Peak oil has long since occurred in Ploiesti, Romania, where the Germans got most of their oil during World War II.
Lend-Lease. The Allied Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union which made the Soviet Union superior to Nazi-Germany in materiel and also economically during most of World War II. Supplies and military equipment were shipped in convoys around Nordkap in Norway to Murmansk and Archangels. Supplies and military equipment were also shipped from the US to Vladivostok in southeastern Russia with Soviet flagged ships. A Persian Corridor was also available to support the Soviet Union.
From the East, however, there will never be any Lend-Lease going to the Western countries. The Germans’ interest in expanding their borders Westward is minimal.
Moscow seems to be just the right distance from Western Europe to keep Russia from defeat, seen in a historical perspective. Circumstances may have altered with the development of new materiel like long distance weapons and satellite sensors.
Italy and Spain are no longer fascist states.
Hypothetical German hopes of securing a future fuel supply (and Chrome supply transported by railways from Turkey) by taking the oil fields in the Caucasus at Baku and the Caspian sea are vane. Perhaps some Germans hope that, as they did in Nazi-Germany, seize the oil fields and load the fuel on barges that can traffic the Danube River. Importing oil from North Africa through the straits in western Turkey and up to the Danube River is certainly seen as an alternative for Germany.
Germany buys a percentually smaller proportion of its oil from Russia, but they buy a lot of gas through the Nordstream pipeline. They have tied theirselves quite a bit to Russia’s supplies of gas to Germany.
Germany can extract liquid fuel from their oil shale and lignite coal, but not enough for the German logistics chain, the motorized army and the air force.
I have put together a 35-point axiom, which can be used to determine a possible outcome in case of a major war. Of these 35 points, Nazi Germany had 17 crucial advantages against 6 for the Soviet Union, and yet Germany lost the war. My conclusion is that this is mostly due to the Soviet endurance through the Allies Lend-Lease, as well as the bombings of Germany including bombings against German-occupied/allied industrial areas and petroleum industries.
(Seventeen German advantages marked *)
1) have a better air force *
2) have a better or more extensive air defense *
3) are more thoroughly trained *
4) have logistic advantages *
5) have the right kind of materiel and equipment in the right amount and constellation, civil as well as military *
6) have material quality advantages for heavier materiel *
7) have information, intelligence and surveillance advantages *
8) have technological communication advantages *
9) have better and more encryption variables *
10) have a superior leadership and educational doctrine *
11) have the opportunity to choose their battles and where they will take place *
12) have the best country climate *
13) have physically stronger and more sustainable soldiers (mainly concerns voluntary defense/professional soldiers) *
14) have better motivated soldiers *
15) have a better and more sustainable financial system *
16) have a better ability to quickly rebuild ruined industry and destroyed infrastructure (at least when the war looks like in WWII it’s a contest) *
17) have better infrastructure in their home country *
(Six Russian advantages marked ¤)
18) have a weather or season advantage during their warfare, or have weather-resistant clothing for their soldiers, cold-resistant equipment, functional food supplies and indoor accommodation opportunities in severe cold, etc. Deep snow can make transportation and transfer difficult for those who are not equipped and trained, deep mud is even worse, it may cause the most problem for an attacker.¤
19) have a bigger and faster production¤
20) gets financial and material help from the outside world¤
21) have access to oil and oil refineries and kerosene¤
22) have the most (ice free) commercial ports and access to safe shipping routs¤
23) have plenty of or appropriately placed fake targets so that the enemy’s surveillance and attack aircraft will wrongly assess the situation¤
(Twelve indefinable or double acting)
24) are better equipped
25) are better protected and defended by, for example, mines and artillery in a defensive action and artillery during an offensive action
26) are more protected and harder to detect by using better Maskirovka (camouflage)
27) have better tools, e.g. have dark vision devices as standard if you look at the situation today, or have electrolyte powder and potassium permanganate and antibiotics and low-cost performance enhancers, etc.
28) have advantages in terms of fire against targets
29) have better armor on combat vehicles with an advantage of better impact concerning fire against targets
30) have geographic advantages for either defense alt. an offensive (forest areas, steppes, transverse rivers etc.) ¤ *
31) In addition, the best long-range heavy-duty vehicles, adapted for the ground conditions and the accessibility of the offensive (compare with multiplied tactics) ¤ *
32) have a shorter production chain
33) have greater potential/ability to protect industry and infrastructure * ¤
34) have commodity assets within gripping distance ¤ *
35) have the most friendly minded neighboring states or least hostile neighbors
Nazi Germany had 17 of these above listed 35 possible advantages. Opposed are six advantages for Russia, and twelve indeterminable.
Perseverance is obviously such an important factor that it overrides all other factors if you can hold off a quick victory for the opposing side. How else can you explain a German loss even though the Germans had 17 advantages against 6 for the Soviet Union?
The Germans can not count on making a reprisal of the overall plan for the daring attack through the Ardennes in the attack on France in 1940.
Lastly, let me remind you that Germany’s constitution today explicitly prohibits Germany from entering into strategic defense alliances with non-NATO countries. For the protocol, I can say that I support this.
Roger M. Klang, defense spokesperson for the Christian Values Party (Kristna Värdepartiet)