Nazi Germany had oil supply?

[NOMISYRRUC]

To increase German coal production you need more manpower, specifically the kind of physically fit men the army also wants. On top of that as coal mining is hard physical labour you need to feed those miners a lot of calories, which means more demands on an agricultural system that is already failing to keep up with the needs of the German population and is also facing a manpower crunch, not to mention shortages of fertilizer and animal feed. In the end you can't square the circle of Nazi ideology and a working economy. Practically unlimited military spending at the expense of civilian production and exports is going to lead to disaster for an economy that needs large inputs of imported materials to function.

Although I think the best way to fulfil the requirements of the POD is to make the maximum possible use of the reserves of natural petroleum that Austria, Germany and the Netherlands had, there is one way to increase Germany's coal production between 1933 and 1939 that addresses the problems that you have highlighted.

That is a Treaty of Versailles that does not divide Silesia between Germany and Poland.

IIRC Silesia produced 25% of Germany's coal before World War One and most of the coal producing areas were given to Poland.

Polish Silesia had a population of 1.3 million according to the Polish 1931 Census.

However, that would be a "much bigger butterfly" for Poland between the world wars than it would have been for Germany.

 

[Garrison]

Although I think the best way to fulfil the requirements of the POD is to make the maximum possible use of the reserves of natural petroleum that Austria, Germany and the Netherlands had, there is one way to increase Germany's coal production between 1933 and 1939 that addresses the problems that you have highlighted.

That is a Treaty of Versailles that does not divide Silesia between Germany and Poland.

IIRC Silesia produced 25% of Germany's coal before World War One and most of the coal producing areas were given to Poland.

Polish Silesia had a population of 1.3 million according to the Polish 1931 Census.

However, that would be a "much bigger butterfly" for Poland between the world wars than it would have been for Germany.

A different Versailles Treaty that is more lenient to Germany is such a huge POD that I doubt you can really assume that the rise of Hitler and WWII still happen in a recognizable form.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

A different Versailles Treaty that is more lenient to Germany is such a huge POD that I doubt you can really assume that the rise of Hitler and WWII still happen in a recognizable form.

It depends upon whether this is the only change. IMHO Germany keeping all of Silesia won't reduce the resentment towards the treaty or improve the German economy to a degree that prevents the Nazis coming to power.

Though as I've already written I think having Germany find and develop the oilfields that existed within its 1919 OTL borders is the best way to accomplish the OP.

 

[bernardz]

However, as the oil was discovered in the 1950s and commercial drilling began in 1961 both might have been with technology that was about 30 years ahead of what Italy had in 1930.

Oil was discovered much earlier in the 1920s.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistori...idnt_italy_find_oil_in_libya_while_it_was_an/

Although the writer here is dubious about the oil being useful to Italy, I am not so sure, with a significant oil find in Libya, the Axis attack on Malta would probably proceed so stopping most of the RN interference this, of course, assumes that Italy in this ATL does join the war. With a large oil field in Libya, Italy may be reluctant to join in the conflict as it is so vulnerable in 1940 to the RN.

 

[thaddeus]

Oil was discovered much earlier in the 1920s.

Although the writer here is dubious about the oil being useful to Italy, I am not so sure, with a significant oil find in Libya, the Axis attack on Malta would probably proceed so stopping most of the RN interference this, of course, assumes that Italy in this ATL does join the war. With a large oil field in Libya, Italy may be reluctant to join in the conflict as it is so vulnerable in 1940 to the RN.

would even go back a step or two? would Italy have invaded Ethiopia and/or involved themselves in Spanish Civil War?

they made, relative to their GDP, huge investments in Italian East Africa and huge military mission to Spain. if they discovered the magnitude of oil reserves in Libya, on par with Iran or Dutch East Indies, that might become sole and overriding focus?

 

[jerard]

would even go back a step or two? would Italy have invaded Ethiopia and/or involved themselves in Spanish Civil War?

they made, relative to their GDP, huge investments in Italian East Africa and huge military mission to Spain. if they discovered the magnitude of oil reserves in Libya, on par with Iran or Dutch East Indies, that might become sole and overriding focus?

I would think they would get involved in the SCW because it's an ideological issue. The Partito Nazionale Fascista were very anti communist and communists were trying to take over Espana. They simply couldn't stand by.
I don't think they invade Ethiopia because there is too much risk, too little gain and no back-up. The Italian military would have to see that and put a stop to it. The PNF might have had to remove Mussolini to do that.
If Deutschland is getting considerable amounts of oil from Italia wouldn't it be most beneficial to Deutchland for Italia to maintain benevolent neutrality rather than joining the war? Realistically what could England do about it? If Italia isn't committing any acts of aggression can they justify declaring war? How would the USA and Roosevelt react to such a move?

 

[bernardz]

I would think they would get involved in the SCW because it's an ideological issue. The Partito Nazionale Fascista were very anti communist and communists were trying to take over Espana. They simply couldn't stand by.

Plus here the added danger of allowing a such a communists state to near their oil.

I don't think they invade Ethiopia because there is too much risk, too little gain and no back-up. The Italian military would have to see that and put a stop to it. The PNF might have had to remove Mussolini to do that.

I am not so sure about Ethiopia. If Italy has more money plus there is less of a threat by the League of Nations as what really worried Italy was the threat of oil being cut off, coal they could get from Germany. With more money and no threat of oil being cut off, there is no threat here. Conversely, if the League does little, it might not drive Italy to the Germany camp.

Plus with oil, you need to access to the world markets so Italy has a vested interest in staying in everyone's good books. Also for Hitler to invade Italy is a problem as what he wants here above all is the oil. The oil here is not in Italy and without Italy he cannot make a campaign in North Africa to get it. So he would have to stay in the Italian good books. Italy may be able to sit out the war.

Then the next question is what is Libya cost structure for oil. Russia for example in that period had a lot of problems exporting oil because among other problems its oil was expensive. I would wonder what production costs would be in Libya, one advantage that Italy has here is that in the OTL, Libya oil is considered a very good quality oil and as it is close to Europe has a lower transport cost. So it attracts a premium in price.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Then the next question is what is Libya cost structure for oil. Russia for example in that period had a lot of problems exporting oil because among other problems its oil was expensive. I would wonder what production costs would be in Libya, one advantage that Italy has here is that in the OTL, Libya oil is considered a very good quality oil and as it is close to Europe has a lower transport cost. So it attracts a premium in price.

Firstly I think we need to start an Italy Has Oil topic because this is really about what if Italy had its own supply, not what if Germany had its own oil supply.

Secondly I doubt that ITTL the oil production of Libya would increase from nothing in 1930 to 148 million long tons by 1939 if the OTL production was brought forward 30 years. There wasn't enough demand in Europe for oil in those quantities in the 1930s.

What is more likely is that Italy would produce enough oil to satisfy its own OTL oil requirements. Next because Italy was more dependent upon imported coal than it was imported oil the Italians would try to satisfy their energy requirements by burning oil instead of imported coal as much as was possible. AFAIK the only coal they would have to import was coking coal to make steel with.

That would save Italy foreign currency, which they could spend on other things the country needed to import. It would also increase the Italian Government's revenue because the money spent abroad on the imported coal and oil IOTL would be spent in Italy ITTL.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I think Italy was more likely to invade Ethiopia. Having it's own oil makes Italy less vulnerable to economic sanctions.

However, AFAIK Mussolini was hostile to Hitler in the period 1933-35. E.g. (and AFAIK) it was Italian intervention that led to Hitler backing down over the Dollfuss Affair.

What changed things was Hitler supplying Italy with German coal to make up for withheld supplies of British coal.

If Libya was producing enough oil by 1935 to eliminate Italy's dependence on imported coal as well as imported oil then Hitler can't earn Mussolini's friendship by supplying Italy with German coal because Italy doesn't need it.

There is still the Spanish Civil War for them to become friends over though.

I doubt that Libyan oil production beginning in 1931 would make Italy significantly richer in 1936 ITTL than it was in that year IOTL. However, if it did Mussolini might use some of that wealth to provide Franco with more aid, which in turn might shorten the war. It would give Franco more time to rebuild his country and a shorter war might mean less damage to repair (but not if the same damage was done in a shorter period).

That might be enough to reduce one of the stumbling blocks that prevented Franco coming into the war in June 1940 IOTL, i.e. Spain had been devastated by the civil war.

The other one was that IOTL Hitler and Mussolini could not supply Franco with oil. They can ITTL.

That leaves the third major stumbling block which was food.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Oil was discovered much earlier in the 1920s.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5vz2mk/why_didnt_italy_find_oil_in_libya_while_it_was_an/

Although the writer here is dubious about the oil being useful to Italy, I am not so sure, with a significant oil find in Libya, the Axis attack on Malta would probably proceed so stopping most of the RN interference this, of course, assumes that Italy in this ATL does join the war. With a large oil field in Libya, Italy may be reluctant to join in the conflict as it is so vulnerable in 1940 to the RN.

I think that the vulnerability of the oil fields to direct attack by the British from Egypt, and that British forces based on Malta might sink the tankers, would make no difference whatsoever to Mussolini's decision to declare war in June 1940.

This is because Italy's oil supply IOTL was even more vulnerable than ITTL. AFAIK it all came from sources outside the Mediterranean and that didn't stop him declaring war. He didn't even bother recalling his merchant shipping before declaring war, with the result that (IIRC) one third of the Italian merchant marine was scuttled or captured by the British.

IOTL Mussolini was very reluctant to join the war until June 1940 and that was because it looked as if Hitler had won the war for him. However, in June 1940 it looked as if the war would only continue for a few months so a temporary interruption of supplies wouldn't be a problem.

Also I'm rather sceptical about the ability of the Royal Navy to interrupt the flow of oil from Libya to Europe in the second half of 1940. In that period IOTL the RAF and RN were only able to sink a negligible portion of the supplies sent to Libya and I think they would do no better against the tanker traffic ITTL.

Where the British might have more success in the second half of 1940 is by the RAF bombing the oil wells, pipelines and ports. Commando raids against these targets could be effective too. However, if the RAF's bombers in Egypt are bombing the Libyan oil infrastructure, they're not bombing something else.

 

[bernardz]

Secondly I doubt that ITTL the oil production of Libya would increase from nothing in 1930 to 148 million long tons by 1939 if the OTL production was brought forward 30 years. There wasn't enough demand in Europe for oil in those quantities in the 1930s.

Maybe we should make a new POD.

Italy does not have to get anywhere near that figure to be a major player in oil.

http://digital.library.northwestern.edu/league/le0280ah.pdf

(Mt means millions of metric tons of crude oil produced for the whole year)

USA 182.657 Mt
USSR 29.700 Mt
Venezuela 27.443 Mt
Iran 10.426 Mt
Indonesia 7.939 Mt
Mexico 6.721 Mt
Romania 5.764 Mt
Columbia 3.636 Mt
Iraq 3.438 Mt
Argentina 2.871 Mt
Trinidad 2.844 Mt
Peru 1.776 Mt
Burma 1.088 Mt
Canada 1.082 Mt
Egypt 0.929 Mt

I think Italy was more likely to invade Ethiopia. Having it's own oil makes Italy less vulnerable to economic sanctions.

I agree

However, AFAIK Mussolini was hostile to Hitler in the period 1933-35. E.g. (and AFAIK) it was Italian intervention that led to Hitler backing down over the Dollfuss Affair.

What changed things was Hitler supplying Italy with German coal to make up for withheld supplies of British coal.

If Libya was producing enough oil by 1935 to eliminate Italy's dependence on imported coal as well as imported oil then Hitler can't earn Mussolini's friendship by supplying Italy with German coal because Italy doesn't need it.

There is still the Spanish Civil War for them to become friends over though.

I doubt that Libyan oil production beginning in 1931 would make Italy significantly richer in 1936 ITTL than it was in that year IOTL. However, if it did Mussolini might use some of that wealth to provide Franco with more aid, which in turn might shorten the war. It would give Franco more time to rebuild his country and a shorter war might mean less damage to repair (but not if the same damage was done in a shorter period).

That might be enough to reduce one of the stumbling blocks that prevented Franco coming into the war in June 1940 IOTL, i.e. Spain had been devastated by the civil war.

The other one was that IOTL Hitler and Mussolini could not supply Franco with oil. They can ITTL.

That leaves the third major stumbling block which was food.

Franco also wants war material too.

I think that the vulnerability of the oil fields to direct attack by the British from Egypt, and that British forces based on Malta might sink the tankers, would make no difference whatsoever to Mussolini's decision to declare war in June 1940.

This is because Italy's oil supply IOTL was even more vulnerable than ITTL. AFAIK it all came from sources outside the Mediterranean and that didn't stop him declaring war. He didn't even bother recalling his merchant shipping before declaring war, with the result that (IIRC) one third of the Italian merchant marine was scuttled or captured by the British.

IOTL Mussolini was very reluctant to join the war until June 1940 and that was because it looked as if Hitler had won the war for him. However, in June 1940 it looked as if the war would only continue for a few months so a temporary interruption of supplies wouldn't be a problem.

Also I'm rather sceptical about the ability of the Royal Navy to interrupt the flow of oil from Libya to Europe in the second half of 1940. In that period IOTL the RAF and RN were only able to sink a negligible portion of the supplies sent to Libya and I think they would do no better against the tanker traffic ITTL.

Where the British might have more success in the second half of 1940 is by the RAF bombing the oil wells, pipelines and ports. Commando raids against these targets could be effective too. However, if the RAF's bombers in Egypt are bombing the Libyan oil infrastructure, they're not bombing something else.

Agreed.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Franco also wants war material too.

Is that raw materials or completed weapons?

Shortly before Italy entered the war they sold 4 destroyers and about 300 aircraft to Sweden, I suspect in exchange for Swedish iron ore. I've often though of the Italians selling them to Spain in exchange for Spanish iron ore.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Maybe we should make a new POD.

Italy does not have to get anywhere near that figure to be a major player in oil.

http://digital.library.northwestern.edu/league/le0280ah.pdf

(Mt means millions of metric tons of crude oil produced for the whole year)

USA 182.657 Mt
USSR 29.700 Mt
Venezuela 27.443 Mt
Iran 10.426 Mt
Indonesia 7.939 Mt
Mexico 6.721 Mt
Romania 5.764 Mt
Columbia 3.636 Mt
Iraq 3.438 Mt
Argentina 2.871 Mt
Trinidad 2.844 Mt
Peru 1.776 Mt
Burma 1.088 Mt
Canada 1.082 Mt
Egypt 0.929 Mt

I agree about a new POD.

I think the Italian Government would concentrate on replacing oil imports with Libyan oil and then (wherever possible) imported coal with Libyan oil before exporting.

I found some figures on the internet that say Italy increased its domestic coal production from 800,000 tons in 1934 to about 2.4 million tons in 1938. Meanwhile its coal imports over the same period fluctuated between about 12 million tons and about 13.5 million tons. That is except for 1936 when it declined to 8.7 million tons.

The combined coal supply (imports plus domestic production) was about:

1934 - 12.5 million tons
1935 - 14.5 million tons
1936 - 10.3 million tons
1937 - 14.6 million tons
1938 - 14.3 million tons
​

Replacing that with Libyan oil would make Italy a major producer, but not necessarily a major exporter.

 

[bernardz]

I agree about a new POD.

Unless there is any objection can the moderator transfer this part of the discussion to a new POD, thanking them in advance

 

[marathag]

Replacing that with Libyan oil would make Italy a major producer, but not necessarily a major exporter.

One ton of Coal is roughly equal to 5 barrels of Crude Oil from a BTU outlook, but Crude is a mix of Hydrocarbons. Libyan Crude is considered a Light Sweet Crude, meaning has low sulfur and more mid range and lighter blends, and less tar. Ideal for vehicle and for heating

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

One ton of Coal is roughly equal to 5 barrels of Crude Oil from a BTU outlook, but Crude is a mix of Hydrocarbons. Libyan Crude is considered a Light Sweet Crude, meaning has low sulfur and more mid range and lighter blends, and less tar. Ideal for vehicle and for heating

How good would it be as a fuel for steam locomotives?

 

[marathag]

How good would it be as a fuel for steam locomotives?

Awesome. Many western railroads had switched to oil burners, due to California having far more Oil and the shortage of coalmines west of the Rocky Mountains.

Southern Pacific had converted their line to Oil by WW I. Previously Coal from Washington State had to be shipped in by boat.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

How good would it be as a fuel for steam locomotives?

And generating electricity in oil fired power stations?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

One ton of Coal is roughly equal to 5 barrels of Crude Oil from a BTU outlook, but Crude is a mix of Hydrocarbons. Libyan Crude is considered a Light Sweet Crude, meaning has low sulfur and more mid range and lighter blends, and less tar. Ideal for vehicle and for heating

What would it be like for generating electricity in oil fired power stations?

 

[thaddeus]

What would it be like for generating electricity in oil fired power stations?

Saudis are nearly 100% oil-fired power plants still.