I was reading a book recently about German strategy in WWII. The author was arguing that Germany should have tried to conquer the Middle East and the Persian Gulf oilfields in 1941 rather than invade the Soviet Union. And there has been the issue about Hitler’s decision in 1942 to head south for the Caucasian oilfields rather than try to take Moscow and Leningrad. And a big factor in German foreign policy was gaining control of Romania’s oilfields.
But one thing which I don’t ever recall seeing mentioned was the North African oilfields. The Axis was fighting the British for control of North Africa but it always seems to be about ports and cities and the Suez Canal rather than oilfields. Is there some reason why control of the oilfields of Algeria, Egypt, and Libya seems to have been a non-issue in World War II?
Some of Egypt’s oil fields are close to the Gulf of Suez and others are in the Western Desert, but I’m not sure which ones are the ones that were active in the 1940s. In any case, Egypt generally seems to have less oil than the Arabian Peninsula.
The only time I’ve heard them referred to is during the North Africa campaign the British and German troops (who traded terrirtory regularly during the course of the war) would accuse each other of deliberately contaminating wells with motor oil before retreating. After the war it transpired that this was the result natural crude oil from the abundant sources in that region.
Ironic then, that Germany ended up fighting the Stalingrad campaign in the hopes of securing an oil supply when there were larger untapped oil fields underneath the land it already held.
Not impossible. Just challenging. N Africa is very close to Sicily.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Ironic then, that Germany ended up fighting the Stalingrad campaign in the hopes of securing an oil supply when there were larger untapped oil fields underneath the land it already held.
[/QUOTE]
Mein Fuhrer is rolling in that Russian filing cabinet he rests in. And cursing himself for not sending more geologists with the Afrika Corps.
That responsibility would have actually fallen on the Regia Marina, which had poor anti-submarine doctrine and equipment, and even in the real war lost many merchant ships and tankers to Allied attacks of various sorts. They also had only one carrier, which was in the late stages of construction by the time of the Italian surrender, and their various air arms were poorly coordinated with their fleet movements in any event.
I’ve always said the Axis could have secured the Mediterranean if they had wanted to. It wasn’t an issue of having to secure the entire sea - all they had to do was secure the Straits of Gibraltar and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, both of which were within reach. Then they would have controlled movement in and out of the entire Mediterranean, Red Sea, and Black Sea.
Various schemes to secure various oil fields are popular parts of “How Hitler Could Have Won” narratives. In truth though, give the Germans unlimited oil and they still lose.
The Soviets had vast military numerical superiority over the Germans. The United States had vast numerical superiority over the Germans (we should all be very thankful that unlike the Soviets, we did not have to lose so many of our soldiers to the Germans, because if not for the 15+ million dead Russians it almost certainly would have been 5-6 million dead GIs.) The United Kingdom also had a fairly large military, lots of natural resources in its Empire, and a big navy. Combined with the American navy Hitler had no realistic hope of ever controlling the sea lanes, even extremely aggressive U-Boat activity could not significantly diminish the vast shipping resources of the Allies and their overwhelming ability to out produce the Germans.
Even if the United States wasn’t actively in the war, long term the Soviets really had an overwhelming personnel advantage and they had way more tanks than the Germans ever did, and theirs were considered by many to be the best tanks during all of WWII. Oil doesn’t defeat the enemy, even without fueling concerns the Germans were vastly outnumbered and their enemies had for all intents and purposes unlimited tanks, trucks, planes and ships. Germany did not enjoy similar advantages.
I think it was more due to different priorities. The Soviet Union was willing to throw men into battle, even knowing that many of them would be killed. The United States preferred to throw material into a battle, even knowing that much of it would be destroyed. The Soviets were willing to waste men; we were willing to waste material.
On the other issue, I agree that there was probably no way in which Nazi Germany could have won in a battle against the British Empire, Soviet Union, and United States as long as they were willing to fight until the end. But most wars aren’t fought until the end. If Germany had made itself strong enough, it is possible that the other powers might have eventually decided it wasn’t worth the effort and been willing to negotiate a settlement.
As mentioned, those were not known to have significant oil at the time; the big prize in this area was Iraq (“Mesopotamia”) at the time. And the Axis never got close.
But your points about concern for oil supplies confuse the ends with the means; oil was an input for the military so it could achieve Hitler’s war aims, it was not a war aim in and of itself. His entire purpose was to destroy Communism/Russia, there was simply no thought or possibility of him not attacking Russia - that was his main aim in going to war in the first place.
Well sure , but they then have to occupy the oilfields for long enough to find, drill, and extract the crude oil. Then they have to either refine it on the spot or ship it back to Italy for that purpose, over contested shipping lanes. The Axis war effort in North Africa was already severely constrained by port capacity plus sea and land transport for supplies and reinforcements; how they could add further capacity for significant amounts of oil is not clear.
And it’s not just constructing the oil facilities that lay within range of allied air attack. It’s also the constant repairs they would have had to do as the allied airpower bombed and strafed the crap out of them.
You should not consider the historic N African effort by the Germans (which contary to receieved opinion was quite substabtial) with what they would do if the place had been known to have oil. If say oil had been discovered in say the late thirties, I see a major effort by the Germans to secure the area. Far far far larger then what happened in real life.
I understand that oil was a means not an end. But it was a very important factor in war-making ability and all of the powers recognized this during the war. Hitler wanted to conquer Russia - but he needed oil to do that.
