WW2 - the Axis in the Mediterrenean

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

A lof of that came from Britain and the US.

I'm so glad to see you're as precise as ever with your facts, figures and dates....

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


molly, we all know the West had some pretty good weapons as well. But without the US helping Britain, how long do you think Britain lasts if Hitler's sole object is the invasion of Britain?

Excellent- so we switch virtually mid-sentence, from a discussion of German inventiveness and technological innovation, a quick glance at British scientific achievements, and then we're back again to the old, familiar, 'If it wasn't for us, wyou'd all be speaking German' schtick.


I wonder why it is you're so willing to talk up German science and development of weapons of war and gloss over British and Allied accomplishments ?

You know, the Manhattan Project may have been called after an American locale, but it was an INTERNATIONAL project- and computing science developed in Great Britain in response to German codes.

Oh, and never forget the achievements of the Russian people as a whole in the defeat of Nazi Germany- I believe I've pointed out before that the battle for Leningrad was at enormous cost in lives, both for the Russians and the Nazis.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


I note that there many here are unwilling to think, to question, to look deeply at issues and at causes and effects. Instead they simply want to demonstrate the breath of their knowledge about history with no apparent concern for understanding it, and with an obvious pro-war and pro-justification-of-the-allies viewpoint.

Possibly your most farcical and self-deluding post yet.

In common with your almost fact-free World War One posts, where you had Great Britain declaring war on Ottoman Turkey BEFORE that power bombarded Russian Black Sea ports (as didn't happen in our universe) and somehow also implicitly involved or at least tangentially responsible for the Armenian massacres (only Ned knows how), we now have the magnificent vision of you, the crusader for historical truth and justice, locating what really happened in the run-up to World War One and World War Two.

Except that doesn't seem to fit too well with the reality of the Ned we see post on Apolyton, who surfs antisemitic websites and Holocaust denial websites (which by their very nature are denying events as obvious as the spherical nature of the earth) and uncritically posts excerpts from them for our edification on the History Forum.

Does it ever occur to you that some of the people here are trained in the study of History, in how to read documents, in how little value can be placed, say, on the headlines from one edition of a mass market newspaper on what relations were like between Nazi Germany and the wider Jewish community across the world ?

You should write a book- you could entitle it:

'Gullible's Travails'.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Which is why 'persuading' Franco would have to take place in 1940...

Ethiopia will still be vulnerable. RN operating out of Aden will dominate the Red Sea.

But you're missing the point- Franco is already in Spanish Morocco, the Rio D'Oro and the Canaries. Great Britain relies on the base at Gibraltar.

Vichy and the Nazis and Franco and the Italians can use the Canary Islands, Morocco, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, the Lebanon, Algeria, French West Africa, Madagascar, et cetera.

The British forces in Egypt had to cover a ludicrously large area, from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Pillars of Hercules, from Malta to British Somaliland, Kenya and Zanzibar.

Overstretched doesn't begin to do the situation justice.

On the 10th June 1940 Italy entered the war; bombards Malta on the 11th. Russia was still preoccupied with taking 'back' Bukovina and Bessarabia.

The danger to the British presence in the Mediterranean and Africa is so great that Churchill commits the British navy to sinking elements of the French navy at Oran on 3rd July 1940- with an already Anglophobic Admiral Darlan this is further incentive for Vichy (if given the right stimulus) to join the war against Great Britain.

The Italians invaded British Somaliland on 4th July 1940, and by 13th September 1940 the Italian Army was in Egypt.

Imagine that instead of committing forces to a wasteful Battle of Britain or Blitz, the Nazis had directed a great number of planes south, to Spain and Italy- to air attacks on Malta and Gibraltar...

UK held all the parts of the island they needed to hold, pretty quickly.

Err, that's rather skimping over six months of fighting somewhat- with forces diverted from East Africa and South Africa- forces that were available only really because the Italians had already been defeated.

With a combined Spanish-Vichy French-Italian-German attack in the Mediterranean and across Northern and East Africa, the situation would have been very different.

I suspect as well that Nazi sympathizers in South Africa would have been able to sway public feeling against the South African war effort on the Allies side too, with a growing list of knockbacks for the Allies in Africa.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

You ignore the fact that Hitler was saying nice things about Stalin and the USSR after their semi-alliance of 1939.

And Hitler was well-known for being absolutely truthful in everything he said or did....

But, the reality was that Stalin had no intention of attacking, at least for the time being.

Err, but Ned, weren't you the person who told us that you had information from your Ukrainian informant that in the days preceding Barbarossa, Stalin was massing troops for an attack on Nazi occupied Europe ?

What has happened to effect this dramatic change ?

Note, the special on the Military Channel made the point that Hitler already believed that Stalin was going to attack in alliance with the UK and that is why he struck first.

Really ? And where could we find confirmation of this ?

Hitler's belief was in part caused by British propaganda

Oh right.

Now I understand.

It was 'TEH BRITZ'. Wasn't any 'JOOZE' fooling 'TEH BRITZ', was it ? They had after all declared war on Nazi Germany in the 30s, according to you...

Hitler would never have thought of attacking the Soviet Union, despite all those years of attacks on Judaeo-Bolshevism, all those criticisms of International Jewry which was also responsible for the spread of Communism, all those repeated demands for the Lebensraum so desperately required for the German Volk, and which could only be found in the East...

On July 21, a month after the fall of France, Hitler summoned Generalfeldmarschal Walther von Brauchitsch and instructed him to plan for an invasion of the Soviet Union.

http://worldwar2database.com/html/barbarossa.htm

But let's hear it from the man himself:

Europe reaches as far as does the Nordic-Germanic spirit. The time of Bolshevism in European Russia was nothing but a twenty-year preparation for German rule.

from 'Adolf Hitler Monologe im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1944: Die Aufzeichnungen Heinrich Heims' publ. Hamburg 1980, ed. W. Jochmann, quoted in:

'A German Identity, 1770 To The Present Day', by Harold James publ. Phoenix Press

Now from your post it would seem that we should take Herr Hitler's words at face value, so...

He believed this propaganda because the Brits refused his offer of peace after the fall of France.

Uh huh. Because Churchill had been implacably opposed to Nazism from the early 30s ?

He reasoned that the Brits chose to stay in the war because it was counting on the USSR.

Ah. Of course! Because the British knew that when France fell, Hitler would one month later ask for a plan of attack to be drawn up for an invasion of Russia, thus enabling them to ally with Stalin.

Who, awkwardly, was later on still disbelieving the evidence of British Intelligence who were sending him transcripts of German codes and the urgent messages from his own spies in Switzerland and Japan.

Well, that's how things occurred in this Universe, alas.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


But you're missing the point- Franco is already in Spanish Morocco, the Rio D'Oro and the Canaries. Great Britain relies on the base at Gibraltar.

Vichy and the Nazis and Franco and the Italians can use the Canary Islands, Morocco, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, the Lebanon, Algeria, French West Africa, Madagascar, et cetera.

The British forces in Egypt had to cover a ludicrously large area, from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Pillars of Hercules, from Malta to British Somaliland, Kenya and Zanzibar.

Overstretched doesn't begin to do the situation justice.

On the 10th June 1940 Italy entered the war; bombards Malta on the 11th. Russia was still preoccupied with taking 'back' Bukovina and Bessarabia.

The danger to the British presence in the Mediterranean and Africa is so great that Churchill commits the British navy to sinking elements of the French navy at Oran on 3rd July 1940- with an already Anglophobic Admiral Darlan this is further incentive for Vichy (if given the right stimulus) to join the war against Great Britain.

The Italians invaded British Somaliland on 4th July 1940, and by 13th September 1940 the Italian Army was in Egypt.

Imagine that instead of committing forces to a wasteful Battle of Britain or Blitz, the Nazis had directed a great number of planes south, to Spain and Italy- to air attacks on Malta and Gibraltar...




Err, that's rather skimping over six months of fighting somewhat- with forces diverted from East Africa and South Africa- forces that were available only really because the Italians had already been defeated.

With a combined Spanish-Vichy French-Italian-German attack in the Mediterranean and across Northern and East Africa, the situation would have been very different.

I suspect as well that Nazi sympathizers in South Africa would have been able to sway public feeling against the South African war effort on the Allies side too, with a growing list of knockbacks for the Allies in Africa.

The RN still rules the seas, which means Madagascar can be delayed as long as necessary, South Africa cant defy UK. The Italians still dont have enough merchies, and the ports in Libya are still inadequate. IIUC even more so than in 1942.

Lets say all Vichy North Africa goes over to the Axis, and there are German troops and air units from Morocco to Senegal. The Axis marches into Alexandria in say, November of 1940.


Of course no BoB means alot of UK air assets released, etc etc. Its not like the BoB was cost free to the UK.


So as Alex falls, Brit engineers blow up everything of value. The axis is going to have to rebuild it if they want to advance in the ME. Running trucks from Tripoli to forces attempting to advance in Palestine or Sudan will take more fuel than the Italians can transport across the Med. To rebuild Alex, virtually all the equipment must come from Germany. Via Tripoli. It will take a while.

Meanwhile, UK retracts to a defensible line Palestine (though prepared to abandon it) Fleet assets are shifted from the eastern Med to Aden. Its going to be very dangerous for Italian naval units to transit the canal. Even once theyve cleaned it up and repaired the damage.

Meanwhile the Germans are going, to what, send air units to Senegal? To be fueled with fuel taken across the Sahara on non-existent roads? Or sent by sea. Happy hunting for the RN again. Senegal is effectively an island as far as modern warfare is concerned. The axis would have to "island hop" down from Morocco, establishing air supremacy one base at a time. And the RN can still operate againts Axis seaborne supplies, despite such air supremacy (as they showed in the Med, a much more favorable environment for the axis than the Atlantic off Africa). The germans will get very little aviation fuel to Senegal. Not enough troops to take Dakar? But in this scen the Germans have dropped the BoB, and UK can relax a bit about building up troops in the UK.

Dakar WILL fall. The "line" between the axis and the UK will be somewhere between French Morocco and Dakar. On the other side the RN can still cut off Ethiopia. Italy couldnt supply Ethiopia via land through Sudan, even IF they could take Khartoum, which they almost certainly cant, not in any reasonable period of time (i dont buy the Ned scen where the USSR and USA standby till 1950 watching the Axis grow stronger) So Ethiopia will fall.

If necessary South Africa will be retaken from the Afrikaaners. Its also effectively an island. The suffrage will be adjusted as necessary to give political legitimacy to the renewed UK rule. It will hurt the troop position, since SA will go from net contributor of troops to a net user. But troops arent the key. Shipping is. Shipping constrains what the UK can do, and it constrains what the axis can do. Shipping to the garrison in SA will hurt a bit. Shipping to around the cape to Aden is shorter than shipping to Suez. Whereas for the axis shipping to Alex is farther than shipping to Tripoli. And now they have to ship to Morocco - the farther south they want to hold the line, the more they have to ship.

BTW, in this scen do they give French Morocco to Spain? If they do so, do you think all those Vichy folks are going to stay happy? Is Franco going to do this (putting aside the Spanish grain supply problem) without getting all the pour boires he asked for?

This all ignores the Japanese situation. One of the things that constrained Lend Lease shipments (prior to Pearl) to the UK, was the need to build up US forces in the Pacific, as tensions increased. If things go the worst in this scen, if the UK cant pull off Dakar, if retaking SA looks like a bloody mess, if axis aircraft based in Egypt are actually makeing the Red Sea a bad place for the RN, then the US and UK will simply decide to compromise with Japan, and hope that China doesnt fall, or can be regotten later, and will focus on Africa. Much more lend lease. FDR is not going to tolerate Dakar and Cape Town in Axis control.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dis
This may be a stupid question. But what were Hitler's objectives in the war?

If we know them, we can perhaps come up with some scenarios. Obviously he attacked the soviet union for the oil in the south. Suppose he won. Could have have held a country that large? Unlikely. It would have lengthened the war.

See most countries dont start totally unwinnable wars, cause theres no point. Obviously Hitler thought the war was winnable, and he was not a dummy on military affairs. How did he go wrong?

Racial thinking. Russians were slavs. Untermenschen. They couldnt possible stand up to Germans.

Americans were mongrels, too mixed with blacks and Jews. They couldnt fight.

The UK were teutons, which meant they could fight, but they would ultimately join their natural allies the Germans.

That they didnt was only cause of the demon, Churchill. And cause the USSR had not yet fallen. So all those Russian troops who kept fighting surrounded, should have surrendered. The troops from Siberia, who stopped the thrust to Moscow, shouldnt have had the will to fight, despite the German enslavement of the conquered terrs, cause Russians are natural slaves.

With Moscow fallen, and allied victory hopeless, Churchill would be overthrown, and pro-German pols would ascend in London, and the UK would support Germany in the final showdown with the degenerate Americans.

Thats fantasy, of course. But if you believe that fantasy, Hitlers moves were fairly rational.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by TheStinger
BY 1943, the Uk had at leat 50 divisions including some armoured ones.

Also if they was still a realistic prospect of invasion in 1943 the defences on the South Coast would be like the Maginot line

also, if the US is not at war with Japan, which I believe is being posited, there will be much more equipment (and shipping) available for Lendlease, so the UK forces should be even stronger.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


And Hitler was well-known for being absolutely truthful in everything he said or did....



Err, but Ned, weren't you the person who told us that you had information from your Ukrainian informant that in the days preceding Barbarossa, Stalin was massing troops for an attack on Nazi occupied Europe ?

What has happened to effect this dramatic change ?



Really ? And where could we find confirmation of this ?



Oh right.

Now I understand.

It was 'TEH BRITZ'. Wasn't any 'JOOZE' fooling 'TEH BRITZ', was it ? They had after all declared war on Nazi Germany in the 30s, according to you...

Hitler would never have thought of attacking the Soviet Union, despite all those years of attacks on Judaeo-Bolshevism, all those criticisms of International Jewry which was also responsible for the spread of Communism, all those repeated demands for the Lebensraum so desperately required for the German Volk, and which could only be found in the East...

http://worldwar2database.com/html/barbarossa.htm

But let's hear it from the man himself:



from 'Adolf Hitler Monologe im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1944: Die Aufzeichnungen Heinrich Heims' publ. Hamburg 1980, ed. W. Jochmann, quoted in:

'A German Identity, 1770 To The Present Day', by Harold James publ. Phoenix Press

Now from your post it would seem that we should take Herr Hitler's words at face value, so...



Uh huh. Because Churchill had been implacably opposed to Nazism from the early 30s ?



Ah. Of course! Because the British knew that when France fell, Hitler would one month later ask for a plan of attack to be drawn up for an invasion of Russia, thus enabling them to ally with Stalin.

Who, awkwardly, was later on still disbelieving the evidence of British Intelligence who were sending him transcripts of German codes and the urgent messages from his own spies in Switzerland and Japan.

Well, that's how things occurred in this Universe, alas.

Why are you arguing with me. I am telling you what the Miltary Channel said. They base what they said on documents, particularly from Stalin who was aware of the British attempts to get Hitler to believe that he was going to attack.

As to the date, July 21, how does that related to the British decline of the June peace offering?

molly, you are very adept at demonstrating a knowledge with no understaning at all.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dis
This may be a stupid question. But what were Hitler's objectives in the war?

If we know them, we can perhaps come up with some scenarios. Obviously he attacked the soviet union for the oil in the south. Suppose he won. Could have have held a country that large? Unlikely. It would have lengthened the war.

Hitler's biggest mistake was starting ww2 in the first place. Why did he feel the need to annex and conquer other countries? They aren't german. astria has similar language, but they still aren't german.

If he wanted to he could have remained in power for decades. No one would have stopped him. This is germany's best chance. Build up over 20 or 30 years, and then perhaps they could have done something (they would have had nukes). Even then, though. Attacking (for the purpose of occupying) other countries is stupid. It just doesn't work in modern times, including Iraq.

Dis, you views about WWII are reflect the standard propaganda taught in American and apparently also in British schools.

1) Hitler invaded Poland to get back lost German lands, lost at Versailles. He did not believe Britain would do anything about it, and was shocked when Britain declared war. In a message to the German people, Britain said the reason they declared war was because they could not trust Hitler and were done negotiating with him.

When Poland was conquered, Hitler immediately offered peace. He did not want war with Britain and France. But that was denied by both France and German on the basis they could not trust Hitler.

2) Hitler invaded the USSR because he was convinced they had fallen in with England and were going to invade Germany. He did this after Britain again declined his offer of peace. He was aware of Churchill's courting of Stalin (and FDR), and believed that Churchill had made a breakthrough when he declined his peace offer.

[Dis]

Here's another what if.

What if Japan attacked Russia in late 1941 instead of the U.S. In agreement with Germany that they would share the oil. I don't know the details of Russia. I don't know if they had the capacity to transport oil to the east coast. I'm sure they had no pipeline. Perhaps they could do it by rail. I also don't know if Russia had enough wells and refineries to supply both nations (and Russia itself)

Doubtful Japan would go for that. They would know they couldn't trust germany. And would rather get the oil for themselves.

With Russia out of the picture is there any possible way for Germany to win?

And I'm serious about occupying other nations. that probably deserves it's own thread. I think it's unreasonable for a country to attack another and expect to occupy it for any length of time.

What was Hitler's intentions with France? Why did he take over france?

[lord of the mark]

dis, hitler I think is pretty well documented in his goals. he believed Germany was the pinnacle of the Aryan race, and had the right to rule the world. He envisioned a final war for world domination, though he expected UK to be on his side.

Japanese "Strike North" Problem is, the oil is in western Siberia, thats a long way to go with just the Trans siberian for logistical support. ANd they dont have much time, they were running short on oil very fast. Even if they can transport it (and I think youre right that would have been a problem) they cant take it as fast as they can the NEI oil. So while their army is marching west, their navy is totally vulnerable to the ABCD powers.

[Ned]

molly, Churchill siezed two Turkish battleships on August 1, 1914.

"Britain.Ottoman Empire.
==The Royal Navy seizes the newly constructed Turkish battleships Sultan Osman I and Reshadieh in the Tyne "

Their seizure is "the" reason for Turkey allying with Germany, that and their hatred of Russia:

"NAVAL WAR IN OUTLINE - In 1914, the main concern of the Turkish Navy was maintaining a balance of power with the Greeks with whom relations were very tense. Both countries were attempting to enlarge their navies and Turkish orders included two British dreadnoughts, two scout cruisers and four destroyers, none of which were delivered. In fact the non-delivery of the two completed dreadnoughts did much to bring Turkey into the war on Germany’s side in November 1914. By then the only modern additions to the Turkish Navy were the German battlecruiser 'Goeben' and light cruiser 'Breslau', which having escaped from the British Navy in August 1914, were nominally transferred to Turkey although largely retaining their German crews. The entire Turkish fleet then came under the command of German Rear-Admiral Wilhelm Souchon.

Although much of the subsequent action against the Russian Fleet in the Black Sea is associated with the 'Goeben' and 'Breslau', the obsolescent Turkish Navy played its part, including the combined German-Turkish bombardment of Russian bases before the declaration of war. Other operations included escorting coal convoys from Zonguldak to the Constantinople area, sweeping Russian mines off Constantinople, escorting troop convoys through the Sea of Marmara to Gallipoli, manning some of the Dardanelles defences, and operating light flotillas on the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers."

The day after Churchill's act of war, the Ottoman Empire signed an alliance with Germany.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/ottoww1.html

The war between Britian and the Turks did not begin when Britain DOWed them on Nov. 4, but on August 1, the day Britain committed an act of war on the Ottoman Empire.

Now for the "real" reason for Britian entry into the war and for forcing the Ottoman Empire to choose to side with Germany:

"Discovery of oil in 1908 at Masjid-i Suleiman in Iran – an event that changed the fate of the Middle East – gave impetus to quest for oil in Mesopotamia. Oil pursuits in Mesopotamia were concentrated in Mosul, one of three provinces or “vilayets” constituting Iraq under the Ottoman rule. Mosul was the northern province, the other two being Baghdad (in the middle) and Basra (in the south) provinces. Foreign geologists visited the area under the disguise of archeologists.

For a good part of the last century, interests of national governments were closely linked with the interests of oil companies, so much so that oil companies were de facto extensions of foreign-office establishments of the governments. The latter actively lobbied on behalf of the oil companies owned by their respective nationals. The oil companies, in return, would guarantee oil supply to respective governments – preferably at a substantial discount.

This symbiotic relationship manifested itself superbly when Turkish Petroleum Company (TPC), founded in 1911 and named as such in 1912 to exploit Mosul oil, was reorganized in March 1914 at a meeting held in Foreign Office in London where British and German diplomats sat next to executives of British and German banks and British and Dutch oil companies. Notwithstanding its name, TPC did not have Turkish participation. At that time World War I had not broken out yet, and Germans were welcome at TPC.

The British and Dutch were attracted to German participation because German banks had obtained a concession from the Ottomans in 1904 – a concession that in fact had been allowed to lapse. Calouste Gulbenkian, the consummate deal-maker of Armenian origin that helped found TPC, was not present at the meeting, but his interests were well looked after. He ended up with 5 percent share in TPC, though with no voting rights.

Dogged British Determination

Among the foreign powers the British, seeing Iraq as a gateway to their Indian colony and oil as lifeblood for their Imperial Navy, were most aggressive in their pursuits in Mesopotamia, aspiring to gain physical control of the oil region. Winston Churchill, soon after he became First Lord of the Admiralty in 1911, declared oil to be of paramount importance for the supremacy of the Imperial Navy. Churchill was educated about the virtues of oil by none other than Marcus Samuel, the founder of Shell.

During the war, Sir Maurice Hankey, secretary of the War Cabinet, advised Foreign Secretary Arthur Belfour in writing that control of the Persian and Mesopotamian oil was a “first-class British war aim.” Britain captured the towns of Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, capitals of the provinces bearing the same names, in November 1914, March 1917 and November 1918, respectively. Mosul was captured 15 days after Britain and Turkey signed the Mudros Armistice ending hostilities at the end of the war, an event that drew protests from the Turkish delegation at the Lausanne Peace Conference four years later.

In 1913 Churchill sent an expeditionary team to the Persian Gulf headed by Admiral Slade to investigate oil possibilities in the region. More or less coincident with Admiral Slade expedition, Britain signed a secret agreement with the sheikh of Kuwait who, while ostensibly pledging allegiance to the Ottoman Sultan in Istanbul, promised exclusive oil rights to the British. Kuwait became a British protectorate in November 1914.

The British were so concerned about the security of their oil supply prior to the war that they wanted to have guaranteed British dominance in any oil company exploiting Mesopotamian oil. The government favored Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC, predecessor of BP) over Royal Dutch/Shell (RDS) in TPC. APOC, already holding oil concession in Iran but not one of the original participants in TPC, was 100 percent British while RDS, an original participant, was 40 percent British.

When the government indirectly asked RDS to drop out of IPC to give way to APOC, Henri Deterding, head of RDS, was infuriated. In 1914 the government acquired majority (51 percent) share in APOC, in part over concerns (unfounded) that RDS may take over APOC.

With government backing, APOC eventually made its way into IPC. Before the war, TPC shareholding stood at: APOC: 47.5 percent, RDS: 22.5 percent, Deutsche Bank: 22.5 percent, and Gulbenkian (with no voting rights) 5 percent. The British had a clear dominance.

Sharing the Oil Trophy

Political dimensions of oil interests in Mesopotamia reached a new height during World War I in the secret Sykes-Picot agreement signed between Britain, France and later Russia during April-October 1916. Designed to partition the Ottoman Asia after the war, the agreement, among others, assigned the Baghdad and Basra provinces to British control and “zone of influence” and the Mosul region and a good portion of what is now Syria to French “zone of influence.” Some in the British government were enraged that Mosul had been “surrendered” to the French.

After the war, with the German and Ottoman Empires defeated and German interests in TPC confiscated by the British, the partition plans changed. At the Paris Peace Conference in June 1919, Iraq, under the League of Nations Covenant, was made a mandate entrusted to Britain. This award was completed in a treaty signed between Britain and France in San Remo, Italy, in April 1920. France accepted Britain’s mandatory control on Iraq in return for receiving recognition to an enlarged French mandate on Syria. A few months later, in August 1920, the mandatory arrangement received further recognition at the Treaty of Sèvres.

...."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/0425byzantine.htm

"

[Ned]

LoTM, in your opinion, did the Japanese have any choice but to got to war against America, the British and the Dutch or pull out of China as ordered by FDR?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dis
Here's another what if.

What if Japan attacked Russia in late 1941 instead of the U.S. In agreement with Germany that they would share the oil. I don't know the details of Russia. I don't know if they had the capacity to transport oil to the east coast. I'm sure they had no pipeline. Perhaps they could do it by rail. I also don't know if Russia had enough wells and refineries to supply both nations (and Russia itself)

Doubtful Japan would go for that. They would know they couldn't trust germany. And would rather get the oil for themselves.

With Russia out of the picture is there any possible way for Germany to win?

And I'm serious about occupying other nations. that probably deserves it's own thread. I think it's unreasonable for a country to attack another and expect to occupy it for any length of time.

What was Hitler's intentions with France? Why did he take over france?

Did you read my post?

LoTM's response to you is nonsense.