This truth is actually admitted in (of all places) the modern Pearl Harbour movie. Emanresuadeen is wrong. Roosevelt cut Japan off from oil to start the Second World War so they had no option but to bomb Pearl Harbour.
@@MisterPeterColeman Nonsense. Ever consider _why_ there was an oil embargo in the first place? It was due to _Japan's invasions_ of Manchuria, then into the Republic of China (a US ally), and then south into French Indochina (another ally). The United States, and much of the world community, condemned this extreme Japanese aggression, known for it's trail of carnage such as the Nanking Massacre. The United States was the main supplier of not only Japan's oil, but also it's steel, iron, and other commodities enabling Japan's aggression. Other trade embargoes were tried before oil, but as Japan continued it's invasions, oil was finally cut as well.
It was Japan's aggressive military expansion that set off this part of the Second World War. The oil embargo was only a _response_ to this aggression. The _entirely of this theater of the war_ was comprised of military action to push Japan back out of all these other counties it had first attacked and conquered. The war ended when this was accomplished, and Japan capitulated.
Likewise, it's also utter nonsense to say that Japan had no other option but to bomb Pearl Harbor. Besides the obvious option of stopping it's aggressive expansion, it was the _British and Dutch_ colonies that the Japanese actually wanted, to gain it's own oil producing territories. Very obviously, they could have just taken these territories, and avoided giving the United States a clear and decisive reason for war. This was the plan advocated by Admiral Nagano, the chief of the Naval General Staff. In fact, Pearl Harbor was, strangely, a _supporting attack_ for the invasions of British Malaya, the Philippines, and the Dutch East Indies, which they launched immediately prior to Pearl Harbor. It was insisted on by Admiral Yamamoto, though it's also said that it was the opposite: Yamamoto reluctant, and Nagano insisting. I guess no one really wanted to take ownership of it when it turned out to be such an epic blunder.
Whether is was Yamamoto or Nagano, or neither, insisting on the Pearl Harbor attack, guaranteeing war with the United States, factions within their leadership (which was a total mess) were just as opposed to it. Clearly, it was not their only option. It was just their _worst_ option, a disastrous blunder that lost them _all_ the conquered territories they had killed tens of millions for. Territories, it turned out, Japan didn't even need at all to become the world's third largest economy, though peace, partnership and their amazing creativity and culture.
@@Emanresuadeen Read "The Great Pacific War" by Hector C. Bywater. I just love that nome de plume. Heh. Written in 1925 this is the book that Yamamoto read while in Washington DC at that time. In its pages you'll understand why Yamamoto orchestrated the Pearl Harbor attack. He even used the exact same invasion beaches laid out in this book when he invaded the Philipines.(!) You'll also discover why general Short placed all of his aircraft in the center of his runways. It's an amazing read.
@@davidhimmelsbach557 That is amazing. And the name "Bywater" on top of it. A "time traveler" with a wry sense of humor?
It makes me recall another story you may have heard of by Morgan Robertson. He's the author who famously "predicted" the sinking of the Titanic in his 1898 novella _The Wreck of the Titan._
In 1914 Robertson wrote a short story called _Beyond the Spectrum_ which was about a war in the Pacific between the United States and the Empire of Japan. The war begins with an undeclared sneak attack by the Japanese. The war is won by the United States, using a startling new super weapon: an intense ultraviolet searchlight that blinds.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Robertson#Other_works
Glad to see this mentioned, most important is accurate. Thank you for this piece on oil during WW2 and its necessity.
Your analysis is spot on.
Great video. So true. I grew up (and live) in Texas. Almost every region of Texas borders
on large oil fields. Going back to 1940--the East Texas oil field (north of Houston) produced 3 BILLION BARRELLS OF OIL and had to only ship it about 150 miles thru a 30 inch pipeline to Houston's 5 refineries which could produce an amazing 5 million gallons of gasoline and aviation fuel per day. I note that aviators tell us that the USA produced fuel was 104 octane while German aviation fuel was 90 which meant that Allied aircraft could fly higher and faster. Another advantage of the oil in Texas is 600 miles of coast with many excellent ports and harbors--Houston's refineries were protected in 1940-1945 by 50 miles of the Galveston Bay. Many Texas oil field during WW2 bordered (still do) on the Texas coast--how fortunate that was for the Allies. The crude oil and the processing refineries had been in place since about 1900 when oil was first discovered just east of Houston. It made sense then to build refining right next to the crude supply. You nailed it when you said that the Nazis knew little about the USA--they were really dumb not to know about the supply and processing infrastructure that had existed in Texas for 40 years. Another fact was protection of that infrastructure. Any map of the Houston area will show even the dumbest military planner that the refineries in Houston are sited along the Houston Ship Channel. Its naturally protected from attack by enemy. All Texas had to do was block the 4 mile wide opening into the Gulf of Mexico and no German sub could come there and damage these refining operations. There is so much oil in the Houston region that in the 1960's when the suburbs grew with huge numbers of homes, many of the old oil and gas fields were located right into the city. At some point, Houston started to force the shut down of many wells because of the danger to new homes and office buildings. No country in the world could match this production and processing power of Texas in 1940-1945,
Tell me more about the submarines that Germany tried to attack
The Pipeline to New Jersey was constructed to keep the flow going no matter what the submarines. did. Ironically, the Yankees got to replace coal after the war and began to resent Texas oilmen because they didn’t like depending on them. Lyndon Johnson rose to power quickly serving as bagman for them, but the Northeast disliked the shift in power. So that is the back story for “Giant” And why the Kennedys disliked the Texans they were loosely aligned with. Bobby even revived the whole issue of the Mexican War.
I spent the last 40 years living inside the East Texas Oil Field (AKA The Black Giant). It's hourglass shaped so is 9 miles wide and 45 miles long that had over 30,000 wells producing a light sweet crude that escaped from the Eagle Ford Shale. So far it has produced 5.5 billion barrels and they think it may hold another 1.5 billion. The Feds built two pipelines called the Big Inch and the Little Inch in record time to carry the crude to East Coast refineries with both still in use today. It was primarily used to make high octane aviation fuel and lubrication oils for the European Theater. All Army vehicles used 80 octane gasoline that was refined from other grades of crude.
@@JRobbySh Coal was still King for electric generation plants. Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma became centers for oil refining and chemical refineries. The Yankees were more concerned about manufacturers leaving to set up shop in the Deep South, Texas and other hot regions due to the creation of air conditioned factories and home air conditioning units during the war in those regions since those places had low cost land and lower labor costs.
Probably most important and most overlooked aspect , thanks for the detailed fact based research. Most 'analysis' now are done by armchair generals who does not even weight in the importance of logistics.
My grandfather did a combat tour... But also was in military supply. Gave me that thought process that moat people literally never think of.
@@joemoment-o1275 : Keepin' the troops in dry socks, alone, is a major undertaking! LOL! There is a "Patton" theory wherein the idea is to be so deep into the enemy that you can seize your supplies as needed, from an off-balance enemy, if you push forward, and will lose the initiative if you worry about supply lines. But the British were very Roman in how they devoted themselves to logistics and engineering. From fortifying Portugal, to paying gold for everything they took from a Spaniard in the peninsula, they beat Napoleon's "move fast and forage off the land" approach.
Montgomery's greatest successes were when he secured his supply and refused to proceed until he had overwhelming force. His biggest blunder was Nijmagen (sp?), where he tried to get super-aggressive. But some will still argue that it is better to take 80% casualties taking an objective with 1,000 men than it is to take 20% casualties with 500,000 men. And you look at the Japanese in Singapore, who followed that strategy and humiliated Percival.
I think "smash-and-grab" in the abstract is fine, but at some point, you have to move troops and materiel from point A to point B, and it becomes impossible, when every hand is against you in the countryside, as the Spaniards most definitely were against Napoleon. You can think of it as "supply lines," but if you turn to pillage to sustain your army, you're going to set the natives against you.
And for all these years, I thought the Nazis lost the war because their leader was incompetent and refused expert advice proffered to him.
Proffer, lol.
TIK good presentation! I believe the Italian navy when Mussolini declared war in June 1940 had oil for 8 or 9 months of operations. In November 1942 when the Axis overran Vichy France the Italians got the French navy's oil supply which enabled them to conduct some operations and in September 1943 sail away to join the Allies. I will have more
This is one of the most well thought out theories I have ever seen. Great work!
It isn’t a theory, it’s a fact.