Oil Decided World War II - Daniel Yergin

[@Lagassejames]

Germany lost because they over extended their supply lines, couldn’t manufacture anywhere enough supplies to meet demand, didn’t have the manpower to face the world and their tactics could surprise just so long before they were countered. They underestimated Russias ability to wage war based on the war with Finland allowing for a poorly planned invasion with unrealistic expectations. Even with adequate oil their logistic command told them they couldn’t adequately supply the army to reach the stated goals. They let their egos do the planning and were destined to,fail.

[@JoBlakeLisbon]

Germany failed because it was fighting the US and Russia. To say they planned with ego is absurd. The invasion of Russia was simply a case of striking first as Russia was preparing at their boarder.

[@anomite121]

exactly, they just went to a war they could never win in the long run and they counted on winning with blitz tactic, that didnt work in russia so they lost, oil wasn't even the main thing it started becoming a problem after the germans clearly lost the war already, if they had more maybe the bulge thing would've worked out

[@SkyGlitchGalaxy]

Never mind expanding synthetic oil production. The germans barely managed increased coal production during ww2, and they had unlimited coal to mine.

[@joaquimdantas63]

WWII was basically oil rich powers (USA, UK -- by controlling Iraq, Iran and Java & Borneo, then Dutch colonies -- and URSS) versus oil thirsty/oil lacking countries (Germany, Japan, Italy). The little mustache guy commanding Germany once, on March 1942, said to the other folks at the OKH (the Supreme German Army headquarters) Operation Blau, the purporting tempting of taking the Caucasus Soviet oil, then in its final planning stages, that if Germany couldn't take possession of the Baku oil fields they should consider the war altogether lost for Germany. Also Japan was indeed somehow "pushed" to war against the United States because of the US, UK and Netherlands "de facto" oil embargo (cf. Ian Kershaw's brilliant analysis of this and other events of the same huge importance on his book "Fateful Decisions"). I always think about the then not yet discovered Lybian oil to which Italy would have absolute control were it found by the thirties. By the way, as hinted above on this video itself, producing synthetic fuel out of coal was (and so stills remain) enormously expensive and costly when compaired to oil drilling and refining, and not even Nazi Germany could afford to be entirely dependent on synthetic fuel and making the humongous investinent(cf. Adams Tooze's excellent book "The Wages of War | The Making and the Breaking of the Nazi Germany War Economy" and also professor Yergin's himself own works, not forgetting Tropani's one). WWII was indeed a lot (although, of course, not exclusively) about oil or, as in all modern wars (cf Vaclab Simil's writings) in broader terms, about energy production and consumption. And, at least, once, about the consequences of the eventual unssuccessful Operation Blau the little mustache leader was on the bull's eye.

[@gregorymilla9213]

Hitler lost in Russia as early as Sept ‘41 . The Soviets inflicted a 25% casualty rate unsustainable for the Wehrmacht.

[@MD97531]

The Wehrmacht inflicted much higher casualty rates to the Red Army, but new divisions kept popping up and ultimately the Wehrmacht suffered from limited logistics and a lack of oil. The Soviets benefited greatly from lend lease, as admitted by Khrushchev after the war

[@gregorymilla9213]

@@MD97531 myths Germans tell themselves to feel better about losing . You’d think after Berlin was burned to the ground they would have learned a lesson about attachment to myths . Nope .

[@gregorymilla9213]

@@MD97531 Germany had a 50% casualty rate in the war the USSR had a 25% rate.

[@Jefffrrry]

@@gregorymilla9213 Yes, German losses during the whole course of the war were high, especially since winter 42 onwards when they became utterly unsustainable. But let's not forget how the USSR losses were absolutely horrid at the start of Barbarossa, since the whole country was utterly unprepared for war in 41, from top to bottom. Soldiers didn't have enough equipment, officer corps still decimated. Germany lost, because it underestimated mainly the UK and USSR. And how much material can USA supply to everybody, keeping them in the war. During the course of WW2 USA sent to USSR like what, 11-12k armour, of which 4k were tanks? 10-11k planes? 400k trucks? Utterly unprecedented. Not to mention the Allies intercepted Japanese comms that they won't attack Siberia and USSR was thus able to send more divisions for the crucial defense of Moscow. Barbarossa started a month later than planned, sure, and then tough winter came, but in September of 41? It was not a guaranteed loss for Germany, far from it. That happened in December 41 when Germany was not able to capture Moscow and for good measure declared war on the USA 4 days after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, thus finally untying FDR's hands on both fronts.

[@gregorymilla9213]

@@Jefffrrry the German suffered more casualties in the first two weeks of Barbarossa than all their previous campaigns combined. They underestimated how ferocious the Soviets would fight back along with the Russians ability to move their factories East and rebuild them extremely quickly .

[@javastream5015]

Does it really SAVE oil to throw away an airplane, compared to the required amount of oil to PRODUCE an airplane? 🤔

[@alfnoakes392]

As I understand it by the time Kamikaze aircraft attacks became a primary means to attack Allied ships, the Japanese had more aircraft than they had fuel to use in them in conventional repeated-missions strategy. Initially it was training and older aircraft etc that were used in this way, but by the last weeks of the war all types ere candidates for such use. Additionally, the effectiveness of Allied anti-aircraft fire (partially thanks to new Proximity Fuse) with loss-rates of around 60% for attacking aircraft, made any attack on Allied shipping very nearly a 'kamikaze' one anyway ...

[@Angie9177-k9l]

depending on timing and strategy, existing aircrafts could be viewed as SUNK COST...... however barring an Allies bonehead meltdown they were going to lose the war anyway, they should have called for a truce at an appropriate point in time and regroup...... in hindsight 😅 oh to imagine what the world would look like if they did call for a truce

[@prunepoo]

If you don’t have to fly back, you get twice the range.

[@Jagdkomodo]

To build a plane one could use coal..

[@cormacgreene8505]

Reading Yergin’s book “the prize “, right now. It’s an important book. Highly recommend it

[@markberman6708]

Na, oil or no oil Hitler was never going to win.

[@MadaraUchiha-qq6op]

fact, if war extended by 2 monthes we would have seen hirosima and nagasaki in germany

[@anomite121]

@@MadaraUchiha-qq6op yup, the bomb was made for berlin not for japan, but germany gave up

[@intermilan9731]

Look, I understand you are trying to good for the victorious side. Just typical scared human behavior. Understandable, however irrational and misguided. But Hitler had ample opportunities to win, he botched them in such a way that it would seem like he was a top notch double agent meant to dislodge Germany as a global power.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

We lay fuel pipes across the channel and just pumped it over. We built secret pumping stations in the coast disguised as houses and shops. The pipes crossed the entire country, there's remains of them in fields and the secret pumping station buildings are still there.

[@graphicsRat]

This is an overly simplistic reason why Germany lost WW2. The loss of oil contributed but it was not the sole reason. The destruction of Germany's manufacturing capacity was a major contributing factor.

[@millennialmind9507]

How did that happen? I thought war would have actually fueled up the manufacturing sector

[@skatemo100]

Too many people here are highly underestimating just how important fuel was to the Luftwaffe and Panzer units. Operations had to be put on hold for days sometimes weeks. That was valuable time that the German military couldn’t waste sitting around but had no choice. American and Soviet industry was not the overwhelming force in 1942 that it would go on to become by 1945. Fuel was absolutely one of the important deciding factors. Hitler’s logisticians warned him that the Wehrmacht could only fight on until the October of 1941. Low and behold, the German military ran out of oil in October and the Soviets were able to regroup their best equipped forces outside of Moscow.

[@intermilan9731]

That problem could have been solved. The Japanese were poised to attack the USSR, however Germany never told them anything. If there was a bit of cooperation and communication, Germany and Japan would have launched a simultaneous invasion, which could have crushed the Soviets within months, if not weeks. And Soviet resources could have made Germany invincible.

[@langstonify]

Pursuing a three-front war doomed him.

[@siler7]

This is the real answer. Hitler overextended and never threw a knockout punch. The oil issues came after the war had already been decided.

[@seanlander9321]

When the Australians captured Borneo in 1945 it was to deprive the Japanese of the best oil resource they had, but also to give the Australian and British fleets a base for oil that was closer for the planned invasion of Japan.

[@JunitafluxcyfatriciaJunita]

0:38 3 months considering the American industrial capacity

[@markbrown1412]

While fuel always plays a role in any conflict, Military strength and industrial strength won WWII. Do not distort the facts.

[@Maxrodon]

I think oil did play a big part but the biggest decider was Russia and the Allies combined ability to outlast the German war machine. The German doctrine was based one quick and short decisive campaigns. Their Army was incredibly well suited and tailored to this. But as the war dragged out, the inferiority in the quantity of their resources became more prevalent (man and material). Even if they had all the oil in the world, it would have made no impact on Russias ability to “outbleed” Germany. When Russia lost a man they had 10 more to replace that person while with Germany it was a lot harder especially as they were losing experienced and quality troops that were hard to replicate. The best analogy I could use is treating Germany as a Mike Tyson style fighter, big heavy punches and can take you out in the first few rounds but if it goes beyond that, they start running low on stamina.

[@timgiffard3524]

Didn't have the oil or the ships or man power or the industrial base to support what was attempted whatsoever.

[@IrishCarney]

Why didn't Hitler switch to methanol made from Romanian natural gas that was just being flared off anyway? Coal to methanol is also much easier and cheaper than coal to gasoline. Sure, methanol has less range and can corrode certain cheap materials, but these are minor problems compared to having no fuel at all. And sure, gasoline and diesel would still be necessary for very long range operations like Condor flights, distant U-boat raids, etc., but methanol would have been fine for most other purposes

[@USN_CB_not_BC]

Two demonstrable false statements. Even if the oil tanks at Pearl Harbor were bombed there was more than enough tanker capacity and refinery capacity to restore it. Additionally there was not enough level bombers or bombs available to attack all the fuel farms. AND. The Kamikaze sorties did not always make one way suicide attacks. Many would return if there were no suitable targets were found. Overall theme of the book maybe accurate but I would be more impressed with better scholarship.

[@GrahamLaight]

+1 The theme of the video, that access to oil was a very important factor in WWII, is basically correct, and explaining this in a 2 minute video is a good idea, but the man chosen to do this wasn't up to the job.

[@politenessman3901]

Oil did not decide WW2. production did. Get hold of the book "Brute Force" by John Ellis. The vast gulf in numbers between the allies and the axis in tank numbers, ships, tanks, artillery is frankly incredible.

[@siler7]

Production only became a major factor after Hitler had squandered his chances to defeat the UK and the USSR. Basically, he let them catch him monologueing.

[@tunny5802]

Comments below forget that Germany did not invade USSR alone. Romania 600,000 men, Hungary 1,000,000 men (they also invaded Serbia), Finland, Italy 250,000 men, also French, Spanish, Croatian troops, Estonian Wehrmact, Ukrainian SS... Hitler famously underestimated the "sub-human" Russian ability to fight. Also, Hitler lost the war when the USSR pushed him away from the Baku oil fields and the Romanian oil fields. The invasion by 30,000 French army from Syia into Iraq failed to cut the Kirkuk to Haifa pipe line, which would had stopped oil for the Mediterranean Royal Navy.

[@Brian-bw3uu]

If it's true Japan attacked the US because of the oil embargo, what did they hope to achieve by that?

[@Flyspray420]

Hitler lost because he was unable to win 😅

[@ianendangan7462]

War are fought for resources whether in the old times and newer like Ukraine. If not for the oil embargo, Japan won't invade my country the Philippines to get oil in the East Dutch Indies aka todays Indonesia. They had to seize British/French Colonies and American controlled Philippines for the oil supply will not be harrassed from East Dutch Indies to Japan.

[@Angie9177-k9l]

similarly japan invaded pearl harbor because of oil shortage

[@pauljenkins6877]

Germany lost WWII because it chose to simultaneously fight the United States, the Soviet Union, and the British Empire/Commonwealth.

[@vic5015]

Germany has lots of coal but basically zero oil.

[@moumouzel]

All part of the soviet strategy. The superior system won.

[@ProtomanButCallMeBlues]

The soviet strategy was dumb. It was determined on the U.S. feeding the entire red army, and guess what happens after the war is over? millions starved to death.

[@zoomer619]

A trained kamikaze fighter and plane coming back VS them dying to save fuel. Was oil that expensive??

[@cormacgreene8505]

Oil wasn’t available

[@joaquimdantas63]

Yeap, in the end, mainly, because of the very successful,. US Navy submarines campaign Japan has got almost no fuel at all. Nazi Germany Navy goals against Brittain were attained in full by the US against another island trade dependent power; Japan. The Americans even called the whole affair disingenuously Operation Starvation!

[@alfnoakes392]

By the end stage of the war a) Japanese pilots were almost all barely trained as almost all experienced pilots had been lost in the Marianas Turkey Shoot etc and there was not enough fuel to provide adequate training for new recruits, and b) there simply was no oil. The Japanese resorted to schemes like trying to produce fuel from tree roots. And there was a surplus of aircraft. Initially older and training types were used, but by wars-end recent types were used for Kamikaze purposes.

[@raisingcannes]

I think it's a little misleading to say the Pacific War was instigated by the oil embargo, Pearl Harbor instigated the Pacific War.

[@GrahamLaight]

The oil embargo came first.

[@larcm3]

Pearl harbour was in response to the old embargo

[@JHimminy]

lol the war in the pacific was well underway when Pearl Harbor happened. Just because you don’t know about it, doesn’t make you right.

[@raisingcannes]

@@larcm3 instigate is too strong a word in my opinion, even in the full video he’s reluctant to say it. It makes it sound somewhat like the US started the pacific war when it obviously was the Japanese

[@ralphmumbeck5758]

​@@raisingcannes See the Mack Collum Memorandum (intentionally misspelled because my comments mentioning this are often ghost banned). The intention voiced, and the strategy was to (quote) "goad Japan" into "shooting first" (ulterior motive) so there would be a good excuse to "just shoot back." cheers

[@threeone6012]

The USA produced 1 billion barrels of oil per year in the 1940s. Yes billion. Japan and Germany... close to none. This is rarely brought up but that's all you need to know about WW2.

[@tshirtnjeans4829]

Narratives all sounds good, but grossly over simplify reality.

[@Lonor77]

So Japanese kamikaze pilots committed suicide just to save oil??

[@ralphmumbeck5758]

The conclusion is too narrow, and can only serve as data to figure out the big picture. Simply a look at a small pixel of the larger image, and therefore too "compartmentalized". Distance decided who "won" on all tiers. Europe lost its top tier position as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, ALL Europeans lost. WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and Great Britain off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted. WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that Atlanticists (the naval powers) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination. In the end ALL Europeans lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans. After the Cold War this "rift" was simply *"ruled"* to be further east, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" was moved a few hundred miles eastwards. Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with the Truman Doctrine, and Churchill's Iron Curtain. In the the end, it was those who could "reach" the others, without being "reached onto" who won.

[@mattf3873]

Scared of running out after WWI lol. We found more than we could have ever imagined times 72