[Potemkin]

Switzerland would have been steamrolled in a few days with little cost to german troops.

That's pretty much what the British thought about the Boers, and what the Soviets thought about Finland.

There's a reason it stays neutral, it's a small country squeezed between 3 much larger countries.

Indeed. Neutrality is their only sane option.

But a long term guerilla movement would have been very viable and annoying to the occupying forces, as it was in the mountaneous regions of the balkans.

Precisely. This affects the cost/benefit analysis of any invasion of Switzerland. So long as the Swiss play nice with you, it's simply not worth invading them.

[SigTurner]

Switzerland would have been steamrolled in a few days with little cost to german troops. There's a reason it stays neutral, it's a small country squeezed between 3 much larger countries.

But a long term guerilla movement would have been very viable and annoying to the occupying forces, as it was in the mountaneous regions of the balkans.

Methinks the only real reason the Germans did not invade Switzerland was because they knew it would piss off everyone in the world who banks with Swtizlerland (which includes everyone nation with a standing army). Even Germany's own industrialists and financiers would have protested.

[SigTurner]

Irrelevant. The point was that given the German economy, sitting back and arming was not an option for Germany (as you originaly proposed.)specially given the speed of Soviet military build up.

After mugging just about all of continental Europe, Germany's economy was certainly poised for a massive rebound. A few years of peace and stability and the Third Reich would have been an economic powerhouse on par with the United States.

Who said it was about capital??

It's always about capital. Capital and access to natural resources.

Switzerland was one of the most armed nation on the earth.

Obviously, you mean by rate.

Nevertheless, recall that while an ant may be able lift ten times its own weight, it's still an ant.

[pugsville]

The Germans got very little from occupied Europe. France was looted, it lost most of it's rolling stock, got 6% of the oil pre occupation. without transport pr resources the economy flat-lined. Milk spoiled simply because there was no transport. Occupied Europe was struggling to find it self. The Czech factories were taken over into German production but the overall the contribution of occupied Europe was a fraction of it's former economic strength. The Nazis were very poor at running an economy, lousy at dealing with others. The coal mines in the Ruhr were mainly worked by poles, they simply do not receive the food ration for heavy work, coal production was consistently down. Vast labor drafts into Germany, but workers on half rations dont do half the work they do less. Most of occupied Europe was dependent on imports, mostly imports that Germany too needed, shortage of similar resources like oil, stuff that couldnt be imported from outside Europe any more. Many nations had imported food and now this was not possible. Greece had serious food problems.

[SigTurner]

The Germans got very little from occupied Europe. France was looted, it lost most of it's rolling stock, got 6% of the oil pre occupation. without transport pr resources the economy flat-lined. Milk spoiled simply because there was no transport. Occupied Europe was struggling to find it self. The Czech factories were taken over into German production but the overall the contribution of occupied Europe was a fraction of it's former economic strength. The Nazis were very poor at running an economy, lousy at dealing with others. The coal mines in the Ruhr were mainly worked by poles, they simply do not receive the food ration for heavy work, coal production was consistently down. Vast labor drafts into Germany, but workers on half rations dont do half the work they do less. Most of occupied Europe was dependent on imports, mostly imports that Germany too needed, shortage of similar resources like oil, stuff that couldnt be imported from outside Europe any more. Many nations had imported food and now this was not possible. Greece had serious food problems.

Germany certainly needed oil. Indeed, this was the reasoning behind Hitler's fatal decision to divide his forces in Barbarossa: He wanted to secure the oil fields at Baku. A better plan might have been to 86 Operation Barbarossa and pursue Iraqi oil via diplomacy with Turkey and Iraq while revitalizing the Baghdad Railway project.

As far as food is concerned, continental Europe had been feeding itself for the past 10,000 years. Besides, the Nazi regime would have been more than willing to allow millions of Slavs, Jews, and probably anyone outside of Western Europe, or of "non-Aryan" blood, to starve to death.

One could easily argue that WWII was essentially fought over access the world's known oil reserves. The fact of the matter is the US, the UK, and the USSR had a hammerlock on the world's oil reserves while continental Europe was essentially cut out. This, probably more than any other factor, was the galvanizing force behind the Fascist movement in Europe during the 20's and 30's. Indeed, the Fascist movement was really just an attempt to quickly unify all of continental Europe into a more singular political entity that could stand up to the UK/US and the USSR, not unlike the European Union of today, except that the Fascists attempted to unify Europe politically first, rather than economically.

[Potemkin]

the Fascists attempted to unify Europe politically first, rather than economically.

Militarily first, politically second, and economically last of all. The current EU has simply reversed the order of those steps.

[Tailz]

Germany certainly needed oil. Indeed, this was the reasoning behind Hitler's fatal decision to divide his forces in Barbarossa: He wanted to secure the oil fields at Baku. A better plan might have been to 86 Operation Barbarossa and pursue Iraqi oil via diplomacy with Turkey and Iraq while revitalizing the Baghdad Railway project.

Germany needed oil, certainly. But to say that the leading factor in Hitlers decision to engage in Operation Barbarossa was to secure oil resources, is not wholly correct. The access to Russian oil would, and was, a boon. But it was not the deciding factor. It was on the list, but not at the top - the idealism of Hitler and the Nazi party had put Germany on the path to confrontation with the Soviet Union years ago, when Hitler had penned Mein Kampf (published in 1925).

German access to what oil resources it did have, plus German synthetic petrochemicals were filling the gap for the kind of short wars the Wehrmacht had planned (which is also part of the reason why the Germans planned short wars in the first place). It was when the war dragged on and became a long war, that was when the lack of expanded resources became a problem. We also have to remember that German Industry did not go into "Execrated War Production" until late in the war.

As far as food is concerned, continental Europe had been feeding itself for the past 10,000 years. Besides, the Nazi regime would have been more than willing to allow millions of Slavs, Jews, and probably anyone outside of Western Europe, or of "non-Aryan" blood, to starve to death.

See the Hunger Plan.

One could easily argue that WWII was essentially fought over access the world's known oil reserves. The fact of the matter is the US, the UK, and the USSR had a hammerlock on the world's oil reserves while continental Europe was essentially cut out.

This was not a conflict over oil, since oil then, was not as integral to our technological society as it is now. The conflict in Europe became a political conflict between the Western States and the Soviet Union - the race to control europe after the war and spread ones political ideology - that is how all of the major powers saw the aftermath of the war. Territory held by ether side would be fostered towards the political ideology of the conqueror who remained present. The Western Nations didn't want the whole continent of Europe to come under the dominion of the Soviet union - thus arose the race for Berlin, and thus D-Day itself was give legitimacy as the Second Front. Obviously this is not how the war started, but what it became over time, and thus why the Western Allies raced to conquer as much of Europe as possible before the Soviets did, and sort to reinforce the break up of Europe into spheres of influence via diplomatic horse trading with the USSR over the division of Europe once the conflict had ended.

This, probably more than any other factor, was the galvanizing force behind the Fascist movement in Europe during the 20's and 30's.

Albert Speer had noted that oil facilities were a primary concern (especially to him in as Minister of Armaments and War Production from February 8 1942), but the spearheads of the military invasion were directed elsewhere and only as an afterthought were units taken away from the spearheads and redirected towards the oil fields (much to the displeasure of the commanders on the spot).

[SigTurner]

Germany needed oil, certainly. But to say that the leading factor in Hitlers decision to engage in Operation Barbarossa was to secure oil resources, is not wholly correct. The access to Russian oil would, and was, a boon. But it was not the deciding factor. It was on the list, but not at the top - the idealism of Hitler and the Nazi party had put Germany on the path to confrontation with the Soviet Union years ago, when Hitler had penned Mein Kampf (published in 1925).

Of course, there were other Russian resources of which the Germans were interested, not the least of which was the bread basket of the Ukraine. However, oil was always on the mind of Germany, as well as Italy and France, since the end of WWI. Indeed, if there was any lesson to be learned from WWI it was that access to oil was going to be the deciding factor in global political and economic hegemony during the 20th century.

German access to what oil resources it did have, plus German synthetic petrochemicals were filling the gap for the kind of short wars the Wehrmacht had planned (which is also part of the reason why the Germans planned short wars in the first place). It was when the war dragged on and became a long war, that was when the lack of expanded resources became a problem. We also have to remember that German Industry did not go into "Execrated War Production" until late in the war.

Having enough oil for a war, short or long, was hardly the concern. Access to huge oil reserves after the war was over was the main objective for the Axis powers.

See the Hunger Plan.

The Hunger Plan would have been wholly unnecessary if Germany would have settled down, not invaded the USSR, and sued much more intensely for peace with Great Britain. It would not have been too difficult for Germany to pursuade the better part of the British citizenry to come to terms with Germany, especially after Dunkirk.

This was not a conflict over oil, since oil then, was not as integral to our technological society as it is now.

That is just plain wrong. WWII was fought principally over oil. I know they don't teach you that in school, nor on T.V., but it is the bare naked truth. Standard Oil and Royal Dutch Shell dominated the global oil industry. The USSR had all the oil they needed. Continental Europe and Japan had next to nothing. Without their own oil reserves, Europe and Japan had become politcal and economic subjugates of the US/UK and the USSR since they were dependent upon these nations for their oil needs.

[pugsville]

Europe was not feeding itself. Cheap imports from North and South America had changed the economics. Many European countries were big importers of food before the war. The population growth makes 10,000 years of history pretty irrelevant, roman and middle ages food production is hardly relevant to the 20th century. I have the stats somewhere if necessary.

The Nazi regime actions were ideological. Hitler the driving force of this was much more concerned with land rather than resources. How often does Mein Kampf mention Oil? There was no problem in importing Oil during peacetime. Find me one reference from the 20s or 30s that fascism was driven by lack of Oil in Europe! The Fall of the ancient regime, change, the depression, the wiping out of middle class savings by monetary crisis, these are factors. When did Europe have a shortage of Oil in the 20s or 30s? It just was not a factor.

[SigTurner]

Europe was not feeding itself. Cheap imports from North and South America had changed the economics. Many European countries were big importers of food before the war. The population growth makes 10,000 years of history pretty irrelevant, roman and middle ages food production is hardly relevant to the 20th century. I have the stats somewhere if necessary.

A quest for food was not the motivation for WWII.

The Nazi regime actions were ideological. Hitler the driving force of this was much more concerned with land rather than resources. How often does Mein Kampf mention Oil? There was no problem in importing Oil during peacetime. Find me one reference from the 20s or 30s that fascism was driven by lack of Oil in Europe! The Fall of the ancient regime, change, the depression, the wiping out of middle class savings by monetary crisis, these are factors. When did Europe have a shortage of Oil in the 20s or 30s? It just was not a factor.

Start reading.

[Rich]

The Germans got very little from occupied Europe. France was looted, it lost most of it's rolling stock, got 6% of the oil pre occupation. without transport pr resources the economy flat-lined. Milk spoiled simply because there was no transport. Occupied Europe was struggling to find it self. The Czech factories were taken over into German production but the overall the contribution of occupied Europe was a fraction of it's former economic strength. The Nazis were very poor at running an economy, lousy at dealing with others. The coal mines in the Ruhr were mainly worked by poles, they simply do not receive the food ration for heavy work, coal production was consistently down. Vast labor drafts into Germany, but workers on half rations dont do half the work they do less. Most of occupied Europe was dependent on imports, mostly imports that Germany too needed, shortage of similar resources like oil, stuff that couldnt be imported from outside Europe any more. Many nations had imported food and now this was not possible. Greece had serious food problems.

Indeed! Hitler should never have taken over the rump Czech state and he should have restored the independence of Poland, Belgium, Holland , France etc as quickly as possible after his victories. If had charged indemnities to the countries he defeated he could have got far more out of these countries through trade. He wouldn't have had to defend the long Western coast lines and he could have got access to the world market through these independent but chastened countries. It would have been very difficult for Britain to enforce a blockade on the whole of Europe when it wasn't under occupation. Stalin's treatment of Finland after WWII provides a good example of how an independent but chastened country can be much more useful than occupation. Looting is very short term and short sighted way to make a profit. The restoration of national pride in the defeated countries could have been funnelled into the anti soviet adventure.

Of course there was little risk of Hitler doing this because, he was above all else, a vain arrogant bully.

[Ombrageux]

Rich - Well, if Hitler wasn't Hitler then Hitler wouldn't just not be a "bully", but he wouldn't be a genocidal maniac. Kind of hard to run a continent rationally when you're a totalitarian racial supremacist.

[SigTurner]

The Germans got very little from occupied Europe...

You are forgetting that the whole point of the Fascist movement was to politically unify continental Europe for the sake of European industrialists who could no longer compete with American industrialists under the aegis of entirely discrete nations. The essence of Fascism is private ownership of government. Ever wonder why France rolled over so easily in WWII when they fought WWI to a stalemate? It was because many influential French industrialists were in league with the Fascists all along. Indeed, the Fascist movement was even popular amongst the citizens of France, though obviously not as popular as it was in Italy, Spain, and Germany.

Dictators come a dime a dozen. The long-term goal was to unify continental Europe into a poltical and economic monolith. Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were just hired guns (whether they knew it or not).

[Ombrageux]

That's some pretty reductionist, really primitive Marxism you have there. I mean is there any basis for it? Most of Europe's right-wing (lets say Fascist) leaders and states had no vocation for unifying European capitalism: Not Mussolini, nor Pétain, nor Franco. Only Germany did and that had more to do with the power of the German State than it did with capitalism (just as the Soviet State had the potential to unite Europe under Communism, not simply because it was Communist, but because it had the power of the Russian Empire).

[pugsville]

Fascists were generally extreme Nationalists. The Germans may have been "unifying" Europe but they were hardly about some sort and European union, others were to be brutally used. Fascists were unable to co-operate effectively. Their world view does not include co-operation there are Masters and there are slaves. While many Industrialists flirted with or outright supported various fascists they never called the shots or had much influence though many prospered when their interests were congruent with the regime. German Industrialists were generally pretty extreme nationalists as well.

Frances defeat had mostly military causes, the rapid collapse was poor organization and strategy, with most of the army cutout and effectively destroyed their military resistance was not particularly tenable. The rise of Petain and Vichy was due to a some political opportunists using the defeat to achieve some domestic political ends was a result not cause of the defeat.

Watched bits (most of the 20s and 30s stuff) of the PBS doco based on the book. Nothing in it so far to support your claims.

[SigTurner]

That's some pretty reductionist, really primitive Marxism you have there. I mean is there any basis for it? Most of Europe's right-wing (lets say Fascist) leaders and states had no vocation for unifying European capitalism: Not Mussolini, nor Pétain, nor Franco. Only Germany did and that had more to do with the power of the German State than it did with capitalism (just as the Soviet State had the potential to unite Europe under Communism, not simply because it was Communist, but because it had the power of the Russian Empire).

What Marxism? Fascism is entirely antithetical to Marxism in theory.

What is a fasci?



It is a bundle of sticks wrapped around an axe. The sticks represent all the nations of Europe. The axe represents the power of a strong central government. Understanding the adopted symbols of an age is often essential to understanding the age itself. The true facts of history are often relegated to secrets of state and buried in private libraries until some time (if ever) as they are made public by providence and the toil of avid historians.

All modern political movements require financing, and lots of it. Mussolini, Franco, Petain may have had no idea that they were merely the hired guns of their benefactors. On the other hand, it appears that Hitler and the Nazi regime figured this much out eventually, and when they did, the Fascist plan went horribly sideways.

[SigTurner]

Watched bits (most of the 20s and 30s stuff) of the PBS doco based on the book. Nothing in it so far to support your claims.

You need to read the book. The PBS doco barely even touches upon the political, economic, and military intrigue surrounding oil. And while Yergin may not directly state that WWII was fought over access to oil reserves (though he may actually) you cannot escape concluding that it indeed was.

[Ombrageux]

That was a Marxist interpretation of Fascism, a really reductionist, primitive one, probably embarrassing to many Marxists. You can't reduce these leaders and States to bourgeois "benefactors" yearning for unification. It's just not true.

[pugsville]

I have read a bit about the oil industry and intrigue and political influence sure.

In the 30s oil isnt a huge peacetime economic resource. Coal drives the railways and factories. Oil is needed for cars, trucks but there arent that many. In war ships, tanks, planes it's much more important. Generally there was no shortage and access during peace was easy.

I dont think oil was a major factor in politics. 30s politics was very inward, domestic. The rise of the fascists was about social factors. Sure the British in Persia, securing their own supply (to fuel the fleet in war) was a major factor in there policies. Japan too major factor. But most others no.

Japan definitely oil reserves a major factor but it was access to resources in general, oil being one of a number, the US cutting the oil was a major blow.

[SigTurner]

That was a Marxist interpretation of Fascism, a really reductionist, primitive one, probably embarrassing to many Marxists. You can't reduce these leaders and States to bourgeois "benefactors" yearning for unification. It's just not true.

Yeah, you said that already.