WI: Oilfields more accessible to the Axis

This is pretty much just a reboot of this thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-matzen-oilfields-operational-in-1939.300285/

As I gradually learn more about WWII, it seems one of the largest (of so many) factors in Axis defeat was oil. It seems this is one of the most important things to deal with to give them any kind of chance. The above thread asked what would have happened if two large oilfields much more accessible to the Axis than the Caucasus had been discovered before the war. How would this change the economy and politics of their respective nations, and just how much would it have changed the war?

This was a very helpful video on the subject of oil and Axis strategy:
 
Do the oilfields have to actually exist and does the oil have to be accessible by late-30s drilling technology? Much of the oil in mid-1940 Nazi-occupied Europe is in the North Sea and the Low Countries, and is therefore susceptible to naval and aerial attack. The oilfields would have to be far enough from the UK to make bombing difficult, yet close enough to Germany and the fronts to supply petroleum products to vehicles. Also, it's doubtful that the oilfields could be developed in time if they're only discovered circa 1940. Germany would need a larger oil industry, including refining capacity, well before the beginning of the war. And an oil-rich Germany might very well not have endure the economic challenges in the 20s and early 30s that brought Hitler to power. (As an example, if they had a substantial surplus of oil, the Treaty of Versailles might have asked for reparations in oil, reparations that could be repaid without too much hardship.) IMO, the most likely scenario that still leads to Hitler starting WW2 is if the oil is in the Sudetenland (or possibly Austria). The Czechs would be loath to abandon not only their entire system of fortifications and their chief industries but also their main natural resource. But say Munich still happens, and Germany gets the oil that way...
 
Well, there are also other oil fields under Germany(believe about 14-17 million under NW Germany).

So combined with Matzen(25 mill.) Schonnebeek(8-10 mill.) and NW Germany(14-17 mill.), Germany would have access to about 47-52 million barrels of oil. More synthetic oil than they made in the entire war.

I made a post about this with links included.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...o-fronted-war-for-years.443554/#post-17017209

Germany, does need to discover the oil fields in the early 1930s, say about before 1934/35, for all these fields to be operational before the war starts.

I would say the fall of France is ensured as they have more units mechanized(discovery of oil fields, meaning they can curb synthetic oil production and focus more on making more trucks).

Would it defeat the Soviet Union? I would think so. I always saw Barbarossa as a failure to logistics. Russian resistance was a big one, but going couple hundred miles further than OTL, would help immensely.

I can see the capture of Leningrad entail, which would make an attack on Moscow in 1942 possible. I always saw a 1942 attack on Moscow only possible if Leningrad was captured.

Come 1942, they have more mechanized divisions to attack Stalingrad with, and can focus more on bombing the oil fields to deny the Russians from having them.

Might also help when rebuilding the oil wells as they won't have rail to horse when moving supplies to fix them. There will be more rail to truck moving supplies.

Or it might make a Mediterranean strategy more viable as they can actually fuel the Afrika Corps via gas powered landing craft near the shore. (See the Marinefahrprahm, being smaller and faster and harder to detetct, might also help with grabbing oil from the Middle East.)

The more oil they have, the greater they can increase their operational range, and subsequently increase their attacks, and create more breathing room for whatever divisions withdraw.

The oil they have is not much, but gives Germany more breathing space to make more mistakes and recover from it.
 
Last edited:
Do the oilfields have to actually exist and does the oil have to be accessible by late-30s drilling technology? Much of the oil in mid-1940 Nazi-occupied Europe is in the North Sea and the Low Countries, and is therefore susceptible to naval and aerial attack.

The oilfields would have to be far enough from the UK to make bombing difficult, yet close enough to Germany and the fronts to supply petroleum products to vehicles. Also, it's doubtful that the oilfields could be developed in time if they're only discovered circa 1940. Germany would need a larger oil industry, including refining capacity, well before the beginning of the war.

It actually is very accessible, it wasn't discovered due to luck and Hitler's focus on the synthetic fuel program. Also, IIRC, the Allies didn't strike Germany effectively until 1944, making much of the oil fields there safe until then.

If Germany did discover them, it would have to be before 1935.

And an oil-rich Germany might very well not have endure the economic challenges in the 20s and early 30s that brought Hitler to power. (As an example, if they had a substantial surplus of oil, the Treaty of Versailles might have asked for reparations in oil, reparations that could be repaid without too much hardship.) IMO, the most likely scenario that still leads to Hitler starting WW2 is if the oil is in the Sudetenland (or possibly Austria). The Czechs would be loath to abandon not only their entire system of fortifications and their chief industries but also their main natural resource. But say Munich still happens, and Germany gets the oil that way...

Can you source anywhere where they would be forced to give up oil as part of the Treaty of Versailles? Because, there is nothing about oil there. Germany tested lots of rockets, due to there being nothing in the treaty about testing rockets.

Germany having more oil would be even stronger as they can subsequently have more motorized divisions to help them. Leading Chamberlain to still allow Hitler to have the Sudetenland.

Also none of the oil fields in NW Germany or Holland, are in the Rhineland at all, making Germany free to drill and build new fields.
 
Can you source anywhere where they would be forced to give up oil as part of the Treaty of Versailles? Because, there is nothing about oil there. Germany tested lots of rockets, due to there being nothing in the treaty about testing rockets.
No. I didn't mean the OTL Treaty, but rather the hypothetical treaty between a still-victorious Entente and an oil-rich Germany. My thinking was along these lines: the OTL treaty allowed in-kind payments of coal, so, if Germany had been a major oil-producing country in 1918, payments might have been made in oil.
 
No. I didn't mean the OTL Treaty, but rather the hypothetical treaty between a still-victorious Entente and an oil-rich Germany. My thinking was along these lines: the OTL treaty allowed in-kind payments of coal, so, if Germany had been a major oil-producing country in 1918, payments might have been made in oil.

Oh well I was thinking along the lines of OTL.

If Germany was oil rich in this hypothetical, wouldn't it have won World War One then? IF, they were oil rich and not the British nor the French(I don't believe any significant oil came out for the British yet, not that I am aware of).

But if they did lose in your hypothetical, I would think so, if they did in coal, they probably would do it in oil. Whatever means of energy to pay by them, I guess.
 
Thanks @Roches and @DerWonderWaffles for your responses. If producing synthetic oil and importing oil aren't as much of a concern for Germany, could they be able to focus on producing more and better equipment? With Germany exploiting its oilfields, could this spur the other nations to look for oil in their own countries/colonies?

I'm a naval fan, so how could this affect the Kriegsmarine?
 
if they had the production equal to the synthetic plants without having to build the synthetic plants, but rather obtained it from German and Austrian fields? it is a huge advantage over historical but maybe overstated to have them completely mechanized?

they have the savings in steel, some of the projected KM program finished before the war as shortages delayed things. they are probably not trading for Soviet oil but some of the other scarce resources, tungsten, chrome, natural rubber?
 
Oh well I was thinking along the lines of OTL.

If Germany was oil rich in this hypothetical, wouldn't it have won World War One then? IF, they were oil rich and not the British nor the French(I don't believe any significant oil came out for the British yet, not that I am aware of).

But if they did lose in your hypothetical, I would think so, if they did in coal, they probably would do it in oil. Whatever means of energy to pay by them, I guess.

Britain has plentiful access to oil via her concessions in Persia and Mexico and the fact that she "Rules the Waves", so the fact she lacks domestic oil resources wasen't really a concern. As for France, I imagine they'd actually prefer if the payments in coal: oil wasn't of particularly heavy use in industry at this point and was only just starting to come into its own as fuel for economical vehicles (The internal combustion engine and automobiles were only barely competitive at the end of the Great War). Maybe as part of the Versailles renegotiations later on they would push for a shift, but at that point Germany might not be so willing.



More? Probably; a steady domestic supply of oil means the mechanization of the German forces is going to be seen as more viable in an environment of autarky and the expectation of being cut off from international sources in their planned war. Granted, you're still going to run into resource bottlenecks in other places (Rubber, aluminium, ect.) and limitations in industrial capacity as well as the time crunch of having a limited time between openly defying Versailles and the other powers kicking up their own re-armament to a pace they can't match, but better is probably not in the cards. Germany was already moving from model to more advanced model about as fast as their industry and engineers could handle, and moving much faster runs the risk of you losing your organizational advantage and creating parts shortages/destandarization and outpacing the training of their mechanics that will ultimately result in a less effective force. As for the Kriegsmarine... Germany dosen't have alot of shipyards, skilled dockworkers and naval crewmen, ect. I think you'll see far bigger affect on the Luftwaffe; aircraft can be built much quicker than large ships, Germany has experienced pilots who can provide the training to get the crews for a solid airfleet (and now have the fuel to work their trainer craft and thus keep up training times and pilot quality), and better compliments the strategic goals of the nation.
 

Marc

Donor
Unless Germany develops nuclear weaponry, they don't have any chance. Changing a few details, doesn't alter the big picture.
For which we should all be utterly grateful, considering the monstrosity Germany and its people were during those horrible years.
 
Unless Germany develops nuclear weaponry, they don't have any chance. Changing a few details, doesn't alter the big picture.
For which we should all be utterly grateful, considering the monstrosity Germany and its people were during those horrible years.
Of course, we have many threads here asking about changes that most would agree creates a worse world. There's a quite a bit of difference between doing what we're doing here and actively desiring an Axis victory. Of course, even doing this draws criticism, but looking at alternatives can give us insight into the real events, good and bad.

At the moment, I've been fiddling around with a TL where Kentucky joins the CSA, making the war more difficult for the Union. This certainly doesn't mean I find a world where 4 million people and their descendants continued to be enslaved for 50+ more years preferable to the one I live in, it only means I'm creating a fantasy. A fantasy that uses historical events, but just that, a fantasy.
 
Last edited:

Marc

Donor
I'm sorry, but I find it hard to disassociate hypothetical outcomes from their most likely consequences - especially when those consequences are deeply interwoven in the whole gestalt of historical events. And I find it troubling at times that a fairly popular motif is trying to figure out how the really evil guys win; as if their evilness wasn't integral to the whole story.
Yes, I know, cognitive dissonance and all that jazz... Ah well.

However, my first comment still is so self-evident - a non-nuclear Nazi Germany is so going to lose in the end - that I am surprised that few, if any, take that into account. It is as if they want to play chess with the other side giving them a Queen and move handicap. Now that is more than fantasy.
 
Of course, we have many threads here asking about changes that most would agree creates a worse world. There's a quite a bit of difference between doing what we're doing here and actively desiring an Axis victory. Of course, even doing this draws criticism, but looking at alternatives can give us insight into the real events, good and bad.

At the moment, I've been fiddling around with a TL where Kentucky joins the CSA, making the war more difficult for the Union. This certainly doesn't mean I find a world where 4 million people and their descendants continued to be enslaved for 50+ more years preferable to the one I live in, it only means I'm creating a fantasy. A fantasy that uses historical events, but just that, a fantasy.
You definitely have a point, I hope you don't think I'm trying to make light of the actions of the Axis.
 
I'm sorry, but I find it hard to disassociate hypothetical outcomes from their most likely consequences - especially when those consequences are deeply interwoven in the whole gestalt of historical events. And I find it troubling at times that a fairly popular motif is trying to figure out how the really evil guys win; as if their evilness wasn't integral to the whole story.
Yes, I know, cognitive dissonance and all that jazz... Ah well.

However, my first comment still is so self-evident - a non-nuclear Nazi Germany is so going to lose in the end - that I am surprised that few, if any, take that into account. It is as if they want to play chess with the other side giving them a Queen and move handicap. Now that is more than fantasy.

I disagree. A non-nuclear Germany can still very easily win (Edit: Ok, maybe not win. But not decisively lose and get a minor defeat/negotiated peace) or at least bring the Allies to terms if she can knock the Soviets out and establish air superiority over the European continent. Atomic bombs are powerful weapons, to be sure, but they can't win a war on their own. For that you need boots on the ground.
 
Last edited:
if they had the production equal to the synthetic plants without having to build the synthetic plants, but rather obtained it from German and Austrian fields? it is a huge advantage over historical but maybe overstated to have them completely mechanized?

they have the savings in steel, some of the projected KM program finished before the war as shortages delayed things. they are probably not trading for Soviet oil but some of the other scarce resources, tungsten, chrome, natural rubber?

on the Soviet front they would not have critical need for oil so no diversion south into the Caucasus? the coal and grain of Ukraine more likely targets?
 

Ian_W

Banned
I disagree. A non-nuclear Germany can still very easily win (Edit: Ok, maybe not win. But not decisively lose and get a minor defeat/negotiated peace) or at least bring the Allies to terms if she can knock the Soviets out and establish air superiority over the European continent. Atomic bombs are powerful weapons, to be sure, but they can't win a war on their own. For that you need boots on the ground.

You are completely full of shit.

In OTL, the Allies didn't put a boot on the ground in Japan, but two nukes got their surrender.

In an ATL 1945, if the Allies are stuck at the Rhine, and - say - Berlin, Munich and Dortmund have disappeared in nuclear fire, then the Nazis still lose.
 
You are completely full of shit.

In OTL, the Allies didn't put a boot on the ground in Japan, but two nukes got their surrender.

In an ATL 1945, if the Allies are stuck at the Rhine, and - say - Berlin, Munich and Dortmund have disappeared in nuclear fire, then the Nazis still lose.

You presume Allies on the Rhine in 1945 as if that's just holy writ to be given. Any Soviets Crack First scenario prior to the end of 43 would easily see the forces surging in from the east tossing Allied beach heads in Europe into the sea and free up the majority of Nazi military resources that previously had been engaged with the Reds. Politically, Churchill and probably any Roosevelt successor isen't going to survive raising the kind of army it would take to crack Fortress Europe, especially since a Soviet Surrender is almost invariably going to include the mandating of deliver/seizure of key resources.

And, considering this entire scenario is built on greater German access to petrolium; thus allowing for a higher proporition of mechanization and air support in early Barbarossa and a system in general more condusive to her mobility/organizational/ect advantages of grand strategic docrines of destruction/capture in detail and Blitzkreig, the chances of a Soviets Crack First sceanrio go up rather significantly from OTL.
 

Ian_W

Banned
You presume Allies on the Rhine in 1945 as if that's just holy writ to be given. Any Soviets Crack First scenario prior to the end of 43 would easily see the forces surging in from the east tossing Allied beach heads in Europe into the sea and free up the majority of Nazi military resources that previously had been engaged with the Reds. Politically, Churchill and probably any Roosevelt successor isen't going to survive raising the kind of army it would take to crack Fortress Europe, especially since a Soviet Surrender is almost invariably going to include the mandating of deliver/seizure of key resources.

And, considering this entire scenario is built on greater German access to petrolium; thus allowing for a higher proporition of mechanization and air support in early Barbarossa and a system in general more condusive to her mobility/organizational/ect advantages of grand strategic docrines of destruction/capture in detail and Blitzkreig, the chances of a Soviets Crack First sceanrio go up rather significantly from OTL.

The issue with Nazis is they care about the Triumph of the Will, not with mere material factors.

In 1941, the Nazis had enough petrol, so "thus allowing for a higher proporition of mechanization and air support in early Barbarossa " does not follow.

Yeah, it's all about that boring stuff, like putting your rail- and truck-borne logistics in - get this - the *same* chain of command, in the way the Nazis didn't.

Yes, you can do useless handwaving, and assuming just because they had more petrol, the Nazi's would have used it more effectively. But, well, that's handwaving. Remember, Nazis don't do boring stuff.

It abandons Triumph of the Will for winning a war of attrition, which makes the Nazis into Notzis.

Regarding the core of the issue, Churchill and Roosevelt did both approve a Bomber Command capable of dropping The Bomb, and a Project Manhattan capable of building it. At a bomb every three months, does the Nazis survive till 1945, or 1946 ?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
You are completely full of shit.

In OTL, the Allies didn't put a boot on the ground in Japan, but two nukes got their surrender.

In an ATL 1945, if the Allies are stuck at the Rhine, and - say - Berlin, Munich and Dortmund have disappeared in nuclear fire, then the Nazis still lose.
Nope to the power of nope.

Please be civil.
 
The issue with Nazis is they care about the Triumph of the Will, not with mere material factors.

In 1941, the Nazis had enough petrol, so "thus allowing for a higher proporition of mechanization and air support in early Barbarossa " does not follow.

Yeah, it's all about that boring stuff, like putting your rail- and truck-borne logistics in - get this - the *same* chain of command, in the way the Nazis didn't.

Yes, you can do useless handwaving, and assuming just because they had more petrol, the Nazi's would have used it more effectively. But, well, that's handwaving. Remember, Nazis don't do boring stuff.

It abandons Triumph of the Will for winning a war of attrition, which makes the Nazis into Notzis.

Regarding the core of the issue, Churchill and Roosevelt did both approve a Bomber Command capable of dropping The Bomb, and a Project Manhattan capable of building it. At a bomb every three months, does the Nazis survive till 1945, or 1946 ?

I politely but firmly disagree that the Nazis are somehow completely irrational and incompetent.

The Germans did not, historically, have enough petrol production within its sphere to fuel even it's historic usage. They were importing roughly 1/4 of the fuel they took in that year despite the addition of the Romanian oil fields and laborious efforts at coal-to-liquid-fuel synthesis, of which almost the entirety came from the Soviet Union; Imports which were likely to be... interrupted in the event of the war they were planning. This, alongside industrial bottlenecks, created limits on how quickly they were physically capable of moving over to motorized transport and combat vehicles. As for saying greater access to resources means they will use that resource more if they're aware there is a benefit to doing so.. that's an assumption that the Germans behave similarly to basically any other society. Especially since they'd be using it the same way they used their supplies/tools historically, just at higher concentration/greater quantities or in more places.

Blitzkrieg and maneuver warfare is not anthema to the Triumph of the Will. Otherwise, they wouldn't have made it their grands strategy in our timeline, unless you're suggesting greater access to petroleum would cause them to adopt that ideology when they did not do so historically.

I said they don't completely lose. No doubt after the first few bombs, if the Germans see they can't counter them effectively, somebody will send out feelers for terms. How many mass slaughters can the governments of the Allies tolerate politically before the principal of unconditional surrender becomes a tad more flexible?
 
Top