Cutting off Nazi Germany's oil supplies in 1943

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,358
Sydney
any Anglo-American expedition would have to run the gauntlet of the Agean ,
their ( very unlikely ) passage through the Bosporus would give an exact intelligence for the Germans

before the July battle of Kursk , the Wehrmacht had its best units in the East in full force
GrossDeutchalnd and the II SS Panzer corps of the Liebstandarte , Das Reich and Totenkopf would have jumped on them like wolves on sheep
the elite Panzers divisions would have made mincemeat of the landing
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,764
Just a couple of more things to add the Germans required quantities of Tetra Ethyl Lead anti knocking compound for the petrol used in their aircraft engines, this was supplied by the US.
It was not. tin foil conspiracy theory stuff without foundation.

But feel free to prve me wrong with some sources for this outlandish claim.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,432
Caribbean
It was not. tin foil conspiracy theory stuff without foundation.
But feel free to prve me wrong with some sources for this outlandish claim.
I agree there is an error in the post. Nothing was supplied by "the US." Things were supplied by US citizens. Some of what the poster referred to is covered in the book-
Charles Higham; Trading With the Enemy: The Nazi-American Money Plot of 1933-1949. Chapter 3

Casual attire, tin foil hat optional
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,764
I agree there is an error in the post. Nothing was supplied by "the US." Things were supplied by US citizens. Some of what the poster referred to is covered in the book-
Charles Higham; Trading With the Enemy: The Nazi-American Money Plot of 1933-1949. Chapter 3

Casual attire, tin foil hat optional
What things when?

Sucre, quote page number. Going to source things do it properly.

Higham is not a reputable source.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,432
Caribbean
Higham is not a reputable source.
Of course, he isn't. The ad hominem fallacy is generally the first shot fired anytime someone's research invades someone else's cognitive dissonance.

Just curious, in your way of thinking, if a book footnotes government and corporate document, is the author the source or are the documents the source? I only ask because I may have a personal bias in this, in that I was trained not to blame the messenger. IMO, the documents are the source.

Frankly, I don't understand your approach. You asked where such information comes from, I took time and effort to show you - and then you have a conniption. Do you really want the information or to deny that it exists?
 
Last edited:

MG1962a

Ad Honorem
Mar 2019
2,193
Kansas
Of course, he isn't. The ad hominem fallacy is generally the first shot fired anytime someone's research invades someone else's cognitive dissonance.

Just curious, in your way of thinking, if a book footnotes government and corporate document, is the author the source or are the documents the source? I only ask because I may have a personal bias in this, in that I was trained not to blame the messenger. IMO, the documents are the source.

Frankly, I don't understand your approach. You asked where such information comes from, I took time and effort to show you - and then you have a conniption. Do you really want the information or to deny that it exists?
Well you have to admit, Highman had a talent for making stuff up to fit his latest book.
 

Lord Fairfax

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,445
Changing trains at Terrapin Station...
Of course, he isn't. The ad hominem fallacy is generally the first shot fired anytime someone's research invades someone else's cognitive dissonance.

Just curious, in your way of thinking, if a book footnotes government and corporate document, is the author the source or are the documents the source? I only ask because I may have a personal bias in this, in that I was trained not to blame the messenger. IMO, the documents are the source.

Frankly, I don't understand your approach. You asked where such information comes from, I took time and effort to show you - and then you have a conniption. Do you really want the information or to deny that it exists?
His post just seems to be saying that he's not impressed with Higham.
He asked you for a source quote and page.
There isn't an Ad Homenim there...

Germany made their own Tetra Ethyl, it wasn't being imported during WWII especially after 1942 AFAIK.

In any event, it's off topic for the thread, which is about a hypothetical attack through the Bosporus.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,432
Caribbean
His post just seems to be saying that he's not impressed with Higham.
He asked you for a source quote and page.
There isn't an Ad Homenim there...
He's been given quotes in another thread, at the cost of my time and effort, which did not budge his opinion, and while refusing to answer any of my questions. So, you are sort-of entering the middle of an ongoing conversation. It occurred to me before I posted, whichever book I referenced, he was going to attack the author. But I appreciate your concern.

Germany made their own Tetra Ethyl, it wasn't being imported during WWII especially after 1942 AFAIK.
I believe that is more or less correct. However, I believe it is also correct that their capacity to do this is a result of patent sharing that resulted from the partnership between Standard Oil and IG Farben. These exchanges began to come under hostile scrutiny around the time of the takeover of Czechoslovakia. And there are several researchers who have chronicled and detailed this.

But I agree. I was enjoying the stories of oil to German via eastern Europe. I was hoping someone could shed light on how much oil was coming out of Arab countries and perhaps reaching Germany.
 
Last edited:

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,432
Caribbean
Well you have to admit, Highman had a talent for making stuff up to fit his latest book.
Most authors make things up. That is why I don't rely on authors. I rely on the documents they footnote.

One of these days, I ought to compile a list. I have probably read at least 50 book on WW2, and no matter how much factual information I gleaned from the book, I cannot think of a single author whose fundamental premise was not, in my opinion, flawed. IMO, on a scale of 1-10, most people are better at research than they are at reasoning.