Discussion:
univ lecture videos
(too old to reply)
dumbstruck
2012-10-29 04:05:10 UTC
Permalink
See http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/HistoryW for
a breathless, intense, fascinating couple hour lecture
summing up the significance of the war for a western
civ course. I like the way he rated military leaders good
and bad... nimitz and especially marshall as hero of the
century... and of course churchill. I also like the way he
didnt digress with clueless student interactions.

Good that he remembered the millions of russian
prisoners killed, but for that and other reasons i think
soviet sacrifice is overstated because maybe half their
casualties were needless. Not only did stalin waste
lives by reckessness... sometimes sending unarmed
troops or human sacraficial minesweepers... but
nagorski (sp?) calls it a two front war, where large
squads would hunt and kill fellow soviet soldiers
who appeared to be slacking. There were even
squads to kill the killing squads on top of that.

Btw another unrelated wwii lecture is due next weekend.

P.S. this post took hours of needless redoing and
reposting via clumsy mobile because of the needless
autofilter on line length here. I have newsgrouped
for decades without this obstacle... why here?
Bill
2012-10-29 14:27:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:05:10 -0400, dumbstruck <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

Not only did stalin waste
Post by dumbstruck
lives by reckessness... sometimes sending unarmed
troops
That makes a good film, but did it actually ever happen?
Post by dumbstruck
or human sacraficial minesweepers...
Again, did it ever actually happen?

but
Post by dumbstruck
nagorski (sp?) calls it a two front war, where large
squads would hunt and kill fellow soviet soldiers
who appeared to be slacking. There were even
squads to kill the killing squads on top of that.
Makes you wonder how they managed to win doesn't it...

I have to add that any squad who happened upon a unit of soldiers who
seemed to be slacking would probably have a fight on their hands if
they tried shooting them out of hand...

You see, one problem with soldiers is that they have guns and tanks
and stuff and, when in groups, are actually organised to fight people
trying to kill them.

Now if you mean that any single soldier wandering about who couldn't
give a good account of himself was shot by the military police, well,
what do you expect from a tyrannical autocracy?

Due process?
Padraigh ProAmerica
2012-10-29 15:26:09 UTC
Permalink
The Sovs had a pretty miserable record.

Lightly-armed 'penal batallions' were used as human minesweepers.

The NKGB (security forces) also had fully armed units whose job was,
indeed, to kill stragglers.

There is an apocryphl story of an artillery battery commander supporting
a Soviet advance who requested permision to reposition his guns; he
couldn't hit the assigned targets due to terain and asked to pull back a
bit less than kilometer for a clearer shot. Political officer objected,
citing 'no retreat' rule. Battery officer pointed out situation on map
to political officer. PO still objected. When battery commander again
pointed out he couldn't hit the target from current position, he was
removed and sent back to be shot as a 'defeatest'.

--
"There are good men everywhere. I only wish they had louder voices."--

Louis L'Amour
Michele
2012-10-29 15:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Padraigh ProAmerica
The Sovs had a pretty miserable record.
Lightly-armed 'penal batallions' were used as human minesweepers.
And the source is...?
Post by Padraigh ProAmerica
The NKGB (security forces) also had fully armed units whose job was,
indeed, to kill stragglers.
The NKVD, you mean; don't mix it up with the KGB. And yes, they did the same
job as the Feldgendarmerie did for the Germans, police the rear areas.
Post by Padraigh ProAmerica
There is an apocryphl story
Where the adjective really says it all, right? "Of doubtful authenticity;
spurious".
Padraigh ProAmerica
2012-10-29 17:40:37 UTC
Permalink
See if you can find John Barron's book on the KGB (came out in the
1980's, IIRC). He traced the development of the KGB. There was no
"NKVD". I can't remember the total sequence, but it went from CHEKA to
OGPU; the such acronymns as MGB, NKGB and then KGB.

--
"There are good men everywhere. I only wish they had louder voices."--

Louis L'Amour
Michele
2012-10-29 18:45:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Padraigh ProAmerica
See if you can find John Barron's book on the KGB (came out in the
1980's, IIRC). He traced the development of the KGB. There was no
"NKVD". I can't remember the total sequence, but it went from CHEKA to
OGPU; the such acronymns as MGB, NKGB and then KGB.
If a book about the KGB describes its origins without mentioning the
Narodnyy Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del, it's not a good book. The NKGB did
exist briefly during the war as another name of the GUGB which was for some
time made independent from the NKVD, but the guys controlling the border
guards and the combat units were the NKVD even then - not to mention during
the time were an independent GUGB did not even exist.

Any news about the source supporting the human minesweepers?
Bill
2012-10-29 18:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Padraigh ProAmerica
See if you can find John Barron's book on the KGB (came out in the
1980's, IIRC). He traced the development of the KGB. There was no
"NKVD". I can't remember the total sequence, but it went from CHEKA to
OGPU; the such acronymns as MGB, NKGB and then KGB.
All those are 'civil' organisations.

Any of them start messing with the army at a lower level than one
involving general officers is liable to find out all about the
effectiveness of the PPSh at close range...

Soldiers in all armies tend to take a dim view of the police taking an
interest in their business...

And the 'Narodnyy Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del' most certainly did
exist.

However the Soviet military intelligence breau was (and is) known as
the GRU.

Its counter intelligence and counter espionage arm was known as
'SMERSH' in WWII, but that didn't actually exist until after the
political officers had been removed from any tactical control of the
Red Army units.

There was no formal Soviet military police organisation in WWII.
Indeed, there wasn't one until about two years ago when they decided
that it might be a good idea...

So, anyone actually know who was going around doing all this shooting?
Bill
2012-10-29 16:02:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Padraigh ProAmerica
The Sovs had a pretty miserable record.
Lightly-armed 'penal batallions' were used as human minesweepers.
As opposed to the sophisticated and clever British sending ordinary
infantry through the uncleared mine belt at el Alamein because they
didn't have enough mine detectors to clear the necessary paths...
Post by Padraigh ProAmerica
The NKGB (security forces) also had fully armed units whose job was,
indeed, to kill stragglers.
That certainly wasn't what was claimed.

But Martin Middlebrooke makes similar claims about the British army in
1916 in his book 'The First Day on the Somme'.
Post by Padraigh ProAmerica
There is an apocryphl story of an artillery battery commander supporting
a Soviet advance who requested permision to reposition his guns; he
couldn't hit the assigned targets due to terain and asked to pull back a
bit less than kilometer for a clearer shot. Political officer objected,
citing 'no retreat' rule. Battery officer pointed out situation on map
to political officer. PO still objected. When battery commander again
pointed out he couldn't hit the target from current position, he was
removed and sent back to be shot as a 'defeatest'.
And that one is, as you yourself say, apocryphal.

Armies that get treated like that don't win a whole series of
spectacular victories against a well equipped and highly trained
mechanized army.

And by 1942 the 'political officer' group was more or less removed
from any tactical control because they turned out to be really bad at
it.

One of the things the Russian Communist military in WWII seems to have
been good at, given some time to work things out, is messing about
with their organisation (TO&E) until they had something that worked.
Michele
2012-10-29 16:25:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Padraigh ProAmerica
The Sovs had a pretty miserable record.
Lightly-armed 'penal batallions' were used as human minesweepers.
As opposed to the sophisticated and clever British sending ordinary
infantry through the uncleared mine belt at el Alamein because they
didn't have enough mine detectors to clear the necessary paths...
I think it was Glantz who pointed out how the conversation between Zhukov
and Eisenhower on the issue of minefields was entirely misunderstood in the
West.
Zhukov had said that the Red Army's way to deal with minefields was
attacking through them.
Ike retold the story and it grew every time it was told again, to the point
that we have now the alleged human minesweepers.
What Zhukov had actually said was that attacking as if the minefield wasn't
there was the chosen option because it _resulted_in_less_casualties.
The Soviets had found that the minefields was a German way to stretch the
frontage in areas that weren't covered, or were not sufficiently covered, by
fire. Areas not covered by minefields were sure to be fields of fire for
German MGs and artillery. And waiting for engineers to slowly remove the
minefields would give the Germans time to notice the effort, redeploy units,
and call down artillery fire there. Both of these options resulted in more
casualties than just advancing through the minefield.

Now note the following standing order:
"The effect of mines is largely mental. Not over 10 percent of our
casualties come from them. When they are encountered they must be passed
_through_ or around."
Emphasis on "through" is mine.
Guess who wrote this order. Zhukov?
No. Patton.
Bay Man
2012-10-31 13:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michele
What Zhukov had actually said was that attacking as if the minefield
wasn't there was the chosen option because it
_resulted_in_less_casualties.
The Soviets had found that the minefields was a German way to stretch the
frontage in areas that weren't covered, or were not sufficiently covered,
by fire. Areas not covered by minefields were sure to be fields of fire
for German MGs and artillery. And waiting for engineers to slowly remove
the minefields would give the Germans time to notice the effort, redeploy
units, and call down artillery fire there. Both of these options resulted
in more casualties than just advancing through the minefield.
The Soviets adapted T-34s with flailing mine removers, as did the Brits from
D-Day onwards.
Padraigh ProAmerica
2012-10-31 14:28:45 UTC
Permalink
Re: univ lecture videos

Group: soc.history.war.world-war-ii Date: Wed, Oct 31, 2012, 9:28am
From: ***@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam (Bay Man)
"Michele" <SPAMmiarmelNOT!@tln.it> wrote in message news:508ead69$0$17953$***@reader1.news.tin.it...
What Zhukov had actually said was that attacking as if the minefield
wasn't there was the chosen option because it
_resulted_in_less_casualties.
The Soviets had found that the minefields was a German way to stretch
the frontage in areas that weren't covered, or were not sufficiently
covered, by fire. Areas not covered by minefields were sure to be fields
of fire for German MGs and artillery. And waiting for engineers to
slowly remove the minefields would give the Germans time to notice the
effort, redeploy units, and call down artillery fire there. Both of
these options resulted in more casualties than just advancing through
the minefield.
The Soviets adapted T-34s with flailing mine removers, as did the Brits
from D-Day onwards.

===============================

Have you a source for the T-34 'flails'? I know the Alied 'flails' were
among the group of modified tanks called 'funnies' but haven't seen/
heard of that T-34 mod.

--
"There are good men everywhere. I only wish they had louder voices."--

Louis L'Amour
Rich
2012-10-31 16:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Padraigh ProAmerica
Re: univ lecture videos
Group: soc.history.war.world-war-ii Date: Wed, Oct 31, 2012, 9:28am
(snip)
Post by Padraigh ProAmerica
The Soviets adapted T-34s with flailing mine removers, as did the Brits
from D-Day onwards.
===============================
Have you a source for the T-34 'flails'? I know the Alied 'flails' were
among the group of modified tanks called 'funnies' but haven't seen/
heard of that T-34 mod.
I know this will come as a surprise to the readers of this group, but
Bayman made that up again. The Soviet armored mine clearing system,
developed after 1940 and first fielded in 1942, was the PT-34 mine
***roller*** not a "flail" at all.

Further, the "Brits" flail system was not fielded "from D-Day onwards"
nor was it a "Brit" device. It was originally developed in 1942 by a
South African engineer officer, Abrham du Toit, as the "Matilda
Scorpion", then was adapted to the Grant and Sherman, where it was
codenamed "Crab". It was first used extensively at Second Alamein,
nearly two years before D-Day.

Cheers!
Bay Man
2012-11-01 04:09:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich
Post by Padraigh ProAmerica
Re: univ lecture videos
Group: soc.history.war.world-war-ii Date: Wed, Oct 31, 2012, 9:28am
(snip)
Post by Padraigh ProAmerica
The Soviets adapted T-34s with flailing mine removers, as did the Brits
from D-Day onwards.
===============================
Have you a source for the T-34 'flails'? I know the Alied 'flails' were
among the group of modified tanks called 'funnies' but haven't seen/
heard of that T-34 mod.
I know this will come as a surprise to the readers of this group, but
Bayman made that up again.
He did? Wow!

Have a look. Right at the beginning. Summer 1944 introduced by the Soviets.


Michael Emrys
2012-11-01 15:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bay Man
Have a look. Right at the beginning.
The fact that you are apparently incapable of distinguishing between a
flail tank and a roller tank is further proof of what an unreliable
witness you are on any subject. That you persist in your
misidentification despite having been shown a photo of a roller
tank...well, let it stop at that.

Michael
Rich
2012-11-01 15:24:26 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 1, 12:09 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
He did? Wow!
Have a look. Right at the beginning. Summer 1944 introduced by the Soviets.
***SIGH*** So you actually don't know the difference between modern
filmed recreations, CGI, and cartoons either? What is shown in that
clip starting at 1:37 is a PT-34 mine clearing ***roller*** not a
***flail*** and filmed, probably at a Kubinka show, within the last
ten to twenty years, ***not in "Summer 1944" during World War II***.
The PT-34 was developed beginning in 1940 and first deployed in August
1942 by the Voronezh Front, not in Summer 1944.

What other parts of reality do you have difficulties distinguishing
from make-believe?
Bay Man
2012-11-01 18:37:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich
What is shown in that
clip starting at 1:37 is a PT-34 mine clearing ***roller*** not a
***flail***
It does the same thing. I will leave you to argue with yourself over
pedantics.
Rich
2012-11-01 20:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bay Man
It does the same thing. I will leave you to argue with yourself over
pedantics.
Um, if a "roller" was a "flail" then arguing about it would be
pedantic, but it isn't so it's not. You called it a flail and then
insisted that it was a flail after being corrected, which isn't
pedantic, it's childish. Never mind that you were also incorrect about
the rest of the particulars:

The Soviet roller was deployed in August 1942 well before July 1944,
which is what you said.
The British Flail was deployed in October 1942, well before June 1944,
which is what you said.
Padraigh ProAmerica
2012-11-01 15:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Re: univ lecture videos

Group: soc.history.war.world-war-ii Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2012, 12:09am
From: ***@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam (Bay Man)
"Rich" <***@msn.com> wrote in message news:3e4be8ed-3acc-41b9-bf48-***@l18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 10:28 am, ***@webtv.net (Padraigh ProAmerica) wrote:
Re: univ lecture videos
Group: soc.history.war.world-war-ii Date: Wed, Oct 31, 2012, 9:28am
From: ***@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam (Bay Man)"Michele"
<***@tln.it> wrote in message (snip) The Soviets adapted
T-34s with flailing mine removers, as did the Brits from D-Day onwards.
===============================
Have you a source for the T-34 'flails'? I know the Alied 'flails' were
among the group of modified tanks called 'funnies' but haven't seen/
heard of that T-34 mod.
I know this will come as a surprise to the readers of this group, but
Bayman made that up again.
He did? Wow!
Have a look. Right at the beginning. Summer 1944 introduced by the
Soviets.
http://youtu.be/HuV_wUHRv9s
=============================

So either the Western allies gave them the plans or the Sovs copied
them.

--
"Again and again we have owed peace to the fact we were prepared for
war."--

Theodore Roosevelt
Rich
2012-11-01 16:51:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Padraigh ProAmerica
So either the Western allies gave them the plans or the Sovs copied
them.
I think you misunderstand, there is no need for an either or here. The
PT-34 mine roller, developed by P. M. Mugalev in response to
requirements generated from the Russo-Finish War was a device quite
different from the mine flail design developed in Britain in 1941 by
the South African du Toit. They are two different designs developed
independently to do the same job. The U.S. Army designs for the T1 and
T2-series mine rollers were different still, even if they and the
PT-34 were both roller designs.

Cheers!
Duwop
2012-11-01 15:26:03 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 31, 9:09 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Post by Rich
I know this will come as a surprise to the readers of this group, but
Bayman made that up again.
He did? Wow!
Have a look. Right at the beginning. Summer 1944 introduced by the Soviets.
Hide quoted text -
Didn't you notice that most all of that is animated?
Pretty decent computer animation, but animation.
You are mistaking fiction for fact. Make believe from reality. There's
an important difference you know.
Bay Man
2012-11-01 18:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duwop
Post by Bay Man
http://youtu.be/HuV_wUHRv9s
Didn't you notice that most all of that is animated?
Pretty decent computer animation, but animation.
You are mistaking fiction for fact.
Nope. They Soviets did have them.
Bill Shatzer
2012-10-31 20:05:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Padraigh ProAmerica
Have you a source for the T-34 'flails'? I know the Alied 'flails' were
among the group of modified tanks called 'funnies' but haven't seen/
heard of that T-34 mod.
Loading Image...

Not quite a "flail" but the same principle.
Bay Man
2012-10-31 22:47:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Padraigh ProAmerica
Have you a source for the T-34 'flails'? I know the Alied 'flails' were
among the group of modified tanks called 'funnies' but haven't seen/
heard of that T-34 mod.
I saw pics on Youtube only a few weeks ago. I think a Russian film/doc.
Films of them in action.
dumbstruck
2012-10-30 13:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by dumbstruck
Not only did stalin waste
lives by reckessness... sometimes sending unarmed
troops
That makes a good film, but did it actually ever happen?
What film, and how can that possibly be questioned...
Stalin encouraged incredible human waste, such as
pushing Zhukov to compete recklessly fast. Do you mean
my video link which was a live university lecture?
Post by Bill
Post by dumbstruck
or human sacraficial minesweepers...
Again, did it ever actually happen?
This is famous and documented, sometimes with
completely unarmed guys released from jail.
Post by Bill
Post by dumbstruck
nagorski (sp?) calls it a two front war, where large
squads would hunt and kill fellow soviet soldiers
who appeared to be slacking. There were even
squads to kill the killing squads on top of that.
Makes you wonder how they managed to win doesn't it...
I gave you the nagorski citation from his award winning book
The Greatest Battle (moscow) and you deny it due to your
way of imagining it?! He follows one of many slacker hunting
squads and their dealing with thousands of fully formed large
groups waiting to surrender to the nazis or idle for a number of
other common reasons. These are not political officers.. he
follows one who marvels how docile the troops are when he
comes alone to arrest at least the officers... he says his peers
simply shot the officers. Like I said he barely escapes with
his life due to a higher level of friendly killers.

Nagorski called this a two front war for the russians, in the
sense some of his war effort was to kill russian soldiers...
to "encourage" the infinite supply of others, apparently.
Hitler came to admire stalin for this, and has been quoted
that he should have done similar military purges. Why
do i have to even deal with this, when posting here is
harder than juggling chainsaws for me <grin>
Bill
2012-10-30 19:28:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by dumbstruck
Post by Bill
Post by dumbstruck
Not only did stalin waste
lives by reckessness... sometimes sending unarmed
troops
That makes a good film, but did it actually ever happen?
What film, and how can that possibly be questioned...
'Enemy at the Gates'
Post by dumbstruck
Stalin encouraged incredible human waste, such as
pushing Zhukov to compete recklessly fast. Do you mean
my video link which was a live university lecture?
Post by Bill
Post by dumbstruck
or human sacraficial minesweepers...
Again, did it ever actually happen?
This is famous and documented, sometimes with
completely unarmed guys released from jail.
Cite please.
Michele
2012-10-30 20:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by dumbstruck
Post by Bill
Post by dumbstruck
Not only did stalin waste
lives by reckessness... sometimes sending unarmed
troops
That makes a good film, but did it actually ever happen?
What film, and how can that possibly be questioned...
By asking the question.

The answer should be a quote from reputed authors or even better from
primary sources.
Post by dumbstruck
Post by Bill
Post by dumbstruck
or human sacraficial minesweepers...
Again, did it ever actually happen?
This is famous and documented, sometimes with
completely unarmed guys released from jail.
So if it's documented, it would be nice to know the details of those
documents.
Post by dumbstruck
Post by Bill
Post by dumbstruck
nagorski (sp?) calls it a two front war,
Makes you wonder how they managed to win doesn't it...
I gave you the nagorski citation from his award winning book
The Greatest Battle (moscow)
Well, "nagorski (sp?)" isn't a highly clear and detailed citation. Now we
know that it's a book by a journalist who also wrote fiction about this
period.
David Wilma
2012-10-29 14:27:56 UTC
Permalink
I have discovered the podcasts from the Pritzker
Military Library
http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/Home/Podcasts.aspx
which has audio presentations by authors including
Sir Max Hastings. I listen at my desk and on a smart
phone. Radio at a new level.
Rich Rostrom
2012-10-30 08:00:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Wilma
I have discovered the podcasts from the Pritzker
Military Library
http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/Home/Podcasts.aspx
which has audio presentations by authors including
Sir Max Hastings.
Yes, he was there last Friday with Rick Atkinson.
Post by David Wilma
I listen at my desk and on a smart phone. Radio at a new level.
These may also be viewed as video.

Warning: if you watch a lot of these, you will see
me asking questions!
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
David Wilma
2012-10-30 20:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Some other good history podcasts, not just military
or World War II are

http://www.c-span.org/podcasts/

http://www.spymuseum.org
GFH
2012-10-30 13:19:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by dumbstruck
See http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/HistoryW for
Good that he remembered the millions of russian
prisoners killed, but for that and other reasons i think
soviet sacrifice is overstated because maybe half their
casualties were needless. Not only did stalin waste
lives by reckessness... sometimes sending unarmed
troops or human sacraficial minesweepers... but
nagorski (sp?) calls it a two front war, where large
squads would hunt and kill fellow soviet soldiers
who appeared to be slacking. There were even
squads to kill the killing squads on top of that.
Yes, the Russian PoWs from 1941 (about 3M?) were killed
by the Germans. What is unusual is that, from day one,
the Germans planned to eliminate, not keep, Russian PoWs.

After 1941, the Germans used Russian PoWs for labor. Not
all that unusual, the UK, Canada ans the USA did the same,
though with different survival rates.

IMHO, these Russian PoWs are forgotten because no one cares.
The Soviets, under Stalin, considered all PoWs were traitors,
better forgotten.

In contrast, the Japanese accounted for virtually all of the
670K Japanese PoWs takes by the Russians. The did so by
interviewing every PoW who returned early. Where they were
held; who was in their buiding; who died; who disappeared;
who was transferred and to where; etc. When the Russians
released the bulk of Japanese PoWs, the Japanese and Russian
lists agreed, name by name, within in 100 PoWs.

GFH
Bay Man
2012-11-13 22:15:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by dumbstruck
See http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/HistoryW for
a breathless, intense, fascinating couple hour lecture
summing up the significance of the war for a western
civ course.
I will give it 5 out 10 and could do better. He reinforces the Hollywood
view of WW2.

Points:

i)
Eisenhower - was too political preventing a 30 division thrust to Berlin
because of the US elections. The UK halted elections in WW2. He hindered
the outcome somewhat.

Churchill suggested that the US have the overall commander role of Allied
troops in Europe to lever the US to a Germany First stance - Eisenhower was
appointed.

ii)
Reasons for war? He did not mention the precedence of the USAs rise to a
world economic power by moving west and taking land & its resouces from the
natives and Mexicans, displacing the native populations. Hitler did the same
to his east.

iii)
Czechlosovia - appeasement? Not quite. He got that wrong. Hitler backed
down.

Tooze:
Page 273
"If Hitler had wanted war on 1 October 1938, he couldhave had it. The French
and British had reached the point at which they could make no further
concessions. The armies of France and the Soviet Union had mobilized. The
Royal Navy stood at full alert. On 9 September 1938 it was Hitler who
stepped back not his opponents"

Page 274
"Hitler backed down and accepted the extraordinarily generous settlement on
offer at the hastily convened conference in Munich. In so doing, he almost
certainly saved his regime from disaster."

iv)
The UK & France were not sitting by from Sept 1939 to May 1940. RN blockade
was on from 3rd sept 1939 which denied Germany of vital imports, raw
materials and food. German ships were being attacked. UK & France were
building up forces. industry working 24/7.

v)
In Norway 1940 it was a Brit/French operation. The German Navy was all but
eliminated in the campaign, so some substantial achievement. Norway was
neutral. The Allies were slow to grab Norway. The Germans got in first.

vi)
He ignores the USSR in Japanese war declaration. The Japanese thought the
USSR was to fall eliminating a threat on their northern Chinese borders.

vii)
Dunkirk evacuation was a retreat, it was merely across water - British and
French. Substantial numbers of French evacuated.

viii)
Their Finest Hour - he got it wrong..

Churchill on 18 June 1940:

"If we can stand up to him [Hitler], all Europe may be freed and the life of
the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands."

"But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States,
including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of
a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the
lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties,
and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last
for a thousand years, men will still say,This was their finest hour".

That meant they retreated and regrouped to prevent the world to "sink into
the abyss of a new dark age".

ix)
Mobile war did not materialize because of German tank commanders. He needs
to study the Battle of Arras in 1918 when the British formulated combined
mobile forces.

x)
Battle of Britain : it was not so decisive.

Tooze
Page 401:
"In the second half of 1940,desperate efforts on the part of the British
enabled them to produce twice as many fighters as the Germans, which was no
doubt reassuring in giving the RAF an extra margin of security. But this was
hardly decisive to the outcome of the battle. The fundamental point was
simple: in 1940 neither Britain nor Germany had developed the technology nor
had they mobilized the resources necessary to provide the kind of smothering
air superiority that would make a cross-Channel invasioninto a viable
proposition."

xi)
Radar was not first developed by Poles or Germans. Many countries were aware
that radio waves could deflected. The British were the first to fully
exploit radar as a defence against aircraft attack making the first workable
systems, hence inventing radar.

xii)
He did not understand why the Germans attacked the USSR. The UK was amassing
a massive air fleet which would come on-line late 41/early 42. The USSRs
resources were needed to give Germany the raw materials and food to sustain
a war with the UK.

Tooze

Page 431:
"the strongest arguments for rushing to conquer the Soviet Union in 1941
were precisely the growing shortageof grain and the need to knock Britain
out of the war before it could pose a serious air threat. The significance
of the Blitzkrieg strategy adopted in 1940-41 was not that it allowed the
overall level of mobilization to be kept to a minimum, but that it allowed
the German war effort to be split into two parts. The factories producing
for the army directed their efforts towards providing the equipment for a
swift, motorized Blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, the rest of
the German military-industrialised complex began to gird itself for the
aerial confrontation with Britain and America."

"Hitler's as far as the German population was concerned were quite specific:
securing food supply and protecting Germany against aerial attack."

xiii)
He perpetuates the myth that 1941/42 winter defeated the Germans. That is
nonsense. By August 1941 the Germans realized Barbarrosa had failed and
even Hitler was muttering about peace talks with the USSR. By Dec 1941 the
Germans had
been repulsed at Moscow by a Soviet battering ram with new T-34 tanks. The
Germans were going nowhere.

xiv)
He leaves out Japan also attacked the British when the attacked Pearl
Harbour. Germany primarily wanted the Brits attacked by the Japanese to keep
them away from interfering with his attack on the USSR and to weaken the the
Brits in the desert.

Tooze
page 413:
"Hitler appears to have convinced himself that the military conquest of the
Soviet Union in 1941 was the key to ultimate victory in the war asa whole.
At the Berghof on 31 July 1940, in conference with the militaryleadership,
Hitler emphasized that the Soviet Union would have to be knocked out of the
war, if Britain was to be brought to heel and America's support neutralized.
'Britain's hope lies in Russia and the United States. If Russia drops out of
the picture, America, too, is lost for Britain, because elimination of
Russia would tremendously increase Japan's power in the Far East.' "

"Russia, according to Hitler, was the 'Far Eastern sword of Britain and the
United States', a spearhead pointed at Japan. Attacking and decisively
defeating the Soviet Union in 1941 would rob Britain of its 'dagger on the
mainland' and unleash Japan. If Britain did choose to continue the war and
if Japanese aggression pro-voked American entry, complete control of the
Eurasian landmass wouldat least secure for Germany the resources it needed
for a true trans-Atlantic confrontation."

Page
"In July 1941 Hitler had offered Japan an offensive alliance against the
Americans, if they would also enter the war against Britain. The Japanese
bided their time."

xv)
The Soviets occupied the near million strong Japanese Kwantung army in
China. He appears not to know this.

xvi)
Stalingrad was not a key turning battle. In the east Moscow was. Soviets
went on the
offensive before Stalingrad. He doen't appear to know this.

Tooze

Page 500
"the Sovietsmoved a significant number of first-line troops from Siberia and
the Manchurian border to Moscow to form the 1st Shock Army, the 10thand 20th
Armies.71In total, by early December 1941 Zhukov's WesternFront controlled
an offensive force of 1.1 million men, 7,652 guns andmortars, 774 tanks and
1,370 aircraft. Given the huge losses sustainedsince June, there was no
margin of numerical superiority, but the RedArmy had the initiative and
achieved total surprise. For the first time in the war the tables were
turned on the German army."

"Within days, Army Group Centre was knocked to its knees."

"the Wehrmacht lost 380,000 soldiers in two months of intense fighting".

Page 501:
"It is commonly said that the Wehrmacht 'failed' to take Moscow. But this
does no justice to the immensity of the shock delivered by the Red Army in
the winter of 1941-2. Army Group Centre, the pride of the German army, had
suffered a shattering battlefield defeat."

xvii)
He never knew Bletchley Park in England told USSR of German build up at
Kurk.

xviii)
Leningrad - Finns allowed supply the Soviet supply over the lake as they did
not venture onto pre 1939 USSR territory. Hitler was furious that the Fins
did this. The only people who knew about the Barbarrossa's plans were the
Fins.

xix)
El Alemein could be said to a be a WW2 key battle. It stopped the Germans
taking the Middle East oil fields. In early 1941 Hitler was proposing moving
into Turkey from Greece and moving into Iraq for the oil, and meeting up
with Rommel, who he hoped would have moved into Egypt. Circling tye Med
would have been easier for Hitler's oil problem and an attack on the USSR
from many points

xx)
Good he mentioned Gneral Clark was fool - the US promoted him.

xxi)
He thinks only the Americans won the war.

xxii)
UK & USSR together would have defeated Germany, their economies were
collectively far larger than Italy/Germany. German industrial output was
similar to the UK. He appears not to know this.

xxii)
Overstates, but very important, US industrial capacity. The USSR 1942
ouproduced the USA.

xxiii)
U-boats were not only to sink US ships as he stated, they were intially to
sink UK ships.

xxiv)
60% of British equipment in 1945 was from US. Overall in the war far, far
less. I think he may be confusing all imports, raw materials, grain, etc. A
lot of this was normal trade pre-WW2, so should not be counted as war aid.

xxv)
Monty did not design the Market Garden operation as he stated. He only
approved it when presented to him. It was rated a 90% success.
Rich
2012-11-14 19:30:20 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 13, 5:15 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
I will give it 5 out 10 and could do better. He reinforces the Hollywood
view of WW2.
Oh Goody! He has points.
Post by Bay Man
i)
Eisenhower - was too political preventing a 30 division thrust to Berlin
because of the US elections. The UK halted elections in WW2. He hindered
the outcome somewhat.
Neat, go from a "Hollywood view" to a paranoid conspiracy theory view.
The "30 division thrust" controversy was over by early September, when
there weren't 30 divisions available to thrust and the Allies were
having problems sustaining the thrust of the divisions they were
barely supplying.

Nor did the UK "halt" elections in World War II. The Labour Party
chose to join in a wartime coalition government...until 23 May when they
withdrew and called for a General Election, which occurred during
World War II.
Post by Bay Man
Churchill suggested that the US have the overall commander role of Allied
troops in Europe to lever the US to a Germany First stance - Eisenhower was
appointed.
Sigh, more know-nothing bafflegab. "Germany First" was initially
raised as a strategic plan by Admiral Stark as Plan DOG 4 November
1940. "Germany First" was agreed to between the American and British
staffs between 29 January and 29 March 1941 and thereafter was
affirmed by Roosevelt and Churchill and confirmed during the ARCADIA
Conferences, December 1941 - January 1942. At the time Eisenhower was
a very junior temporary brigadier general serving on the Army General
Staff - it is extremely unlikely that either Roosevelt or Churchill
knew who he was. He was not appointed as Commander ETOUSA, and
administrative post, in England until 23 June 1942.
Post by Bay Man
ii)
Reasons for war? He did not mention the precedence of the USAs rise to a
world economic power by moving west and taking land & its resouces from the
natives and Mexicans, displacing the native populations. Hitler did the same
to his east.
A-historical - and nauseatingly PC - twaddle.
Post by Bay Man
iii)
Czechlosovia - appeasement? Not quite. He got that wrong. Hitler backed
down.
What Hitler did or did not do and whether or not the French and
British could or could not have won a war initiated then is irrelevant
to whether or not the actions the French and British actually took
qualified as appeasement. Hitler got everything he wanted and was
encouraged to want even more, which participated his actions on 1
September 1939. The action of the French and British regarding
Czechoslovakia appeased Hitler so, ipso facto, it was appeasement.
Post by Bay Man
iv)
The UK & France were not sitting by from Sept 1939 to May 1940. RN blockade
was on from 3rd sept 1939 which denied Germany of vital imports, raw
materials and food. German ships were being attacked. UK & France were
building up forces. industry working 24/7.
You think Professor Ostrower was unaware of that? Or that we were?
Post by Bay Man
v)
In Norway 1940 it was a Brit/French operation. The German Navy was all but
eliminated in the campaign, so some substantial achievement. Norway was
neutral. The Allies were slow to grab Norway. The Germans got in first.
I see. So being neutral means it is okay for the Allies to grab it? Or
do you have some other reason for stating the bloody obvious? Oh,
wait, strawmen, of course.
Post by Bay Man
vi)
He ignores the USSR in Japanese war declaration. The Japanese thought the
USSR was to fall eliminating a threat on their northern Chinese borders.
Um, no, your knowledge of the pre-Pearl Harbor events is lacking -
something you have been appraised of numerous times and in
considerable detail.
Post by Bay Man
vii)
Dunkirk evacuation was a retreat, it was merely across water - British and
French. Substantial numbers of French evacuated.
Merely without most of their equipment, really quite a victory...

2,472 of 2,794 guns lost
63,879 of 68,618 vehicles lost
20,548 of 21,081 motorcycles lost
76,697 of 109,000 tons of ammunition lost
415,940 of 449,000 tons of supplies and stores lost
164,929 of 166,000 tons of petrol lost
All but 13 light and nine cruiser tanks lost

And the French were evacuated and returned to France just in time to
surrender in Fall Rot.
Post by Bay Man
viii)
Their Finest Hour - he got it wrong..
(snip)

He did? How?
Post by Bay Man
ix)
Mobile war did not materialize because of German tank commanders. He needs
to study the Battle of Arras in 1918 when the British formulated combined
mobile forces.
Arras was April-May 1917, not 1918, and was not a case of "combined
mobile forces" or of modern combined arms operations. Sir John
Monash's planning and execution of the Battle of Hamel, which
***was*** in 1918 is closer, but he was unable to employ the mobile
communications of the Germans that made their operations that much
quicker and more devastating to the Allies. And Monash was ***not***
British - he was Australian.
Post by Bay Man
x)
Battle of Britain : it was not so decisive.
Where does Professor Ostrower claim that the decisiveness of the
Battle of Britian was Britain's production of fighter aircraft?
Post by Bay Man
xi)
Radar was not first developed by Poles or Germans. Many countries were aware
that radio waves could deflected. The British were the first to fully
exploit radar as a defence against aircraft attack making the first workable
systems, hence inventing radar.
Um, no, the British first developed a workable - although it often
failed miserably in its early days - integrated air defense system,
which incorporated radar, but that does not mean they "invented"
radar. Radar was "invented" - or at least the acronym was coined - by
the U.S. Navy's Naval research Laboratory. By 1 September 1939 at
least countries - the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, Canada, the Netherlands, and the Soviet Union - were
working on some form of "radar", but each were calling it different
things.
Post by Bay Man
xii)
He did not understand why the Germans attacked the USSR. The UK was amassing
a massive air fleet which would come on-line late 41/early 42. The USSRs
resources were needed to give Germany the raw materials and food to sustain
a war with the UK.
That was one of the reasons Hitler chose to attack the USSR. There
were quite a few others. Reducing it to a single "reason" is quite
literally a reductio ab adsurdam.
Post by Bay Man
xiii)
He perpetuates the myth that 1941/42 winter defeated the Germans. That is
nonsense. By August 1941 the Germans realized Barbarrosa had failed and
even Hitler was muttering about peace talks with the USSR. By Dec 1941 the
Germans had
been repulsed at Moscow by a Soviet battering ram with new T-34 tanks. The
Germans were going nowhere.
There were remarkably few T-34 available at Moscow in December 1941
and they had little to with the Soviet success there.
Post by Bay Man
xiv)
He leaves out Japan also attacked the British when the attacked Pearl
Harbour. Germany primarily wanted the Brits attacked by the Japanese to keep
them away from interfering with his attack on the USSR and to weaken the the
Brits in the desert.
Um, again, no, your knowledge of the pre-Pearl Harbor events is
lacking - something you have been appraised of numerous times and in
considerable detail. If it wasn't so childish your persistence might
otherwise be almost admirable.
Post by Bay Man
xv)
The Soviets occupied the near million strong Japanese Kwantung army in
China. He appears not to know this.
With eight divisions, the Kwantung Army in 1939 numbered 250,000. It
is unlikely that when reinforced to 13 divisions in December 1941 that
it numbered anywhere "near" a million. On 21 October 1941 U.S. Army
intelligence assessed the Kwantung Army as 684,000 strong...but counted
it as 25 divisions instead of the 13 it actually possessed. The
"million" usually quoted likely includes all Japanese forces on the
mainland - the three divisions of the North China Theater Army, the 12
divisions of the China Expeditionary Army, and the four divisions of
the Korea General defense Command Army.
Post by Bay Man
xvi)
Stalingrad was not a key turning battle. In the east Moscow was. Soviets
went on the
offensive before Stalingrad. He doen't appear to know this.
They were all "key turning battles" - as was Kursk and, arguably,
quite a number of others. None though were individually "key".
Post by Bay Man
xvii)
He never knew Bletchley Park in England told USSR of German build up at
Kurk.
Kursk...and the passage of ULTRA decrypts simply confirmed Soviet
intelligence estimates - not that it was that hard to do.
Post by Bay Man
xviii)
Leningrad - Finns allowed supply the Soviet supply over the lake as they did
not venture onto pre 1939 USSR territory. Hitler was furious that the Fins
did this. The only people who knew about the Barbarrossa's plans were the
Fins.
So OKH had no clue?
Post by Bay Man
xix)
El Alemein could be said to a be a WW2 key battle. It stopped the Germans
taking the Middle East oil fields. In early 1941 Hitler was proposing moving
into Turkey from Greece and moving into Iraq for the oil, and meeting up
with Rommel, who he hoped would have moved into Egypt. Circling tye Med
would have been easier for Hitler's oil problem and an attack on the USSR
from many points
The Germans were never going to take the Middle East oilfields with or
without El Alamein. And Hitler appears to have had as many fantasies
as you.
Post by Bay Man
xx)
Good he mentioned Gneral Clark was fool - the US promoted him.
He was? As usual, your penchant for reducing complex events to the
utterly silly is unexcelled.
Post by Bay Man
xxi)
He thinks only the Americans won the war.
He does?
Post by Bay Man
xxii)
UK & USSR together would have defeated Germany, their economies were
collectively far larger than Italy/Germany. German industrial output was
similar to the UK. He appears not to know this.
Economies don't win wars; they enable nations with robust economies to
usually defeat nations with weaker ones. It is likely a UK & USSR
alliance would have at least stalemated the Germans and likely would
have won, but over a much longer period and at much higher cost.
German industrial output far exceeded that of the UK.
Post by Bay Man
xxii)
Overstates, but very important, US industrial capacity. The USSR 1942
ouproduced the USA.
"Overstates, but very important"? Translation please. And, no, the
USSR did not out produce the USA in 1942.
Post by Bay Man
xxiii)
U-boats were not only to sink US ships as he stated, they were intially to
sink UK ships.
Where does he say anything that silly?
Post by Bay Man
xxiv)
60% of British equipment in 1945 was from US. Overall in the war far, far
less. I think he may be confusing all imports, raw materials, grain, etc. A
lot of this was normal trade pre-WW2, so should not be counted as war aid.
Um, if it was pre-war trade then it was not "war aid" and was not
counted as such. Or are you trying to create a new Baymanesque
silligism?

BTW, do you have any ***evidence*** for your assumptions?
Post by Bay Man
xxv)
Monty did not design the Market Garden operation as he stated. He only
approved it when presented to him. It was rated a 90% success.
Indeed he did not "design it"; rather, he took the existing FAAA
Operation COMET, which had been prepared to fulfill ***his*** 2
September operational requirement and expanded it from one to three
divisions. I am curious how many generals you might think approve
plans prior to their being presented to them? And, yes, MARKET GARDEN
was "90% success" in the same sense that the "operation was
successful, but unfortunately the patient died..."
Bay Man
2012-11-14 23:53:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich
On Nov 13, 5:15 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
I will give it 5 out 10 and could do better. He reinforces the Hollywood
view of WW2.
Oh Goody!
Another one into Hollywood history.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
i)
Eisenhower - was too political preventing a 30 division thrust to Berlin
because of the US elections. The UK halted elections in WW2. He hindered
the outcome somewhat.
Neat, go from a "Hollywood view"
The USA went by thesmelves on broad front. FACT.
Post by Rich
Nor did the UK "halt" elections in World War II. The Labour Party
chose to join in a wartime coalition government...until 23 May when they
withdrew and called for a General Election, which occurred during
World War II.
But after Germany was defeated and Japan's was a foregone conclusion.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
Churchill suggested that the US have the overall commander role of Allied
troops in Europe to lever the US to a Germany First stance - Eisenhower was
appointed.
"Germany First" was initially raised as a strategic
plan by Admiral Stark as Plan DOG 4 November
1940.
<sigh> After a large part of the US fleet was wiped out and fears of a
Japanese attack on the US mainland, the US were in no mood for Germany
first. Churchill cajoled them It was HIS suggestion the US take overall
European command.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
ii)
Reasons for war? He did not mention the precedence of the USAs rise to a
world economic power by moving west and taking land & its resouces from the
natives and Mexicans, displacing the native populations. Hitler did the same
to his east.
A-historical - and nauseatingly PC - twaddle.
Stealing land and ethnically cleansing the native population is "twaddle"
and "PC"? Wow!
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
iii)
Czechlosovia - appeasement? Not quite. He got that wrong. Hitler backed
down.
What Hitler did
Hitler backed down from war! FACT
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
iv)
The UK & France were not sitting by from Sept 1939 to May 1940. RN blockade
was on from 3rd sept 1939 which denied Germany of vital imports, raw
materials and food. German ships were being attacked. UK & France were
building up forces. industry working 24/7.
You think Professor Ostrower was unaware of that? Or that we were?
Professor Ostrower was unware pf many things, hence why he only got 5 out
10.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
v)
In Norway 1940 it was a Brit/French operation. The German Navy was all but
eliminated in the campaign, so some substantial achievement. Norway was
neutral. The Allies were slow to grab Norway. The Germans got in first.
I see.
You do not see. This Professor Ostrower said it was only the Brits and a
total defeat. The German navy was largely wiped out.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
vi)
He ignores the USSR in Japanese war declaration. The Japanese thought the
USSR was to fall eliminating a threat on their northern Chinese borders.
Um, no, your knowledge of the pre-Pearl Harbor events is lacking
In the eyes of Hollywood history person like yourself. Read Tooze. I pasted
his stuff. Please read it.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
vii)
Dunkirk evacuation was a retreat, it was merely across water - British and
French. Substantial numbers of French evacuated.
Merely without most of their equipment,
Which was easily replaced and was with the latest equipment. IT was the men
that mattered.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
viii)
Their Finest Hour - he got it wrong..
(snip)
He did? How?
Read it again.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
ix)
Mobile war did not materialize because of German tank commanders. He needs
to study the Battle of Arras in 1918 when the British formulated combined
mobile forces.
Arras was April-May 1917, not 1918, and was not a case of "combined
mobile forces" or of modern combined arms operations.
It was.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
x)
Battle of Britain : it was not so decisive.
Where does Professor Ostrower claim that the decisiveness of the
Battle of Britian was Britain's production of fighter aircraft?
Read what he said. He was making out the Battle saved the UK etc. Which it
never.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
xi)
Radar was not first developed by Poles or Germans. Many countries were aware
that radio waves could deflected. The British were the first to fully
exploit radar as a defence against aircraft attack making the first workable
systems, hence inventing radar.
Um, no, the British first developed a workable
The Brits invnetd RADAR as we know it. FACT. They even gave them to the US
to use.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
xii)
He did not understand why the Germans attacked the USSR. The UK was amassing
a massive air fleet which would come on-line late 41/early 42. The USSRs
resources were needed to give Germany the raw materials and food to sustain
a war with the UK.
That was one of the reasons Hitler chose to attack the USSR. There
were quite a few others.
The prime reason was the comming air war. Read Tooze.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
xiii)
He perpetuates the myth that 1941/42 winter defeated the Germans. That is
nonsense. By August 1941 the Germans realized Barbarrosa had failed and
even Hitler was muttering about peace talks with the USSR. By Dec 1941 the
Germans had
been repulsed at Moscow by a Soviet battering ram with new T-34 tanks.
The
Germans were going nowhere.
There were remarkably few T-34 available at Moscow
The point bois the battle not the number tanks available. Pay attention.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
xiv)
He leaves out Japan also attacked the British when they attacked Pearl
Harbour. Germany primarily wanted the Brits attacked by the Japanese to keep
them away from interfering with his attack on the USSR and to weaken the the
Brits in the desert.
Um, again, no, your knowledge of the pre-Pearl Harbor events is
lacking
You go by history from Hollywood. You have been appraised of numerous times
and in considerable detail about this.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
xvi)
Stalingrad was not a key turning battle. In the east Moscow was. Soviets
went on the
offensive before Stalingrad. He doen't appear to know this.
They were all "key turning battles" - as was Kursk and, arguably,
quite a number of others. None though were individually "key".
So he was wrong then.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
xvii)
He never knew Bletchley Park in England told USSR of German build up at
Kursk.
Kursk...and the passage of ULTRA decrypts simply confirmed Soviet
intelligence estimates - not that it was that hard to do.
He never knew about it.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
xviii)
Leningrad - Finns allowed supply the Soviet supply over the lake as they did
not venture onto pre 1939 USSR territory. Hitler was furious that the Fins
did this. The only people who knew about the Barbarrossa's plans were the
Fins.
So OKH had no clue?
Read above again.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
xix)
El Alemein could be said to a be a WW2 key battle. It stopped the Germans
taking the Middle East oil fields. In early 1941 Hitler was proposing moving
into Turkey from Greece and moving into Iraq for the oil, and meeting up
with Rommel, who he hoped would have moved into Egypt. Circling tye Med
would have been easier for Hitler's oil problem and an attack on the USSR
from many points
The Germans were never going to take the Middle East oilfields
The Mesopatamia plan. Look it up. In 1941 Hitler did suggest to trake
Turkey and move into Iraq.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
xx)
Good he mentioned General Clark was a fool - the US promoted him.
He was?
Yes, a total idiot!
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
xxi)
He thinks only the Americans won the war.
He does?
That is clear. So do you.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
xxii)
UK & USSR together would have defeated Germany, their economies were
collectively far larger than Italy/Germany. German industrial output was
similar to the UK. He appears not to know this.
Economies don't win wars;
They do.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
xxii)
Overstates, but very important, US industrial capacity. The USSR 1942
ouproduced the USA.
"Overstates, but very important"? Translation please.
Read again it is easy to understand.
Post by Rich
And, no, the
USSR did not out produce the USA in 1942.
They did. Read Tooze.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
xxiii)
U-boats were not only to sink US ships as he stated, they were intially to
sink UK ships.
Where does he say anything that silly?
Listen to what he says - yes very silly.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
xxiv)
60% of British equipment in 1945 was from US. Overall in the war far, far
less. I think he may be confusing all imports, raw materials, grain, etc. A
lot of this was normal trade pre-WW2, so should not be counted as war aid.
Um, if it was pre-war trade then it was not "war aid"
Yep. War aid is aid specifically to enable a country to win a war.
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
xxv)
Monty did not design the Market Garden operation as he stated. He only
approved it when presented to him. It was rated a 90% success.
Indeed he did not "design it";
Exactly.

I give you zero out ten. A very poor effort indeed.
Rich
2012-11-15 05:20:07 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 14, 6:53 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Another one into Hollywood history.
No, into history and facts rather than comic book fantasies of a very
dull boy indeed.
Post by Bay Man
The USA went by thesmelves on broad front. FACT.
No, sorry, writing an incoherent sentence doesn't create a fact.
Post by Bay Man
But after Germany was defeated and Japan's was a foregone conclusion.
So in other words, what you wrote before was untrue.
Post by Bay Man
Post by Rich
"Germany First" was initially raised as a strategic
plan by Admiral Stark as Plan DOG 4 November
1940.
<sigh> After a large part of the US fleet was wiped out and fears of a
Japanese attack on the US mainland, the US were in no mood for Germany
I don't know how to break this to you, but 7 December 1941 was after 4
November 1940.
Post by Bay Man
Stealing land and ethnically cleansing the native population is "twaddle"
and "PC"? Wow!
Yes, the moral equivalency argument that is so beloved of revisionists
is twaddle and an idiotically twisted version of political
correctness. That you buy into says quite a bit.
Post by Bay Man
Hitler backed down from war! FACT
The French and British appeased him in the process. Which was rather
foolish since he likely would have backed down anyway. Fact (and I
didn't have to capitalize it to make it true...)
Post by Bay Man
Professor Ostrower was unware pf many things, hence why he only got 5 out
10.
I know you don't understand much, but I was asking where Ostrower said
that. Since I don't think he did I can only conclude you were likely
confused or making things up.
Post by Bay Man
You do not see. This Professor Ostrower said it was only the Brits and a
total defeat. The German navy was largely wiped out.
No, you listen badly, he only mentioned the British and that they
defended Norway ineptly, which is correct. He did not mention the
effect on the German fleet at all.
Post by Bay Man
In the eyes of Hollywood history person like yourself. Read Tooze. I pasted
his stuff. Please read it.
I have read Tooze, although I confess I get tired of the endless
repetitions of random passages you indulge in. Please try to post
something either relevant or correct once in a while - either one
would do.
Post by Bay Man
Which was easily replaced and was with the latest equipment. IT was the men
that mattered.
Yes, the man mattered, but the equipment was not "easily replaced"; in
fact the shortages continued into the next year and hampered
operations for some time in Africa and slowed critical buildup in the
East.
Post by Bay Man
Read it again.
How can I read it when he speaks it? I am asking how what he says
matches what you claimed - I don't hear it or see it.
Post by Bay Man
It was.
I know it was...not what you claimed it was. Wrong year and wrong
characterization.
Post by Bay Man
Read what he said. He was making out the Battle saved the UK etc. Which it
never.
Again you seem to be horribly confused. I cannot read what he says
since he is speaking. I did not hear what you claimed he said. Perhaps
you could cite a time when he says it.
Post by Bay Man
The Brits invnetd RADAR as we know it. FACT. They even gave them to the US
to use.
Sorry, but you have been told many times over the years, writing
things in all caps does not make them facts.

The first pulsed radar system as designed by Page was tested by the
NRL in December 1934. Kuenhold's system was tested in Germany in May
1935. Watts system in Britain was tested in June 1935. Those are
facts. Britain ***deployed*** the first air defense system that
incorporated radar as a component. That is also a fact. Neither of
those facts is compatible with your "FACT".
Post by Bay Man
The prime reason was the comming air war. Read Tooze.
I have, rather more carefully than you have. And unlike you, while I
find many of his conclusions correct and well-supported that
particular one is not, as has been demonstrated for you to exhaustion
over the years. That you are incapable of understanding anything other
than the mindless repetition of "Tooze" is not my problem - it's
yours.
Post by Bay Man
The point bois the battle not the number tanks available. Pay attention.
What is a "point bois"? Does it have something to do with trees and
the French? But if you are now saying that the point that you were
claiming was so important wasn't, then I agree, you had no idea what
you were talking about. Glad we were able to clear that up.
Post by Bay Man
You go by history from Hollywood. You have been appraised of numerous times
and in considerable detail about this.
Really? Who has appraised me of these facts? When? Where?
Post by Bay Man
So he was wrong then.
No, I rather suspect you were and compounded the error by poor
listening.
Post by Bay Man
He never knew about it.
You do realize it was an hour and a half survey lecture covering the
entire bloody war don't you? I'm rather surprised he mentioned
Stalingrad and would have been amazed had he diverged into a
discussion of the relative German and Soviet intelligence efforts
associated with a single battle.
Post by Bay Man
Read above again.
I did, but I don't think you actually ever read - or think - about
what you write.
Post by Bay Man
The Mesopatamia plan. Look it up. In 1941 Hitler did suggest to trake
Turkey and move into Iraq.
M e s o p o t a m i a - is now known as Iraq. Aside from the fact
there wasn't much in the way of oilfields there in 1941 they are also
rather hard to get to from Turkey or Syria...these things called
"mountains" and this concept called "distance". No pipelines north or
west. A single track railway north and west. The export from the
Kirkuk fields went down the Mesopotamian basin to the Persian Gulf.

BTW, the Turks might have taken offense at Hitler deciding to "trake"
them...
Post by Bay Man
Yes, a total idiot!
Please explain how a "total idiot" became an army commander and what
made him a "total idiot". And note, it must qualify as "total" - no
partial idiocies count.
Post by Bay Man
That is clear. So do you.
No, what is clear is that you have little clue about what you prattle
on about and even less of a clue about what I think, know, or can
prove - with facts.
Post by Bay Man
They do.
The bit of snipping other posters sentences so as to change their
meaning is rude and dishonest - at best. It is also the best that we
can ever expect from you.
Post by Bay Man
Read again it is easy to understand.
If something is "overstated" then it cannot be "very important". It
can be "understated and very important" or it can be "overstated and
not very important". So it is only easy to understand if you have no
conception of logic or language...oh, wait a minute, of course, you
have no conception of logic or language so likely it does make perfect
sense to you.
Post by Bay Man
They did. Read Tooze.
I don't need to read Tooze. I need you to lay out the figures that
prove what you claim.
Post by Bay Man
Listen to what he says - yes very silly.
At least we're back to listening again, would you mind cluing us all
in to when you heard this in the recording?
Post by Bay Man
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
lot of this was normal trade pre-WW2, so should not be counted as war aid.
Um, if it was pre-war trade then it was not "war aid"
Yep. War aid is aid specifically to enable a country to win a war.
Yes, exactly, then how can you claim that "a lot of this [war aid] was
normal trade pre-war"? BTW, where is the evidence for your 60% figure?
Post by Bay Man
Exactly.
More rudeness and dishonesty; at least you are consistent.
Post by Bay Man
I give you zero out ten. A very poor effort indeed.
Wow...now that really hurt.
Rich Rostrom
2012-11-15 15:50:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
Post by Rich
"Germany First" was initially raised as a strategic
plan by Admiral Stark as Plan DOG 4 November 1940.
<sigh> After a large part of the US fleet was wiped out and fears of a
Japanese attack on the US mainland, the US were in no mood for Germany
I don't know how to break this to you, but 7 December 1941 was after 4
November 1940.
Bayman is not being _entirely_ demented here.
He is not denying that the U.S. adopted
"Germany First" earlier than the 1942
conferences where command arrangements for
the ETO were settled.

His claim, though he does not state it
clearly, is that _after_ Pearl Harbor,
with the U.S. under direct attack from
Japan, and with popular pressure for
immediate revenge against Japan, the U.S.
might have changed from the "Germany
First" strategy.

Therefore, to insure that the U.S. would
stick with "Germany First", the British
allowed/encouraged/suggested that the
U.S. would have overall command in the
ETO, in the person of Eisenhower.

It's _possible_ that the British did
this, regardless of whether there was
any actual possibility of the U.S.
making such a change.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Rich
2012-11-15 18:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Bayman is not being _entirely_ demented here.
Arguable.
Post by Rich Rostrom
His claim, though he does not state it
clearly, is that _after_ Pearl Harbor,
No, his original "claim" was that to ensure that "Germany First" was
followed by the wayward US, Churchill convinced Roosevelt to appoint
Eisenhower as SACEUR. For proof, he then declared this was done as a
consequence of Pearl Harbor. To say that he "does not state" his
position "clearly" minimizes the lunacy of his habit of mashing
together random events, misstating dates and sequences of events, and
then "proving" it all by spamming random quotes from "Tooze".

Cheers!
Michael Emrys
2012-11-15 19:57:17 UTC
Permalink
..._after_ Pearl Harbor, with the U.S. under direct attack from
Japan, and with popular pressure for immediate revenge against Japan,
the U.S. might have changed from the "Germany First" strategy.
Therefore, to insure that the U.S. would stick with "Germany First",
the British allowed/encouraged/suggested that the U.S. would have
overall command in the ETO, in the person of Eisenhower.
This does not gibe with accounts, including Churchill's history of the
war, that hold that as late as the autumn of '43 it was thought that
Eisenhower would remain in the Med and Brook would command Overlord.
This changed when it was realized that the American contribution to the
ETO would quickly outstrip that of the British Commonwealth.

What you refer to may indeed have transpired in relation to Torch
however. There, Eisenhower was given overall command although the posts
immediately below him tended to be filled by the British, an arrangement
that with occasional exception continued through the war.

Michael
Bay Man
2012-11-15 21:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich
Post by Bay Man
Post by Rich
"Germany First" was initially raised as a strategic
plan by Admiral Stark as Plan DOG 4 November 1940.
<sigh> After a large part of the US fleet was wiped out and fears of a
Japanese attack on the US mainland, the US were in no mood for Germany
I don't know how to break this to you, but 7 December 1941 was after 4
November 1940.
Bayman is not being _entirely_ demented here.
He is not denying that the U.S. adopted
"Germany First" earlier than the 1942
conferences where command arrangements for
the ETO were settled.
His claim, though he does not state it
clearly, is that _after_ Pearl Harbor,
with the U.S. under direct attack from
Japan, and with popular pressure for
immediate revenge against Japan, the U.S.
might have changed from the "Germany
First" strategy.
Therefore, to insure that the U.S. would
stick with "Germany First", the British
allowed/encouraged/suggested that the
U.S. would have overall command in the
ETO, in the person of Eisenhower.
It's _possible_ that the British did
this, regardless of whether there was
any actual possibility of the U.S.
making such a change.
The US was surprised that Churchill suggested the US have the top man in ETO
an American. The US were expecting a British officer to be in charge as it
was their backyard and they were far more experienced than the green
Americans.
Rich
2012-11-16 05:22:36 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 15, 4:02 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
The US was surprised that Churchill
More a-historical and unproven twaddle. CCS 75/3 of 22 January 1943
directed that a ***British*** general would be SCAEF. It was Marshall
at the Quebec Conference who suggested it was more appropriate that an
American general by the OVERLORD commander, which the British
representatives objected to. The final decision for Eisenhower was
made at SEXTANT 28 November 1943 and was ***jointly*** agreed to in
conversations between Roosevelt and Churchill, who directed the CCS.
There was no "surprise" - hard to do when discussions on the subject
go on for ten months...

I can't wait for the next "response"...
Phil McGregor
2012-11-15 16:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich
On Nov 14, 6:53 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
The Mesopatamia plan. Look it up. In 1941 Hitler did suggest to trake
Turkey and move into Iraq.
... A single track railway north and west. The export from the
Kirkuk fields went down the Mesopotamian basin to the Persian Gulf.
And, of course, as we know, but Bay Man doesn't, the Brits had torn up
all the tracks on their side of the border with Turkey, so neither the
Turks nor the Germans were going to do anything by rail until they
laid down new tracks.

I suspect that the Brits had slighted some of the tunnels and bridges
as well, or would have, which would make things even slower.

And that begs the question of where all the rolling stock was going to
come from ... the Germans barely had enough for use in the East, the
Turks were chronically short for the entire war ... and the biggest
German shortage was of rail tankers for POL, which were all needed on
the East Front (and, no, Bay Man, the Turks didn't have thousands of
them standing by, as they had little oil and little need to move lots
of it around) ...

But, as we all know by now, these will all be ignored or handwaved
away by BM ;-P:

Phil
Bay Man
2012-11-15 21:01:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Rich
On Nov 14, 6:53 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
The Mesopatamia plan. Look it up. In 1941 Hitler did suggest to trake
Turkey and move into Iraq.
... A single track railway north and west. The export from the
Kirkuk fields went down the Mesopotamian basin to the Persian Gulf.
And, of course, as we know, but Bay Man doesn't, the Brits had torn up
all the tracks on their side of the border with Turkey, so neither the
Turks nor the Germans were going to do anything by rail until they
laid down new tracks.
What the hell are these two on about? Choo-choos. Again..." Hitler did
suggest to take Turkey and move into Iraq." It is shorter than trying to
get through the USSR. If they circled the Med the sea is theirs and they
take the oil to Germany via tanker via Syria.
Phil McGregor
2012-11-15 22:33:27 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:01:23 -0500, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Rich
On Nov 14, 6:53 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
The Mesopatamia plan. Look it up. In 1941 Hitler did suggest to trake
Turkey and move into Iraq.
... A single track railway north and west. The export from the
Kirkuk fields went down the Mesopotamian basin to the Persian Gulf.
And, of course, as we know, but Bay Man doesn't, the Brits had torn up
all the tracks on their side of the border with Turkey, so neither the
Turks nor the Germans were going to do anything by rail until they
laid down new tracks.
What the hell are these two on about? Choo-choos. Again..." Hitler did
suggest to take Turkey and move into Iraq." It is shorter than trying to
get through the USSR. If they circled the Med the sea is theirs and they
take the oil to Germany via tanker via Syria.
You really have no knowledge of WW2 logistics at all, do you?

<note: that's a rhetorical question>

There were no roads worth the name and no rail lines through Syria at
the time

Yes, there's a track, of sorts, along the oil pipelines. Note: A
*track* ... not a *road* ... therefore, neither intended to, nor
capable of, handling the massive amounts of wheeled traffic you have
handwaved into existence to travel along it.

Hint: Moving POL by truck is ... even over excellent roads ...
completely uneconomic over any distance. The DAK, yes, was supplied
this way to a degree (not enough coastal shipping and no port with
enough capacity to handle what little there was anyway), but the
problem was, as they got further and further east ... tankers of fuel
had to be burnt to fuel the tankers of fuel to get to the front.
Something like 90% of the fuel was burnt to get 10% to Egypt.

The route through Iraq, Syria or Lebanon is not short. And, remember,
no roads worth spit.

The pipelines? Well, all the bits in Iraq were controlled by the UK.
*All* the bits in the Iraq.

Hint: Explosives and Pipelines = destroyed pipelines.

Hint: Explosives + Wellheads = destroyed wellheads.

Hint: Explosives + Refineries = destroyed refineries.

So, even if the Turks, grindingly slowly, moved through the rough
terrain in Northern Iraq to attack the oilfields, pipelines and
refineries, what do they get? Pretty much what the Germans got in the
Caucasus ... squat ...

And, even if they get some oil, they have no way of moving it by rail
back to Turkey, and no roads, destroyed pipelines, and no rail line to
move it to the Mediterranean.

Oh, and that brings up another problem. Moving it across the
Mediterranean.

The Italians had virtually no Tankers in 1939, and managed to get
something like 90% of their piddlingly small merchant marine seized in
Allied ports at the beginning of the war.

But, even if none of those were tankers, they didn't even have enough
to ship adequate supplies to the mechanised forces in North Africa - a
piddling amount as it was - and had to ship it across in regular
merchantmen in 44 gallon drums. Even that wasn't enough, so they used
Messerschmitt Gigants to *fly* 44 gallon drums across to North Africa.

Hint: Flying fuel is a desperation move.

So, even if they move the piddling to zero POL from the destroyed
wells, not refined in the destroyed refineries, through the destroyed
pipelines or non-existent roads and railways to the (probably) damaged
Mediterranean ports ... it sits there, waiting for the non-existent
tankers to move it ... somewhere. Anywhere. But, see, they don't exist
... the Italians can move POL (and supplies in general) to their (and
Axis) troops in North Africa, Greece and the Aegean or they can move
oil from Syria-Lebanon to ... wherever ... but they don't have enough
ships to do the first, yet the second is at least a couple of orders
of magnitude greater in volume.

I'm sure you'll ignore the reality, though.

Phil
Duwop
2012-11-15 16:21:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich
On Nov 14, 6:53 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
I give you zero out ten. A very poor effort indeed.
Wow...now that really hurt.
Yes, he has to go into negative numbers before we can give you a gold
star.

Sorry about that, but rules are rules.

D
Michael Emrys
2012-11-15 20:56:41 UTC
Permalink
No pipelines north or west.
There was a pipeline west, an important one at that. It began at Kirkuk
and ran to Aditha where it divided into two pipelines. The northern
branch ran into Syria and terminated in Tripoli. That branch likely was
shut off as soon as the British had firm control of the entire length of
the line in Iraq. The southern branch ran through Palestine and
terminated at Haifa. The Haifa terminus was vital because that's where
the Mediterranean Fleet got its oil. I suspect but cannot confirm that
all the other petroleum for the Middle East/North Africa came via that
route as well. Possibly the only petroleum products that left Iraq and
Iran via the Persian Gulf went to India and points east, although once
again I cannot confirm that.

Michael
Rich
2012-11-16 01:12:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Emrys
There was a pipeline west, an important one at that. It began at Kirkuk
and ran to Aditha where it divided into two pipelines.
Of course you are correct Micheal. Good catch. The pipelines handled 4-
million tons per year by 1939. That's about 29-million barrels or
about 80,000 barrels per day. The problem - for the Germans - remains
that the production end was 856 kilometers from Haifa and 1,000 from
Tripoli. :)

And for the Germans to get to Kirkuk via Turkey they first have to
assemble the force to attack and occupy European Turkey from Greece
and Bulgaria. Then figure out how to cross the Bosphorus after they
have compromised its neutral status, then cross 2,000 kilometers of
Asia Minor, crossing a rather significant mountain range, before they
get to Kirkuk. Simple. :)

Cheers!
Michael Emrys
2012-11-16 05:23:35 UTC
Permalink
The problem - for the Germans - remains that the production end was
856 kilometers from Haifa and 1,000 from Tripoli.:)
And for the Germans to get to Kirkuk via Turkey they first have to
assemble the force to attack and occupy European Turkey from Greece
and Bulgaria. Then figure out how to cross the Bosphorus after they
have compromised its neutral status, then cross 2,000 kilometers of
Asia Minor, crossing a rather significant mountain range, before
they get to Kirkuk.
Just so. Hitler had many unrealizable fantasies, but even he was fairly
quickly persuaded that a conquest of Turkey by force was a non-starter
and wouldn't gain him anything much even if successful. His only hope in
that theater lay in convincing the Turks to join the Axis, and they were
far too cagey to buy into that one, especially after 1941 with the USSR
still unconquered and the Brits sitting on their doorstep.

And as been pointed out, even if by some miracle Germany gained access
to the Iraqi oilfields, they would have to rebuild the pumps and
refineries and recreate some kind of infrastructure to move the
products. And that was well beyond German industrial capacity with all
its other commitments.

Michael
Phil McGregor
2012-11-16 16:18:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Emrys
And as been pointed out, even if by some miracle Germany gained access
to the Iraqi oilfields, they would have to rebuild the pumps and
refineries and recreate some kind of infrastructure to move the
products. And that was well beyond German industrial capacity with all
its other commitments.
Indeed. And all the while they're shipping the bits and bobs to
reconstruct the entire middle eastern oil infrastructure (all special
order stuff, nothing off the shelf), they'd have to be simultaneously
supplying a fairly substantial ground and air force protecting said
infrastructure ... one presumes all this is piggybacked on the
nonexistent trucks and rail cars running over the nonexistent roads
and rail lines ;-)

Phil
Bay Man
2012-11-17 05:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Michael Emrys
And as been pointed out, even if by some miracle Germany gained access
to the Iraqi oilfields, they would have to rebuild the pumps and
refineries and recreate some kind of infrastructure to move the
products. And that was well beyond German industrial capacity with all
its other commitments.
Indeed.
You must stop making things up as you go along. The Germans had the
Technical Oil Brigade a groups of 15,000 oil specialists to repair Soviet
oil fields. 6,000 of the Brigade were with Army Group A in the drive into
the Caucasus. New oil companies like Ost-Öl and Karpaten-Öl were created to
exploit Caucasus oil.
Michael Emrys
2012-11-17 06:07:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bay Man
You must stop making things up as you go along.
Now that is really funny, coming from you. It really doesn't matter how
many men the Germans might have had ready for the task, it could have
been thousands for that matter. They did not have, nor did they have any
hope of having while the war was still in progress, the necessary
materials to return the oilfields to production, to refine the
petroleum, nor to move the finished product to where it was needed. That
you fail to grasp this simple fact even though the details of it have
been pointed out to you speaks volumes of how you conduct yourself in
this group.

Michael
Bay Man
2012-11-17 17:53:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Emrys
Post by Bay Man
You must stop making things up as you go along.
Now that is really funny, coming from you. It really doesn't matter how
many men the Germans might have had ready for the task, it could have
been thousands for that matter. They did not have, nor did they have any
hope of having while the war was still in progress, the necessary
materials to return the oilfields to production,
The Germans thought differently. They kept troops in the south to gain oil
when Stalingrad was desperate for more men. They vlaued oil so highly. WW2
was a war of "oil".
Post by Michael Emrys
to refine the petroleum, nor to move the finished product to where it was
needed.
They extracted 4.7 million tons of oil from the USSR. The problem was that
they were not in the Caucasus for very long before being ejected. They had
started to drill new wells.

Once again, stop making things up as you go along. Having Rich here is fun
enough.
Michael Emrys
2012-11-18 05:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bay Man
The Germans thought differently.
It doesn't matter what "they" might have thought. The reality was that
it was beyond their means. They also thought that they would conquer the
USSR in one summer's campaigning.
Post by Bay Man
...to refine the petroleum, nor to move the finished product to where it
was needed.
They extracted 4.7 million tons of oil from the USSR.
But they couldn't do that AND revive oil production in the Middle East
and move it to where it was needed.

Michael
Bay Man
2012-11-18 19:17:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bay Man
The Germans thought differently.
It doesn't matter what "they" might have thought. The reality was that it
was beyond their means. They also thought that they would conquer the USSR
in one summer's campaigning.
Post by Bay Man
...to refine the petroleum, nor to move the finished product to where it
was needed.
They extracted 4.7 million tons of oil from the USSR.
But they couldn't do that AND revive oil production in the Middle East and
move it to where it was needed.
This they thought they could do. You must also take into account Germany's
cajoling of Japan if Germany got a warm water Gulf port.
Rich
2012-11-18 19:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Emrys
Post by Bay Man
They extracted 4.7 million tons of oil from the USSR.
But they couldn't do that AND revive oil production in the Middle East
and move it to where it was needed.
Even better than that Michael. As usual, bayman is playing fast and
loose with reality. The "4.7 million tons" received from the USSR was
pre-Barbarossa and has nothing to do with the conditions that existed
***after the Germans attacked the Soviet Union***. As Phil noted,
under those conditions, the Germans extracted a few ***thousand
tons*** of oil from the USSR.

Cheers!
Phil McGregor
2012-11-17 17:53:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 00:12:02 -0500, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Michael Emrys
And as been pointed out, even if by some miracle Germany gained access
to the Iraqi oilfields, they would have to rebuild the pumps and
refineries and recreate some kind of infrastructure to move the
products. And that was well beyond German industrial capacity with all
its other commitments.
Indeed.
You must stop making things up as you go along. The Germans had the
Technical Oil Brigade a groups of 15,000 oil specialists to repair Soviet
oil fields. 6,000 of the Brigade were with Army Group A in the drive into
the Caucasus. New oil companies like Ost-...l and Karpaten-...l were created to
exploit Caucasus oil.
And you would do well to get something resembling a clew.

The Germans did, indeed, have such a group - entirely committed ...
*entirely* committed to the Caucasus ...

... and they were *oh* so successful in getting a few wells back in
operation.

IIRC, at their best, just before the Soviets booted them out, they
were managing ... well, read the review below ...

"When the Germans reached Khadyzhensk (southwest of Maikop) in August
1942, they were horrified to find the oilfields in a condition much
worse than even their most pessimistic imaginings had anticipated.
Bentz visited the oilfields and reported, “[e]verything is broken. It
is gruesome to look at.

Every nail has to be brought along [from Germany]” (p. 125). For the
next four months, the Technical Brigade Mineral Oil (TBM) worked
desperately to return the oilfields to working condition: “The
recklessness with which the German leadership adhered to its oil
strategy becomes conspicuously apparent when one considers that in
this time not a single major military unit was sent from the Caucasus
to support the relief of Stalingrad” (p. 129). Ultimately, this
dedication to the oilfields of the Caucasus would produce less than
1,000 tons of oil – most of it used locally by the TBM itself."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/towards-a-great-german-oil-empire/13884

1000 tons of oil in 4 months.

Virtually none of which reached Germany or German forces in the main
battle theater.

Their production rate was 70 barrels per day. And that's crude oil,
not refined. And they had no real way of getting it back home to
refine anyway, not even if they'd stopped using the pathetically
inadequate russian road net in the area ...

If you did even a modicum of research, you'd find that the Soviets
produced around 21 million metric tons in the last full year before
the Germans arrived, basically destroyed the field, and took two more
years to get it back to less than 50% production ... and that was with
Lend Lease supplying entire refineries to the USSR, something that,
strangely, wasn't going to happen with Germany ;-P

As for the strength of the Technical Oil Brigade, only about a third
was with the Army in the Caucasus, so about 5-6000 men.

Sounds like a lot ... until you have to re-drill 300+ wells, rebuild
all the pipelines and pumping stations ... and that begs the question
of transport, which was the responsibility of the Rail Transport
Units, which were never able to keep up with the logistic requirements
of the German forces in the East *as it was* ...

Like I said, please *do* get a clew.

Though none of us will be holding our breath.

Phil
Bay Man
2012-11-18 19:28:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 00:12:02 -0500, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Michael Emrys
And as been pointed out, even if by some miracle Germany gained access
to the Iraqi oilfields, they would have to rebuild the pumps and
refineries and recreate some kind of infrastructure to move the
products. And that was well beyond German industrial capacity with all
its other commitments.
Indeed.
You must stop making things up as you go along. The Germans had the
Technical Oil Brigade a groups of 15,000 oil specialists to repair Soviet
oil fields. 6,000 of the Brigade were with Army Group A in the drive into
the Caucasus. New oil companies like Ost-...l and Karpaten-...l were created to
exploit Caucasus oil.
And you would do well to get something resembling a clew.
The Germans did, indeed, have such a group - entirely committed ...
*entirely* committed to the Caucasus ...
Good you looked it up.
Post by Phil McGregor
... and they were *oh* so successful in getting a few wells back in
operation.
They started drilling but German forces were not in the Caucasus that long
before having to retreat. While there they were also under attack.
Phil McGregor
2012-11-18 23:21:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:28:35 -0500, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Post by Phil McGregor
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 00:12:02 -0500, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Michael Emrys
And as been pointed out, even if by some miracle Germany gained access
to the Iraqi oilfields, they would have to rebuild the pumps and
refineries and recreate some kind of infrastructure to move the
products. And that was well beyond German industrial capacity with all
its other commitments.
Indeed.
You must stop making things up as you go along. The Germans had the
Technical Oil Brigade a groups of 15,000 oil specialists to repair Soviet
oil fields. 6,000 of the Brigade were with Army Group A in the drive into
the Caucasus. New oil companies like Ost-...l and Karpaten-...l were created to
exploit Caucasus oil.
And you would do well to get something resembling a clew.
The Germans did, indeed, have such a group - entirely committed ...
*entirely* committed to the Caucasus ...
Good you looked it up.
Post by Phil McGregor
... and they were *oh* so successful in getting a few wells back in
operation.
They started drilling but German forces were not in the Caucasus that long
before having to retreat. While there they were also under attack.
AIUI the Germans did little or no drilling as they had little or no
drilling *equipment* ... what little oil they managed to extract was
done with little better than hand tools (some mechanised equipment,
but no drilling rigs) ... and they managed a massive ...

*70 barrels* per *day*

... at their peak of production.

To give you can idea of the limits they were operating under ... not
that you'll be able to grasp it ...

In the last year of full production, the whole of the Caucasus region
produced c. 21 million tons of oil (that's 41-42, not including Baku,
AIUI) ... as the Germans approached, the Russians basically "shut
down" all the threatened wells, and production dropped to ... zero.

When the Russians threw the Germans out, it took them till 1944-45,
with Lend Lease providing most, if not all, of the ironmongery needed,
to get the fields back to 50% production.

And that ironmongery included not only all or most of the pipes,
drilling equipment, pumps and refineries, but pretty much all of the
rails, rolling stock and locomotives to move the stuff anyway ...

Now, from historical records, we know that the Germans didn't ...

a) Have the spare iron and steel production capacity to provide the
needed iron and steel to industry to allow it to ...

b) Produce enough of pretty much anything *as it was* or ...

c) That is, they had no spare capacity to produce whole refineries,
thousands of tanker cars (they didn't have enough as it was, and they
never had the capacity to produce the number of any type of rolling
stock they needed to supply their conquests ... especially in Russia
... and, indeed, that's one of several reasons that they were never
able to run the entire Russian rail net), hundreds of miles of
pipelines, loco repair and maintenance machinery and even simple
things like water towers for steam locos (the latter two things being
why they were never able to get most of the Russian rail net back into
useful operation)

d) None of this was for want of *desire* to do these things ... it was
for want of *capability* ... they could do a + b + c, but they also
wanted to do d + e + f + g + h + i ... and, short of stopping a and/or
b and/or c to switch factories to doing d, e, f, g, h, i etc. they
simply couldn't manage it.

But you're only interested in handwaving fantasies, so you won't grasp
this.

Phil
Michael Emrys
2012-11-19 05:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
Now, from historical records, we know that the Germans didn't ...
a) Have the spare iron and steel production capacity to provide the
needed iron and steel to industry to allow it to ...
b) Produce enough of pretty much anything*as it was* or ...
c) That is, they had no spare capacity to produce whole refineries,
thousands of tanker cars (they didn't have enough as it was, and they
never had the capacity to produce the number of any type of rolling
stock they needed to supply their conquests ... especially in Russia
... and, indeed, that's one of several reasons that they were never
able to run the entire Russian rail net), hundreds of miles of
pipelines, loco repair and maintenance machinery and even simple
things like water towers for steam locos (the latter two things being
why they were never able to get most of the Russian rail net back into
useful operation)
d) None of this was for want of*desire* to do these things ... it was
for want of*capability* ... they could do a + b + c, but they also
wanted to do d + e + f + g + h + i ... and, short of stopping a and/or
b and/or c to switch factories to doing d, e, f, g, h, i etc. they
simply couldn't manage it.
I think this deserves repeating since it more comprehensively
establishes the point I was trying to make earlier. This was the reality
that no amount of wishful thinking, either on Hitler's part or Bayman's,
will make go away.

Bottom line, the Germans would never have been able to extract any
useful amount of oil from the Middle East while the war and the
necessary if inadequate production of other war materials was still
under way. They could, if a miracle happened and they managed to
actually capture and control the ground the oil wells/production
facilities occupied, or even to significantly damage those through
bombing, have denied their use by the Allies for a while. That might
have had some strategic significance, but it would have done nothing to
alleviate Germany's chronic oil shortage.

If there is any lesson you should have taken from your reading of Tooze,
it should be that Germany had no business starting a war with the
world's major powers. If it could not decisively win by the end of 1941,
its goose was already in the oven and it was mostly just a matter of
time before it was thoroughly cooked, given the Allied determination to
reach that end.

Michael
Bay Man
2012-11-19 15:33:58 UTC
Permalink
Bottom line, the Germans would never have been able to extract any useful
amount of oil from the Middle East while the war and the necessary if
inadequate production of other war materials was still under way.
If the circled the Med they could. Then the possibility of Japan entering
the war, or assisting in rebuilding infrastructure as they would get
important oil.

Germany had access to weapons grade iron ore from Sweden and plentiful lower
grade ore and coal in Germany. Industry ran on coal. As we know Germany
still managed to produce an amazing amount of arms considering the
devastation their industry had suffered, right into 1945.

Germany invaded the USSR to get a variety of resources to prepare for the
coming air war. Oil was one of those resources. Germany was short of oil
for its forces, but the fuel for industry and trains was coal, which was not
a great problem to that of oil.
If there is any lesson you should have taken from your reading of Tooze,
it should be that Germany had no business starting a war with the world's
major powers. If it could not decisively win by the end of 1941, its goose
was already in the oven and it was mostly just a matter of time before it
was thoroughly cooked, given the Allied determination to reach that end.
Michael, you got that right.

Now back to Hitler's choice in 1941.

1. Move into Turkey and into the Middle East via Syria and hope to circle
the Med - ensuring oil along the way. Then be in a position of strength to
invade the USSR and hopefully eliminating the British army from matters.
Also eventually enacting the Mesopotamia plan.[1]

2. Attack the USSR gaining oil and other valuable resources and food and
satisfying the dream of a Greater Germany - all in one swoop. Then prepare
for the coming air war with the UK.

[1]
Tooze

Page 441:

"Once the Soviet Union had been defeated, powerful armoured columns would be
launched into the Middle East and northern India from bases in Libya,
Anatolia and the Caucasus. To deliver this death blow, the Generals dreamed
of a vast fleet of 36 Panzer divisions, 15,000 strong. An internal planning
document produced by the army in May 1941 called for the production of
almost 40,000 tanks and 130,000 half-tracks over the next three years.

These schemes for a Eurasian war on a scale not seen since Alexander the
Great have generally been dismissed as little more than thought-experiments.
In fact, however, tank production by the end of the war comfortably exceeded
the quantities specified in the army's Mesopotamian fantasy. And this
increase in production was only possible because the army's post-Barbarossa
planning did not remain on paper."
Bill
2012-11-19 19:04:02 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:33:58 -0500, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Bottom line, the Germans would never have been able to extract any useful
amount of oil from the Middle East while the war and the necessary if
inadequate production of other war materials was still under way.
If the circled the Med they could.
I haven't heard this lunacy mentioned since I was a teenage wargamer
and the 'SS fan club' once mentioned it, to gales of laughter from
all else there.
Post by Bay Man
"Once the Soviet Union had been defeated, powerful armoured columns would be
launched into the Middle East and northern India from bases in Libya,
Anatolia and the Caucasus.
How the Hell do those armoured columns get into India?

The only practical route (and use of the word 'practical' here is very
very shaky) is through Persia and on to Karachi.

It's 5,000 Km from Stalingrad to Karachi...


To deliver this death blow, the Generals dreamed
Post by Bay Man
of a vast fleet of 36 Panzer divisions, 15,000 strong. An internal planning
document produced by the army in May 1941 called for the production of
almost 40,000 tanks and 130,000 half-tracks over the next three years.
And about two million trucks...
Post by Bay Man
These schemes for a Eurasian war on a scale not seen since Alexander the
Great have generally been dismissed as little more than thought-experiments.
In fact, however, tank production by the end of the war comfortably exceeded
the quantities specified in the army's Mesopotamian fantasy. And this
increase in production was only possible because the army's post-Barbarossa
planning did not remain on paper."
And they didn't mention then logistical effort required.

Or the teeny tiny fact that the roads are even worse than in Russia,
but with even more hostile locals and even less familiar food.

And when they get there the Indian Army is waiting for them...
Rich
2012-11-19 21:04:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:33:58 -0500, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
If the circled the Med they could.
I haven't heard this lunacy mentioned since I was a teenage wargamer
I'm not even sure I know what he means by "if the circled the Med"?
The mind truly boggles at the malaprops. "The" what? "Circled" around
the Med? Or "encircled the Med"?
Bill
2012-11-19 21:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich
Post by Bill
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:33:58 -0500, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
If the circled the Med they could.
I haven't heard this lunacy mentioned since I was a teenage wargamer
I'm not even sure I know what he means by "if the circled the Med"?
The mind truly boggles at the malaprops. "The" what? "Circled" around
the Med? Or "encircled the Med"?
It's the lunatic theory that the German army the would strike south
from Russia and through Georgia and Armenia and then across Turkey
(who would, of course, declare for the Axis) Iraq, Syria and
Palestine and on to Egypt so making the Med a German lake.

It's about as likely as Nazi flying saucers on the moon...
Phil McGregor
2012-11-19 21:40:43 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:33:58 -0500, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Bottom line, the Germans would never have been able to extract any useful
amount of oil from the Middle East while the war and the necessary if
inadequate production of other war materials was still under way.
If the circled the Med they could. Then the possibility of Japan entering
the war, or assisting in rebuilding infrastructure as they would get
important oil.
<sigh> You're being *deliberately* obtuse now.

Even if they encircled the Moon they wouldn't have had the industrial
capacity to produce what they needed even if the resources they might
have captured were in a usable and accessible state, which they either
weren't or wouldn't be, despite your amazing levels of handwaving and
ignorance.

On top of that, making the whole lunatic proposition even crazier is
the fact that they had neither the transport capacity to move the
goodies from where they were mined to where they would need to be
processed or used in factories ... and they didn't have the industrial
capacity, either at all or spare, to increase the capacity of their
transport links.

Wishful thinking cheerful charlies fantasies notwithstanding.
Post by Bay Man
Germany had access to weapons grade iron ore from Sweden and plentiful lower
And never enough. And, in any case, if you'd actually *read* or
*understood* Tooze, which you obviously haven't despite your
irrelevant quotes from his book, they didn't have any spare iron/steel
*production* capacity and never managed to build it ... because the
resources needed to do that were in use for more important things,
like guns, tanks, planes, trucks, warships and munitions.
Post by Bay Man
grade ore and coal in Germany. Industry ran on coal. As we know Germany
Indeed it did. However, the Heer, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine didn't.

They ran on petroleum products.
Post by Bay Man
still managed to produce an amazing amount of arms considering the
devastation their industry had suffered, right into 1945.
So what?
Post by Bay Man
Germany invaded the USSR to get a variety of resources to prepare for the
coming air war. Oil was one of those resources. Germany was short of oil
for its forces, but the fuel for industry and trains was coal, which was not
a great problem to that of oil.
And gaining those resources proved futile as German industry was
largely incapable of doing what needed to be done with them.
Especially the Oil.

Despite your fantasies to the contrary.

We won't be holding our breath for you to get a clew.

Phil
Bay Man
2012-11-16 16:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Emrys
The problem - for the Germans - remains that the production end was
856 kilometers from Haifa and 1,000 from Tripoli.:)
And for the Germans to get to Kirkuk via Turkey they first have to
assemble the force to attack and occupy European Turkey from Greece
and Bulgaria. Then figure out how to cross the Bosphorus after they
have compromised its neutral status, then cross 2,000 kilometers of
Asia Minor, crossing a rather significant mountain range, before
they get to Kirkuk.
Just so. Hitler had many unrealizable fantasies, but even he was fairly
quickly persuaded that a conquest of Turkey by force was a non-starter and
wouldn't gain him anything much even if successful.
He never thought Turkey was a non-starter. He was hoping Turkey would do as
Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria did and cooperate or be occupied. Turkey was
geographically between the Soviets, British, Vichy French and Germans.

Germany was Turkey's major trading partner in the 1930s. More than 50% of
Turkey's exports and imports were from Germany prior to WW2. In 1939 it
looked like Germany could not win against the UK and France.

Turkey signed a non-Aggression Pact with Nazi Germany in June 1941 - two
days before Barbarossa. Turkey sold chromite, a rare vital metal, to
Germany during World War II, only because the Brits foolishly did not renew
the agreement to buy it in 1941.
Turkey declared war on Germany in Feb 1945 along with: Ecuador, Paraguay,
Uruguay, Venezuela, Egypt (this was moot), Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia and
Argentina.

In May 1939 Anglo-Turkish Mutual Aid Agreement was signed - mutual aid in
the event of aggression or war,
In June 1939 Franco-Turkish Mutual Aid Agreement - similar to above. The
French gave up all claims to Hatay.

Even after invading Poland Germany never looked likely to win against
Britain and France who both had large Med fleets. After Poland in October
1939 the Turkish, British and French governments signed the
Anglo-French-Turkish Pact of Mutual Assistance and Friendship. The pact
stated Turkey be supplied with war materials to offer effective resistance
to an attack from its European frontiers.

Very few arms were delivered. Turkey was not equipped to declare war on
Germany. The pact stated, Turkey was not obliged to enter the war if it
brought on conflict with the USSR.

Britain, France and Turkey were not capable of preventing Germany and the
USSR from dividing Turkey, as they had with Poland. So, Turkey kept out of
the war. The pact also stated that in such a situation Turkey will observe
neutrality towards France and the UK. How they could do that when occupied
remained to be seen.

All countries were attempting to get Turkey involved when matter were going
"their" way. France and Britain pressurized Turkey to attack Nazi Germany.
The USSR put pressure on Turkey to attack Germany after being invaded.
Germany also pressurized Turkey into attacking the USSR, when the USSR was
at its weakest.

Turkey were pro the Allies and allowed a secret naval raiding base to
operate in Turkey at Deremen:
http://www.thenationalherald.com/pdf/629/p11.pdf

However Turkey would bend to prevent occupation hence the 1941 pact with
Germany, as Romania and Finland did. If Germany moved into Turkey there was
little they could do and they may have cooperated as other eastern European
nations had done. A part of the British/French guarantee that brought to war
was the protection of Poland "and" Romania. Romania not only moved sides to
prevent German occupation but gave troops to Germany.
Post by Michael Emrys
Germany gained access to the Iraqi oilfields, they would have to rebuild
the pumps and refineries and recreate some kind of infrastructure to move
the products.
They knew that and had teams ready to rebuild the infrastructure. The
Germans extracted approx 4.7 million barrels from the Soviet Union, although
none of it Caucasian oil.
Rich
2012-11-16 20:03:28 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 16, 11:53 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
He never thought Turkey was a non-starter. He was hoping Turkey would do as
Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria did and cooperate or be occupied. Turkey was
geographically between the Soviets, British, Vichy French and Germans.
Reference? Context? Proof?

Turkey declared itself a non-belligerent on June 26, 1940. Hitler
established the terms of Germany's observance of Turkish neutrality in
a letter to President Inonu in March 1941. Turkey's frontier was
guaranteed and German troops
would be allowed no closer than 20 miles from the Bulgarian-Turkish
border. The German-Turkish Treaty of Friendship of June 18, 1941,
confirmed the guarantees and added the mutual undertaking to make no
hostile action, directly or indirectly, against each other. Germany
was a bit too busy four days later for it to contemplate an invasion
of Turkey.

(snip irrelevancies regarding German-Turkish and Allied-Turkish
economic and diplomatic relations that have ***zero bearing*** on
Hitler's intentions, German plans, or the feasibility of such a hair-
brained operation)
Post by Bay Man
Turkey were pro the Allies and allowed a secret naval raiding base to
operate in Turkey at Deremen:http://www.thenationalherald.com/pdf/629/p11.pdf
Uh, yeah...in 1943. About as relevant as Fall GERTRUD...
Post by Bay Man
They knew that and had teams ready to rebuild the infrastructure.
Well of course they did. They also had flying saucers, Antarctic and
Moon bases, and death rays.
Bay Man
2012-11-17 05:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich
On Nov 16, 11:53 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
He never thought Turkey was a non-starter. He was hoping Turkey would do as
Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria did and cooperate or be occupied. Turkey was
geographically between the Soviets, British, Vichy French and Germans.
Reference? Context? Proof?
Turkey declared itself a non-belligerent on June 26, 1940.
As if that made any difference in WW2.

< snip irrelevance >
Michael Emrys
2012-11-16 22:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bay Man
Post by Michael Emrys
The problem - for the Germans - remains that the production end was
856 kilometers from Haifa and 1,000 from Tripoli.:)
Just so. Hitler had many unrealizable fantasies, but even he was
fairly quickly persuaded that a conquest of Turkey by force was a
non-starter and wouldn't gain him anything much even if successful.
He never thought Turkey was a non-starter.
You really need to work on your reading comprehension. What part of
"...a *conquest of Turkey by force* was a non-starter..." was it that
escaped your attention?
Post by Bay Man
Post by Michael Emrys
Germany gained access to the Iraqi oilfields, they would have to
rebuild the pumps and refineries and recreate some kind of
infrastructure to move the products.
They knew that and had teams ready to rebuild the infrastructure.
Good grief. [sarcastic] And just what were these "teams" supposed to use
as equipment for oil extraction, refining, and transportation?
[/sarcastic] This issue has already been addressed more than once in
this thread. Are you really that illiterate?

Michael
Rich
2012-11-17 05:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Emrys
Good grief. [sarcastic] And just what were these "teams" supposed to use
as equipment for oil extraction, refining, and transportation?
Michael, now don't be so harsh. I forgot, they also had unicorns,
kittens, and moonbeams...which is about the sum of the argument to
this point.

Cheers!
Bay Man
2012-11-17 05:12:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Emrys
Post by Bay Man
Post by Michael Emrys
Just so. Hitler had many unrealizable fantasies, but even he was
fairly quickly persuaded that a conquest of Turkey by force was a
non-starter and wouldn't gain him anything much even if successful.
He never thought Turkey was a non-starter.
You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
I suggest you do the same. Turkey was one poorly defended country away from
German forces and oil.
Post by Michael Emrys
Post by Bay Man
They knew that and had teams ready to rebuild the infrastructure.
Good grief. [sarcastic] And just what were these "teams" supposed to use
as equipment for oil extraction, refining, and transportation?
The Technical Oil Brigade, 15,000 strong.
Michael Emrys
2012-11-17 06:07:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bay Man
Post by Michael Emrys
Good grief. [sarcastic] And just what were these "teams" supposed to
use as equipment for oil extraction, refining, and transportation?
The Technical Oil Brigade, 15,000 strong.
What part of "equipment" do you not understand?

Michael
Bay Man
2012-11-17 17:53:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Emrys
Post by Bay Man
Post by Michael Emrys
Good grief. [sarcastic] And just what were these "teams" supposed to
use as equipment for oil extraction, refining, and transportation?
The Technical Oil Brigade, 15,000 strong.
What part of "equipment" do you not understand?
What part of "Technical Oil Brigade, 15,000 strong" do you not understand?
Padraigh ProAmerica
2012-11-17 18:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Re: univ lecture videos

Group: soc.history.war.world-war-ii Date: Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 12:53pm
From: ***@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam (Bay Man)
"Michael Emrys" <***@olypen.com> wrote in message news:***@posted.olypeninternet...
On 11/16/12 9:12 PM, Bay Man wrote:
Good grief. [sarcastic] And just what were these "teams" supposed to use
as equipment for oil extraction, refining, and transportation?
The Technical Oil Brigade, 15,000 strong.
What part of "equipment" do you not understand?
What part of "Technical Oil Brigade, 15,000 strong" do you not
understand?

===============REPLY========

Number of people doesn't matter.

They did not have the SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT needed, nor did they have
the ability to fabricate it.

NOW do you understand?
------------------------------

--
"Again and again we have owed peace to the fact we were prepared for
war."--

Theodore Roosevelt
Bay Man
2012-11-18 19:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Padraigh ProAmerica
They did not have the SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT needed, nor did they have
the ability to fabricate it.
They did and started drilling wells.
Post by Padraigh ProAmerica
NOW do you understand?
You must stop making things up.
Phil McGregor
2012-11-17 17:54:05 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 00:12:48 -0500, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Post by Michael Emrys
Post by Bay Man
Post by Michael Emrys
Just so. Hitler had many unrealizable fantasies, but even he was
fairly quickly persuaded that a conquest of Turkey by force was a
non-starter and wouldn't gain him anything much even if successful.
He never thought Turkey was a non-starter.
You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
I suggest you do the same. Turkey was one poorly defended country away from
German forces and oil.
Post by Michael Emrys
Post by Bay Man
They knew that and had teams ready to rebuild the infrastructure.
Good grief. [sarcastic] And just what were these "teams" supposed to use
as equipment for oil extraction, refining, and transportation?
The Technical Oil Brigade, 15,000 strong.
And the 1/3 of them committed to the Caucasus managed to produce a
massive *70* barrels *per DAY* at peal production, around 1000 tons
(mostly used by their own machinery) over the period of occupation.

They had to get somewhere around 350+ wells back into operation,
rebuild all the wellheads and pipelines and pumping stations. And they
managed *so* well.

70 barrels per DAY based on the efforts of 5000 men for four months.

So, applying the whole 15000 would have given ... 210 barrels a DAY?!?

Get a clew.

Phil
Rich
2012-11-17 17:54:39 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 17, 12:12 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
I suggest you do the same. Turkey was one poorly defended country away from
German forces and oil.
Yes, a poorly defended country that by early 1941 had mobilized 48
divisions. By that time "German forces" were a wee bit busy.
Post by Bay Man
Post by Michael Emrys
Good grief. [sarcastic] And just what were these "teams" supposed to use
as equipment for oil extraction, refining, and transportation?
The Technical Oil Brigade, 15,000 strong.
I believe the intent is to issue them all buckets and stand in a long
line from Germany to Kirkuk. The ancillary force, the 2,000-strong Oil
Dinghy Brigade, was intended to span the Bosphorus.

BTW, the Technical Oil Brigade started as the Oil Kommando under Major
Erich Will, which in 1940 was all of 50 strong. There purpose was to
capture existing oil facilities intact - they had no actual capability
for exploring, drilling, or transporting oil - and then continue with
existing production. By late August 1942, when the Germans were in the
hope of reaching Maikop, Professor Bentz, Plenipoteniary for Oil,
complained that no drilling teams were ready and that few of the 2,800
skilled oil workers planned for were available. So, yes, you do need
to work on your comprehension; 15,000 men does not miraculously solve
the problem of getting to oil fields that are thousands of kilometers
away, across an unspanned ocean strait and mountains, with no pipeline
or viable rail communications.
Bill Shatzer
2012-11-17 22:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Rich wrote:

-snip-
Post by Rich
So, yes, you do need
to work on your comprehension; 15,000 men does not miraculously solve
the problem of getting to oil fields that are thousands of kilometers
away, across an unspanned ocean strait and mountains, with no pipeline
or viable rail communications.
How then did the Soviets ship their oil to Germany pre-Barbarossa?

Germany received 4 million barrels from the SU in 1940 and about 1.5
million barrels in the first half of 1941 before the German invasion.

Presumably most, if not all, of this oil originated in the Caucasus oil
fields. There must have been SOME viable means of shipping it to Germany.
Phil McGregor
2012-11-18 00:05:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by Rich
So, yes, you do need
to work on your comprehension; 15,000 men does not miraculously solve
the problem of getting to oil fields that are thousands of kilometers
away, across an unspanned ocean strait and mountains, with no pipeline
or viable rail communications.
How then did the Soviets ship their oil to Germany pre-Barbarossa?
Germany received 4 million barrels from the SU in 1940 and about 1.5
million barrels in the first half of 1941 before the German invasion.
Presumably most, if not all, of this oil originated in the Caucasus oil
fields. There must have been SOME viable means of shipping it to Germany.
Looking at a map - rail.

The problem, as Rich noted, was "[no] *viable* rail communications"
... as you will know, but Nay Man certainly won't, the Germans were
never able to convert/run all the Russian rail lines for their own
purposes at any time and, especially in 1942 in the Caucasus, had far
outrun the railheads and relied on trucks and the like ... not a
*viable* means of shifting *lots* of oil.

Of course, the 70 barrels *a day* they actually *did* produce, at peak
output during their occupation, well, I guess they had enough
transport for *that* ...

But fuelling the entire German War Machine on 70 bbl would last about,
what, a few seconds?

;-)

Phil
Bay Man
2012-11-18 19:18:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by Rich
So, yes, you do need
to work on your comprehension; 15,000 men does not miraculously solve
the problem of getting to oil fields that are thousands of kilometers
away, across an unspanned ocean strait and mountains, with no pipeline
or viable rail communications.
How then did the Soviets ship their oil to Germany pre-Barbarossa?
Germany received 4 million barrels from the SU in 1940 and about 1.5
million barrels in the first half of 1941 before the German invasion.
Presumably most, if not all, of this oil originated in the Caucasus oil
fields. There must have been SOME viable means of shipping it to Germany.
Looking at a map - rail.
As the allies found in bombing German rail lines, they can be quickly put
back in order. The track beds are still there. Relaying rail lines into
Germany using existing beds is clearly not beyond the capability of Germany.
Which they did do in the USSR anyhow as the Soviets ripped up track as they
retreated. But the Soviets mainly evacuated rolling stock.
Phil McGregor
2012-11-19 01:18:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:18:45 -0500, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by Rich
So, yes, you do need
to work on your comprehension; 15,000 men does not miraculously solve
the problem of getting to oil fields that are thousands of kilometers
away, across an unspanned ocean strait and mountains, with no pipeline
or viable rail communications.
How then did the Soviets ship their oil to Germany pre-Barbarossa?
Germany received 4 million barrels from the SU in 1940 and about 1.5
million barrels in the first half of 1941 before the German invasion.
Presumably most, if not all, of this oil originated in the Caucasus oil
fields. There must have been SOME viable means of shipping it to Germany.
Looking at a map - rail.
As the allies found in bombing German rail lines, they can be quickly put
back in order. The track beds are still there. Relaying rail lines into
Germany using existing beds is clearly not beyond the capability of Germany.
Which they did do in the USSR anyhow as the Soviets ripped up track as they
retreated. But the Soviets mainly evacuated rolling stock.
Look, I know you have not the slightest interest in anything even
vaguely resembling actual facts, but ... there were several reasons
the Germans were never able to utilise the bulk of the Soviet rail net
... of which converting the 5'3" soviet gauge to 4'8.5" was never one
...

a) Larger soviet locos (wider, see) carried more coal and water. Now,
Steam locos need to re-coal and re-water regularly. This means, over
any distance, that they need intermediate water and coaling stops
between major destinations.

Since the Soviet locos were larger, the Germans found that they had
stationed these facilities about twice as far apart as German Locos
needed. They then had the bad manners to destroy them as they
retreated.

So, all of these had to be rebuilt, then guarded against partisans.

German planning was so efficient that they had actually not planned to
do any of this ... and had no manufactured replacements ready to be
put into place ... and had no plans for such to be manufactured ...
and had no capacity for such to be manufactured without diverting
resources from things like tanks, planes, guns, ships, munitions ...
y'know, only minor, unimportant, stuff like that.

But this was *relatively* simple ... or would have been except for the
lack of planning and lack of capacity to do it ... what was a
*massive* problem was ...

b) Steam engines need maintenance and repair facilities stationed
every couple of hundred klicks ... further apart in the USSR than in
Western Europe because of the larger Soviet locos needing the basic
maintenance (mostly de-scaling the water lines and boilers and
scraping the ash from the firebox etc ... something that can't be done
with hand tools) only about twice as far apart as the smaller Western
European ones.

These facilities used unique and specialised equipment. This equipment
was special order *only* ... it was specialised, see ... and was NOT
available "off the shelf".

The Germans needed, at the very least, they found, to build one of
these facilities between each existing Russian one ... and they found
that the Russians destroyed theirs as they retreated, meaning that the
Germans had to replace *them* as well.

And they'd made no plans whatsoever to either do any of that or to
produce any of the equipment needed.

And they had little or no spare capacity to produce it ... and, I
don't know how to break this to you, but complex, special order,
ironmongery has a long lead time ... you can't just order it today and
have it available in a week's time. The few places manufacturing it
already simply don't have that capacity, and converting other
factories not specialising in will take even longer, leaving aside the
loss of production during the effectively dead conversion phase ...

c) The German Barbarossa plans had relied on capturing lots of Soviet
Rolling stock ... sadly, the Russians had not been informed of this
plan, and had the extreme bad manners to move all of it out of the
threatened areas as a matter of extreme priority, even moving the
railwaymen while leaving their families behind ... and, for the stuff
they couldn't save, they blew it up or otherwise destroyed it.

What little could have been captured ... well, the Germans found that
the troops ... regardless of their orders ... loved nothing more than
shooting up moving trains ... they loved the sight of boilers shooting
steam or exploding ... and nothing was able to stop them doing this.

So, plans to capture all that rolling stock, which would have at least
ameliorated problems a) and b) was a nonstarter as well.

d) How much rolling stock did the Russians actually have? That's hard
to answer, but estimates seem to indicate that the Russians had
nowhere near enough for their own peacetime needs because of
inefficiencies inherent in the way a command economy works, at least
in peacetime.

How did they cope during the war, then?

Answer: Largely, they didn't.

They managed to survive long enough for shipments of Lend-Lease
Locomotives, Rolling Stock, track and Loco maintenance equipment to
start arriving in massive numbers.

IIRC, the Soviets produced something like *2* Locos during the post
Barbarossa period of the war ... and received something like 800 or
more through Lend Lease ... they produced virtually no trackage,
managing till Lend Lease stuff arrived by, quite literally, ripping up
existing track from lines they decided they could temporarily live
without and moving it elsewhere.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul is a sign of desperation.

The answer seems to be that, even if the Germans had managed to stop
their guys from shooting up/burning/blowing up all that Russian
rolling stock they came across, it would have been nowhere near enough
for German needs, anyway (and, indeed, the Germans did managed to keep
a small amount operational ...)

e) Manning it all. The Germans didn't have the trained manpower. And
it took some specialised training. That's why the USSR evacced their
train crews as an equal, extreme, priority, with their locos.

And why the US, for example, gave Railwaymen their own specialised
Social Security numbers right through to well into the post WW2
period.

They were *that* specialised and important.

German didn't have enough. And they didn't have any way of getting
more. They never had enough for the Army rail units, so the DBR
(German Railways) ran the whole of the occupied rail net as well as
the German one ... and never had enough personnel to do it.

As it was, one of the reasons why the Soviet winter attacks in 41/42
were so successful, initially, was because a huge chunk of the DBR
staff running the Russian rail net, being civvies, see, were on their
annual Xmas hols back with the family in Germany ... and the remaining
staff couldn't cope with the demands they suddenly faced ...

Bad planning, yes, but indicative of the deeper problem.

f) The Germans had problems during the entire war producing their own
rolling stock. They simply did not have enough steel and enough
factories ... that's why they needed to capture the Russian stuff ...
and they especially had trouble producing tanker cars (lots more
steel, lots more complex than the substantial wood box, flat and other
rolling stock) ... and never had enough, especially with ongoing
losses.

They were barely able to ship the POL they actually had around to
where it was needed, and their were constant complaints about the
shortages from all and sundry.

Now, *you* want to ship all that oil from the Caucasus on top of the
existing shortages (pre-Barvarossa it was, of course, shipped by
Soviet railways).

If you were actually paying attention to anything that I pointed out
you would understand that this was as close to impossible as you can
get.

Could they have done it *eventually* ... after many years of peace, or
at least many years of holding the Caucasus? Sure. Peacetime.

During the War?

Snowball's chance.

And, of course, that makes their chances of doing *that* and then
taking all that oil from Iraq even more impossible ... do I need to go
into the inadequacies of what one could laughingly call the Turkish,
Syrian, Lebanese and Iraqi transport nets?

Not that you have the slightest interest in facts, only in handwaving,
it seems.

Phil
Padraigh ProAmerica
2012-11-19 18:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Re: univ lecture videos

Group: soc.history.war.world-war-ii Date: Sun, Nov 18, 2012, 2:18pm
From: ***@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam (Bay Man)
"Phil McGregor" <***@pacific.net.au> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 17:11:45 -0500, Bill Shatzer <***@NOcornell.edu>
wrote:
Rich wrote:
-snip-
So, yes, you do need
to work on your comprehension; 15,000 men does not miraculously solve
the problem of getting to oil fields that are thousands of kilometers
away, across an unspanned ocean strait and mountains, with no pipeline
or viable rail communications.
How then did the Soviets ship their oil to Germany pre-Barbarossa?
Germany received 4 million barrels from the SU in 1940 and about 1.5
million barrels in the first half of 1941 before the German invasion.
Presumably most, if not all, of this oil originated in the Caucasus oil
fields. There must have been SOME viable means of shipping it to
Germany.
Looking at a map - rail.
As the allies found in bombing German rail lines, they can be quickly
put back in order. The track beds are still there. Relaying rail lines
into Germany using existing beds is clearly not beyond the capability of
Germany. Which they did do in the USSR anyhow as the Soviets ripped up
track as they retreated. But the Soviets mainly evacuated rolling stock.

=====================

This is an overlooked factor, The Germans couldn't use their rolling
stock in the USSR, as the Soviet railroads were a different gauge (track
width) from the Germans.

--
"Again and again we have owed peace to the fact we were prepared for
war."--

Theodore Roosevelt
Rich
2012-11-18 19:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
How then did the Soviets ship their oil to Germany pre-Barbarossa?
Sorry Bill, but I think you have been sucked into the weirdness that
is baymania. You see, we were discussing how bayman's notion that all
Hitler had to do was think of obtaining oil from "Mesapatamia" and it
would miraculously appear ready for use in Germany. His magical
incantation involved babbling about German-Turkish economics, then how
"easy" it would be for Germany to conquer Turkey, and then mentioning
a "15,000-man Mineral Oil Technical Brigade".

My observations were:

1. There was no oil pipeline from the Kirkuk dome fields via Turkey
and only a single-track railway.
2. It would not be easy for Germany - fully engaged with the USSR - to
conquer Turkey and advance 2,000-odd kilometers, crossing the
Bosphorus and the Taurus Mountains.
3. The Mineral Oil Brigade was ***not*** a unit filled with heavy
equipment, prepared to build oil pipelines and railroads for the
transportation of oil...it was a unit of industry specialists intended
to take over and run ***existing*** oil facilities captured
***intact*** by the Wehrmacht. As has been pointed out, by late-1942
German leadership were struggling just to find oil drillers and were
bemoaining the fact they had no means to repair the Caucausian oil
facilities that had been captured because of the damage the Soviets
had done to them before they abandoned them.

My observation regarding your comment is that it is irrelevent how
Germany shipped ***Soviet*** oil pre-Barbarossa, because we are ***not
talking about Soviet oil*** we are talking about ***Kirkuk oil*** in
northern Iraq.
Post by Bill Shatzer
Germany received 4 million barrels from the SU in 1940 and about 1.5
million barrels in the first half of 1941 before the German invasion.
Yes, they did, transhipped from Soviet railcars to German railcars.
Which has nothing to do with Turkey or Iraq.
Post by Bill Shatzer
Presumably most, if not all, of this oil originated in the Caucasus oil
fields. There must have been SOME viable means of shipping it to Germany.
Of course they did...prior to engaging in over a year of scortched
earth warfare. Which also has nothing to do with Turkey or Iraq.

So, assuming Germany attacks Turkey. The timeline of departure is
presumably sometime in 1942. Where does Germany develop the forces to
execute a new offensive against a new opponent which has mobilized 48
divisions to defend its territory. Yes, if the Germans can assemble a
viable force they can defeat the ill-armed Turks...in European Turkey.
What then? The neutrality of the Bosphorus has now been abrogated. The
Turks, Soviets, and British can now unit to prevent a German attack
across the Bosphorus. Where do the Germans get the naval forces
required? The air forces to support such an attack? And ***even if
they do succeed*** how do they then advance across Anatolia, the
Taurus Mountains, and seize Kirkuk? By that time PAIFORCE numbers at
least four Anglo-Indian divisions, more than enough to make an advance
across the mountains problematic for whatever logistically attenuated
German force can get that far. And if the German miracle continues and
they get to Kirkuk, the Germans have to then get the material to
rebuild the fields and create a previously non-existent oil-transit
route back to Turkey, across the Bosphorus, and on to Germany.

Do you see the problem now that I was addressing? :)

Cheers!
Bay Man
2012-11-18 23:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich
Post by Bill Shatzer
How then did the Soviets ship their oil to Germany pre-Barbarossa?
Sorry Bill, but I think you have been sucked into the weirdness
Transportation is weirdness. Wow.

< snip confused stuff >

The Germans actually knew about oil tankers.
Phil McGregor
2012-11-19 01:19:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 18:03:07 -0500, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Post by Rich
Post by Bill Shatzer
How then did the Soviets ship their oil to Germany pre-Barbarossa?
Sorry Bill, but I think you have been sucked into the weirdness
Transportation is weirdness. Wow.
< snip confused stuff >
The Germans actually knew about oil tankers.
Indeed, and they *knew* that they and the Italians had bugger all.
That's why they were shipping oil to the DAK in North Africa by
*flying* it across in 44 gallon drums.

Unlike you, they seem to have had an inkling of a clew.

Phil
Rich
2012-11-19 05:08:28 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 18, 6:03 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
The Germans actually knew about oil tankers.
Are you truly that stupid? Or simply that much a troll?

How ***EXACTLY*** is a German oil tanker supposed to get oil from
Kirkuk to Germany? Get a map, buy a clue, or, preferably, shut your
pie hole and let the adults continue the conversation.
Bay Man
2012-11-19 15:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich
On Nov 18, 6:03 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
The Germans actually knew about oil tankers.
Are you truly that stupid? Or simply that much a troll?
How ***EXACTLY*** is a German oil tanker supposed to get oil from
Kirkuk to Germany?
All the seas and land would be Axis controlled. Get it?
Rich
2012-11-19 17:17:37 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 19, 10:36 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Post by Rich
How ***EXACTLY*** is a German oil tanker supposed to get oil from
Kirkuk to Germany?
All the seas and land would be Axis controlled. Get it?
Yes, I do get it, the moronic pretense continues. To get oil from
Kirkuk to Germany requires:

1) German control of:
a) Kirkuk
b) the Tigris-Euphrates Basin
c) the Persian Gulf
d) the Red Sea or the Cape of Good Hope/South Africa
e) the Mediterranean or the South Atlantic
f) the Biscay Coast
g) The Channel

That, more or less, covers the "all of it" territory required. So how
***exactly*** does that happen in the real world rather than just in
the febrile lunacy that occupies your skull?
Phil McGregor
2012-11-19 21:41:45 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:36:32 -0500, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Post by Rich
On Nov 18, 6:03 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
The Germans actually knew about oil tankers.
Are you truly that stupid? Or simply that much a troll?
How ***EXACTLY*** is a German oil tanker supposed to get oil from
Kirkuk to Germany?
All the seas and land would be Axis controlled. Get it?
What part of "the Germans had virtually no Tankers, and what few they
did were all in the Baltic or North Sea" are you incapable of
grasping?

What part of "the Italians had virtually no Tankers, and what capacity
they did have was so inadequate that the Germans were forced to *fly*
fuel in *44 gallon drums* on *aircraft* to their forces in North
Africa" are you incapable of grasping?

<siggh>

*All* of it, it would seem.

Phil
Bill Shatzer
2012-11-19 05:58:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich
Post by Bill Shatzer
How then did the Soviets ship their oil to Germany pre-Barbarossa?
Sorry Bill, but I think you have been sucked into the weirdness that
is baymania.
Not sucked in, merely curious as to how they did it pre-Barbarosa.

Did any thing go by tanker across the Black Sea to the distribution
network in Romania?

I rather agree that Iraq and the Gulf is a dead end, at least in the
short and medium term. And I realize that Germans never captured Baku or
the other really big Caucasus oil fields and they didn't retain the
smaller ones long enough to repair the damage inflicted by the
retreating Soviets and get them into serious production.

But assuming they did capture the big oil fields and held them long
enough to repair the damage and ramp up serious production, why would
the pre-Barbarossa transportation method(s) be inadequate, at least at
the levels of pre-1941 supply?

Sorry, I was probably changing the premise (slightly) on you without
giving appropriate warning.

cheers,
Phil McGregor
2012-11-19 15:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by Rich
Post by Bill Shatzer
How then did the Soviets ship their oil to Germany pre-Barbarossa?
Sorry Bill, but I think you have been sucked into the weirdness that
is baymania.
Not sucked in, merely curious as to how they did it pre-Barbarosa.
Did any thing go by tanker across the Black Sea to the distribution
network in Romania?
There *are* Black Sea ports ... and, according to ...

http://www.allworldwars.com/USSR-Navy-1943-Part-II.html

... maps and photos provided of Batumi, Poti (and more) ...

... show oil facilities.

Batumi today can take Tankers up to 80000 tons, but ghu only knows
what it could, or did, handle then, and where they went.

But they could have been shipped to Romania.

*If* the Romanians, Italians, or Germans had a pot to piss in ... or,
putting it another way, had tankers to put oil in.

I believe you will find that there are many online comments to the
effect that what can laughingly be referred to as the Romanian "tanker
fleet" as it existed in WW2 was perennially inadequate to shipping oil
along the Danube, forget about through the Black Sea!
Post by Bill Shatzer
I rather agree that Iraq and the Gulf is a dead end, at least in the
short and medium term. And I realize that Germans never captured Baku or
the other really big Caucasus oil fields and they didn't retain the
smaller ones long enough to repair the damage inflicted by the
retreating Soviets and get them into serious production.
But assuming they did capture the big oil fields and held them long
enough to repair the damage and ramp up serious production, why would
the pre-Barbarossa transportation method(s) be inadequate, at least at
the levels of pre-1941 supply?
Sorry, I was probably changing the premise (slightly) on you without
giving appropriate warning.
They relied on Tankers belonging to other people, built in shipyards
belonging to other people, and often in countries they had no way of
getting to ... the US and UK tanker fleets, for example.

The problems with rail transport I have also mentioned elsewhere in
this thread.

Phil
Rich
2012-11-19 15:34:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
Not sucked in, merely curious as to how they did it pre-Barbarosa.
Did any thing go by tanker across the Black Sea to the distribution
network in Romania?
Not that I know of. The Romania distribution center as I understand it
consisted solely of a pipeline system connecting the producing fields
to the refineries and rail lines at Ploesti. There was no more
extensive European pipeline system; oil was primarily moved by river
barges and rail. Complicating the delivery of Soviet oil was the
difference between the Eastern and Western European rail gauges.
Post by Bill Shatzer
I rather agree that Iraq and the Gulf is a dead end, at least in the
short and medium term. And I realize that Germans never captured Baku or
the other really big Caucasus oil fields and they didn't retain the
smaller ones long enough to repair the damage inflicted by the
retreating Soviets and get them into serious production.
What is interesting is the reaction the Germans had when they
discovered the extent of the Soviet destruction of the Maikop fields.
Quite a bit of material was laboriously shipped in only to be lost
when the Soviet counteroffensive forced Heeresgruppe A's withdrawal
from the Caucasus. It is almost like the never thought about the
possibility the Soviets would destroy the fields more than a few
months ahead of time. Bentz's call for 2,800 specialist oil workers
was made apparently before BLAU kicked off, but six months later few
had arrived at Maikop.
Post by Bill Shatzer
But assuming they did capture the big oil fields and held them long
enough to repair the damage and ramp up serious production, why would
the pre-Barbarossa transportation method(s) be inadequate, at least at
the levels of pre-1941 supply?
Well, given the work they did at Maikop, I would judge it would have
taken them many months if not years to get serious production back on
line. The comparison to repairing the damage to Ploesti in the wake of
TIDALWAVE simply isn't valid. For one, the Germans and Rumanians
stockpiled large quantities of material there before the attack, just
for such a contingency and continued to do so until they finally had
to abandon Romania. For another, Ploesti was much closer to the German
resource heartland and was in the middle of a friendly and cooperative
country which owned the oil fields. Another problem the Germans would
have is the sheer distance and the lack of rail infrastructure -
essentially just two lines out of the Caucasus, one bottlenecking at
Rostov and the other at Stalingrad.

Of course, if the Germans managed to capture the oil fields, managed
to find the workers and equipment to bring them speedily online,
managed to relay rail lines to a new gauge and build new stations for
them, they could have railed the oil to Novosiversk, loaded them on
Black Sea oil tankers they didn't have and transport the oil to
Romania for transhipment. :)
Post by Bill Shatzer
Sorry, I was probably changing the premise (slightly) on you without
giving appropriate warning.
Yes, I understand...I was having a hard enough time envisaging oil
tankers sailing over the Taurus Mountains and plopping into the
Bosporus before sailing up the Danube and again taking flight over the
Alb to the Rhine. :)

Cheers!
Bay Man
2012-11-19 15:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich
Yes, I understand...I was having a hard enough time envisaging oil
tankers sailing over the Taurus Mountains and plopping into the
Bosporus before sailing up the Danube and again taking flight over the
Alb to the Rhine. :)
You are nearly there. From the oil fields to the block Sea coast is not that
far. Small tankers can sail up rivers from the Black Sea.

The Germans did know about pipelines and would have laid them over laying
rail. Although rail can transport all sorts of goods.
Rich
2012-11-19 19:37:31 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 19, 10:57 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
You are nearly there. From the oil fields to the block Sea coast is not that
far. Small tankers can sail up rivers from the Black Sea.
This is becoming retarded. From the Kirkuk oil field to Trabzon, the
closest port of any size in Turkey on the Black Sea, is 1,180
kilometers by single track rail. Kirkuk to Kadikoey across from
Istnabul is 1,959 kilometers. In Baymanese that equals "not that far".

The Danube was accessible at the time to ***barges*** and ***river
boats*** to Regensburg and Passau with a maxium size of 700 GRT.
Post by Bay Man
The Germans did know about pipelines and would have laid them over laying
rail. Although rail can transport all sorts of goods.
Yes, they knew about them and had the wherewithal to build a single
major piepline, from Zistersdorf, 45 kilometers NNE of Vienna to
Kolin, It was all of 300 kilometers long. Otherwise, the Germans
relied almost exclusively on barge and rail transport.
Phil McGregor
2012-11-19 21:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich
On Nov 19, 10:57 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
You are nearly there. From the oil fields to the block Sea coast is not that
far. Small tankers can sail up rivers from the Black Sea.
This is becoming retarded. From the Kirkuk oil field to Trabzon, the
closest port of any size in Turkey on the Black Sea, is 1,180
kilometers by single track rail. Kirkuk to Kadikoey across from
Istnabul is 1,959 kilometers. In Baymanese that equals "not that far".
Actually, by a *nonexistent* rail line, as the Berlin-Baghdad line had
been ripped up and all facilities destroyed by the British.

And ISTR that a thread on Turkish railway capacity here some years ago
pointed out ...

a) the general inadequate capacity of Turkish rail lines and equipment
in general ...

and

b) the even more limited capacity of the lines in the N/NE third of
the country, especially the lines running towards Russia.
Post by Rich
The Danube was accessible at the time to ***barges*** and ***river
boats*** to Regensburg and Passau with a maxium size of 700 GRT.
Of which neither the Germans nor the Romanians had enough suitable to
carry POL.

Phil
Rich
2012-11-19 22:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Rich
On Nov 19, 10:57 am, "Bay Man"
Actually, by a *nonexistent* rail line, as the Berlin-Baghdad line had
been ripped up and all facilities destroyed by the British.
No, it was existent, having finally been completed on 15 July 1940.
Whether or not the British would destroy it is a question of course.
But also of course that line was problematic for German use in any
case since it ran through Syria. :)
Post by Phil McGregor
And ISTR that a thread on Turkish railway capacity here some years ago
pointed out ...
Oh, come on now, they'll just "circle" it and that will solve the
problem. :)
Post by Phil McGregor
Of which neither the Germans nor the Romanians had enough suitable to
carry POL.
The extensive body of Oil Committee reports are rather illuminating on
the subject. One interesting point they make is that Rumanian refinery
capacity was excess to their needs and was part of their economic
plan. Part of the Rumanian Oil Law stipulated that only refined
Rumanian POL products could be exported. So if the Germans could
magically transport crude to Ploiesti they would be able to double
their output. On the other hand, also because of that there was little
incentive prewar for the Romanian's to develop their own tanker fleet
since they consumed a good part of their own refined product and
shipping refined POL by rail was easier and less bulky than shipping
crude by tanker.

And, as noted, the Axis did run through their rail tanker fleet pretty
quickly, while the barge fleet had problems. 700 ton barges could make
it to Regensburg, but the capacity of the Main Canal was only 400
tons, so they had to be transhipped - again - to make it further into
Germany. :)

Bay Man
2012-11-19 17:18:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
Did any thing go by tanker across the Black Sea to the distribution
network in Romania?
The Romanians has a good sizes tanker fleet. The Soviets came up with a
novel and effective way of transporting oil.....

"Then the naval experts of the Baku oil-tanker fleet performed an incredible
feat. For the first time in the world's history, they began towing a
floating railway of oil tankers (wagons) from Baku to Krasnovodsk
(Turkmenistan) as well as several thousands tons of oil reservoirs from
Makhachkala (Dagestan) to Krasnovodsk."

"The fleets were extremely overloaded. For example, the amount of oil
transport in July 1941 exceeded 10 million barrels of crude oil and fuel.
This amount was beyond the technical capabilities of the tanker fleet in
Baku. But the demands from Moscow did not take into account the physical
limitations. It was then that Baku naval experts hit upon the idea of
attaching whole tanks and cisterns to each other by steel ropes and lowering
them into the sea by cranes and towing them by steam tugs. This had never
been done before in any place in the world and it enabled them to tow up to
35 cisterns together or 3 huge oil tanks (5 ton capacity) with a single
tugboat."
Post by Bill Shatzer
I rather agree that Iraq and the Gulf is a dead end, at least in the short
and medium term.
But if they circled the Med?
Post by Bill Shatzer
And I realize that Germans never captured Baku or the other really big
Caucasus oil fields and they didn't retain the smaller ones long enough to
repair the damage inflicted by the retreating Soviets and get them into
serious production.
But assuming they did capture the big oil fields and held them long enough
to repair the damage and ramp up serious production, why would the
pre-Barbarossa transportation method(s) be inadequate, at least at the
levels of pre-1941 supply?
They would be damaged for sure. But the Axis powers would build new tankers,
rail etc, while still using the Romanian oil fields. The Germans and
Italians had no problems in transporting Romanian oil.

"Most of the Rumanian/ Hungarian oil products were supplied direct to the
armed forces in the Eastern areas [...] The total Rumanian crude production
was said to be roughly 6,000,000 tons/year. [...] German oil production:
1,920,000 tons/yeare, some 8-900,000 came from the Austrian fields,
6-700,000 tons/year from the Hanover district, 2000,000 tons/year from Heide
and the remainder from Baden and the Polish frontier area. The German
crudes, particularly those from Austria which contained only 5-7% petrol,
were particularly good for lubricating oil production"
Rich
2012-11-19 19:36:02 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 19, 12:18 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
The Romanians has a good sizes tanker fleet. The Soviets came up with a
novel and effective way of transporting oil.....
This gets funnier by the minute. In Baymanese, three equals "good
sizes". The Romanian merchant fleet at the outbreak of World war II
consisted of 98 steam and 13 motor vessels, of which three were
tankers totaling 22,625 GRT. Of those three, one, SS Oltenia, was
seized by the British in 1941.

(snip irrelevancy)
Post by Bay Man
But if they circled the Med?
Good grief!
Post by Bay Man
They would be damaged for sure. But the Axis powers would build new tankers,
rail etc, while still using the Romanian oil fields. The Germans and
Italians had no problems in transporting Romanian oil.
Yet again the baymanesque solution for everything, deny reality and
wish, really, really, really HARD! No, the Axis powers had little
capacity to build new tankers - and didn't - and had only marginally
greater capacity to build rail. By February 1943, the number of rail
tank cars available to the Axis (including captured stocks) had
increased from 57,010 prewar, to a peak of 60,450 in Autumn 1941,
before plummeting to just 25,183. The Germans and Italians had
***lots*** of problems in transporting Romanian oil. In terms of sea
transport, the biggest one, aside from the lack of tankers, was that
Constanta had only eight oil terminals, each of a maximum 8,000 GRT
capacity.

For a rather more thorough estimate of Axis oil transport capacity
than that fantasized by Bayman, see Allied Joint Intelligence
Committee, Enemy Oil Committee, European Axis Subcommittee: _Petroleum
Facilities of Germany. The Enemy Oil Committee of the Fuels and
Lubricants Division, Office of the Quartermaster General_, March 1945,
pp. 233-239 and the _Axis Oil Position_, 1943-1944, p. 35.

(snip more irrelevant bafflegab).
Phil McGregor
2012-11-19 21:44:22 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 12:18:49 -0500, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Post by Bill Shatzer
Did any thing go by tanker across the Black Sea to the distribution
network in Romania?
The Romanians has a good sizes tanker fleet. The Soviets came up with a
novel and effective way of transporting oil.....
"good sizes tanker fleet"

Really.

The *entire* Romanian Merchant Fleet, not including Danube Barges, was
according to Janes, the definitive source, 111,678 grt in 1939 ... a
whole *35* vessels, and did not increase at all during the war, but
declined, due to losses.

Norway, by comparison, had 3 *million* grt worth of merchantmen in
1940. Germany had 4.5 million GRT, approx, in 1939. Russia had 1.3
million grt.

Sounds like "good sizes tanker fleet" means something different in
Baymanese to what it does in English.

Rest of irrelevant material snipped.

Phil
Bay Man
2012-11-18 19:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich
On Nov 17, 12:12 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
I suggest you do the same. Turkey was one poorly defended country away from
German forces and oil.
Yes, a poorly defended country that by early 1941 had mobilized 48
divisions. By that time "German forces" were a wee bit busy.
Hitler was suggesting to moving into Turkey or more likely heavily lean on
them to have free passage. This was before Barabarossa. Germany was in
Greece. Turkey was hopelessly equipped relying on equipment from France and
the UK which dried up.

That is one question in Hitler's strategy. Why didn't he move into Turkey
then into Syria and the magic oil before him, and attempt to circle the Med
before committing all to Barbarossa. Then he would not be fighting on a
number of fronts when attacking the USSR and the USSR can be attacked from
the south as well. He started uprisings in Syria and Iraq in preparation,
which the British successfully suppressed in both countries - which also
importantly kept the battles in Europe and the Med. The Brits would need
supplying via the Cape while Germany's supply is shorter and easier.

If he circled the Med, the Med would be his, as would the vital Suez canal
and access to the Indian Ocean and ease of link up with Japan - Japan was
reluctant to go to war with the west, who would then be keen to join
Germany.

In Feb 1941. The Italian Navy was to drop all naval operations unless
Germany provided 25,000 tons of oil. The German surface navy was neutralized
in port through lack of fuel. Lack of oil was a problem.

Tooze
Page 439:

"In November 1941 the fuel oil situation of boththe Italian and German
navies was described by the Wehrmacht as'catastrophic'.35In May 1941 the
Royal Navy had sunk the battleshipBismarck as it made a futile bid to escape
into the Atlantic shippinglanes. By the autumn the rest of Germany's surface
fleet was confined toharbour, not only by the British but also by the
chronic lack of fuel."

Tooze
page 442:

"Shipments of oil to Britain peaked at more than 20 million tons, nine times
the maximum figure ever imported by Germany during the war. In January 1941,
when Germany is sometimes described as being 'glutted' with oil, stocks came
to barely more than 2 million tons. In London, alarm bells went off whenever
stocks fell below 7 million tons. So great was the disparity that the
British Ministry of Economic Warfare, charged with assessing Germany's
economic situation, had difficulty believing its highly accurate estimates
of German oil stocks. To the British it seemed implausible that Hitler could
possibly have embarked on the war with such a small margin of fuel security,
an incredulity shared by both the Soviets and the Americans, who agreed in
overestimating Germany's oil stocks by at least 100 per cent."

Why didn't Hitler concentrate all his forces on circling the Med and enact
the Mesopotamia plan? Germany was desperately short of oil so this made
sense as a priority. It would ensure that afterwards forces can concentrate
primarily on the USSR.

We needs a bit of Tooze here again.
"the strongest arguments for rushing to conquer the Soviet Union in 1941
were precisely the growing shortage of grain [because of the RN blockade]
and the need to knock Britain out of the war before it could pose a serious
air threat."

Hitler may have circled the Med and got oil and access to the Indian Ocean,
but by the time that happened the RAF would be smashing German cities and
industry with a air fleet he could not hope to match or counter. Hitler knew
the planes would be on-line late 41/early 42. Then his plan to conquer the
USSR would be ruined.

It was a case of:

1. Attempting to circle the Med.
2. Attempting to take the USSR.

The coming air war witht Britain was the deciding factor in rushing to
defeat the USSR. To Hitler, defeating the USSR was the quicker option which
would bring oil and other vital natural resources and the important grain.
Post by Rich
BTW, the Technical Oil Brigade started as the Oil Kommando under Major
Erich Will, which in 1940 was all of 50 strong. There purpose was to
capture existing oil facilities intact - they had no actual capability
for exploring, drilling,
By 1942 they had.
Rich
2012-11-19 05:08:07 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 18, 2:18 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Hitler was suggesting to moving into Turkey or more likely heavily lean on
them to have free passage. This was before Barabarossa.
No, as has already been explained to you, "before [Barbarossa]"
Germany executed a Friendship and Non-aggression Pact with Turkey. It
was to their advantage to do so. It isolated Greece among other
things. The matter did not come up again in any serious way until 28
June when OKW notified Rommel to begin planning for an offensive to be
concurrent with a proposed through Turkey to begin no earlier than
autumn 1941. However, by September it was obvious the expected Soviet
collapse was not happening and all available German reserves had been
drawn into the fighting. There was no serious planning for such an
operation until late 1942, as has also been explained to you. (Germany
and the Second World War, Vol III, 706-707)

(snip bafflegab)
Post by Bay Man
By 1942 they had.
No, they had not. As was already explained to you, the Mineral Oil
Brigade was not an engineering unit, it was a unit of specialist
operators. It had no training or capability for drilling, building oil
transportation infrastructure, or the like. In fall of 1942 it proved
impossible to find the 2,800 specialized oil workers required just to
get Maikop back into production. (Germany and the Second World War,
Vol VI, 1040)
Bay Man
2012-11-19 15:35:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich
On Nov 18, 2:18 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Hitler was suggesting to moving into Turkey or more likely heavily lean on
them to have free passage. This was before Barabarossa.
No,
Rich you deparately need some Tooze again

Tooze

Page 310

"If the Third Reich was to survive a truly global war, it would need to
extend its influence systematically to the oil fields of Romania and Iran.
Turkey thus took on a strategic importance as the gateway to the Middle
East. "

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/25881608
"DANGER OFINVASION

Sept 18 1941.
German Threat To Turkey
LONDON, Wednesday - The "Daily
Express" correspondent on the Ger-
man frontier says "A high source
has informed me that Turkey is in
imminent danger of invasion."Berlin
denies persistent reports of a
coming German offensive across Turkey,
but the fact remains that troops and war
materials have been heavily concentrat-
ed in Bulgaria. Further, Bulgaria for
no specific reason, on Sunday called up
three new classes of men and gave them
five hours in which to answer the call."

In early 1941 if Germany moved into Turkey the USSR "might" come in on the
Turkish side.


Even wiki.....

"A military coup d'état launched on 1 April 1941 by Rashid Ali Al-Gaylani
overthrew the regime in Iraq, which was sympathetic to Britain. The four
revolting generals worked closely with German intelligence, and accepted
military aid from Germany. Hitler asked Turkey for permission to pass
through Turkish territory to give Iraq military assistance. The Turkish
government demanded border concessions from Iraq in response to the German
request. As the negotiations were held, British forces attacked Iraq from 18
April on, and finally on 3 June, Britain restored the regime of Emir
Abdul-Illah, regent of four-year-old King Faisal II. The problem was
resolved with this development."


The Turks were prepared to allow German troops through to Iraq if they
gained some territory on the border. But Hitler's decided to invade the
USSR.
Rich
2012-11-19 17:17:07 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 19, 10:35 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Rich you deparately need some Tooze again
And you are in desperate need of a clue again.
Post by Bay Man
Tooze
Page 310
"If the Third Reich was to survive a truly global war, it would need to
extend its influence systematically to the oil fields of Romania and Iran.
Turkey thus took on a strategic importance as the gateway to the Middle
East. "
What in God's name does that have to do with your claims that:

1) Hitler planned on executing an invasion of Turkey:
a) Before "Babarossa"?
b) After "Babarossa"?
c) Any other time?
2) That it would have been simple for the Germans to get oil from
Kirkuk to Germany?
3) That it would be simple for the Germans to repair the Soviet
Caucasian oil fields and get that oil to Germany?
Post by Bay Man
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/25881608
"DANGER OFINVASION
Sept 18 1941.
German Threat To Turkey
LONDON, Wednesday - The "Daily
Express"
What does a ***British wartime news story*** have to do with decisions
taken withing the German government?
Post by Bay Man
In early 1941 if Germany moved into Turkey the USSR "might" come in on the
Turkish side.
And if you wish for something hard enough it comes true...
Post by Bay Man
Even wiki.....
"A military coup d' tat launched on 1 April 1941 by Rashid Ali Al-Gaylani
overthrew the regime in Iraq, which was sympathetic to Britain. The four
revolting generals worked closely with German intelligence, and accepted
military aid from Germany. Hitler asked Turkey for permission to pass
through Turkish territory to give Iraq military assistance. The Turkish
government demanded border concessions from Iraq in response to the German
request. As the negotiations were held, British forces attacked Iraq from 18
April on, and finally on 3 June, Britain restored the regime of Emir
Abdul-Illah, regent of four-year-old King Faisal II. The problem was
resolved with this development."
Exactly. "The problem was resolved with this development". The Germans
had 34 days to act to get the Turk's to cooperate, assemble the men
and material required, transport them across Turkey and to Iraq, and
defeat the British there, all while completing the conquest of
Yugoslavia, executing the invasion of Greece, and preparing for
Barbarossa. Simple.
Post by Bay Man
The Turks were prepared to allow German troops through to Iraq if they
gained some territory on the border. But Hitler's decided to invade the
USSR.
You truly cannot help yourself when it comes to making things up, like
fictitious timelines, can you? Hitler approved Barbarossa 5 December
1940 with a target D-Day of May 1941, delayed until June because of
weather.

***Hitler decided to invade the USSR five months before Rashid Ali's
revolt, the opening of German negotiations with the Turks, and the
crushing of the revolt by the British.***
Loading...