this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
27 points (82.9% liked)

History

4297 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to History!

This community is dedicated to sharing and discussing fascinating historical facts from all periods and regions.

Rules:

FOLLOW THE CODE OF CONDUCT

NOTE WELL: Personal attacks and insults will not be tolerated. Stick to talking about the historical topic at hand in your comments. Insults and personal attacks will get you an immediate ban for a period of time determined by the moderator who bans you.

  1. Post about history. Ask a question about the past, share a link to an article about something historical, or talk about something related to history that interests you. Please encourage discussion whenever possible.

  2. No memes. No ads. No promos. No spam.

  3. No porn.

  4. We like facts and reliable sources here. Don't spread misinformation or try to change the historical record.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Germany didn't have the manpower or the economy for a protracted war. Hence the early reliance on "Blitzkreig" when taking France/Poland/etc...

The moment that first push petered out and it became a slog instead of a blitz, they had already lost. It was just a matter of time.

As someone already mentioned, the Nazi state's entire strategy relied on getting access to Russia's oil reserves before their own ran out. They were on a ticking clock until they could make that happen (which ultimately they didn't).

As for operation Sea Lion giving them British Empire oil, why would you think that taking the island of Britain meant that they automatically take all the colonies of Britain? Conquering an island doesn't mean they get Canada and India (for example). That's not how war works.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Wasn't oil the reason for the North Africa campaign? What if Barbarossa resources went to North Africa instead?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Hitler very much didn't want a third front in the war. If Barbarossa had shifted to North Africa, it would mean fewer troops to deal with the soviets when they inevitably invaded (which Hitler was sure they would do). As it was, North Africa was (at first) an inconvenience to them. Mussolini had invaded North Africa to get his "empire", and when they started taking heavy losses there, it became clear that the Allies could take advantage of it to come up into Europe through Italy and the Mediterranean (which is ultimately what they did). Germany had to deploy Rommel and the Africa Corp. to help the Italians or face fighting a war on three fronts.

In short, Italy was supposed to be Hitler's protection against invasion from the south. But Mussolini was an idiot.

Edited to add: You must remember that at this point in time, North African oil reserves were for the most part undeveloped. As far as Hitler was concerned, it was just a bunch of sand.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Defense requires 4x less troops than offense. Stalin would attack but it would have been years away. The attack wouldn't be to hold Libya but to push through Egypt into Persia which had British Oil.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

What was stopping Germany from simply buying oil from Russia?