Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

Both of whom had an industrial output far inferior to that of the United States.

I believe that at the time we're talking about- the early 30s- the USA's industrial output was about the same in proportion to its population as Britain's. You only started going off the chart in the Second World War.

Where? Oil wasn't discovered in Venezuela until the early 1920s, and production didn't pick up until the 30s. At best, the US has these long maritime supply lines like Britain did during the World Wars. That makes her much weaker than she was historically.

The Dutch East Indies are a popular source. Helps that the convoys are going to be out of reach of the vast majority of Confederate raiders.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Second, note that Holland does have ports. These can be occupied.

This calls for us to a) go on a new offensive after having been cut off b) beat the historical advance rate and c) repair those ports in double quick time.

I say we just smash the Germans behind us and probably retake Antwerp.

... without looking up it, I doubt if the German defenses of Holland were all that formidable. The place probably wasn't taken because no one really tried.

Antwerp can fall. Supplies will be disrupted and the primary effect will be merely to create two separate Allied fronts where there was one. There's not going to be any desperate mass of half a million 'surrounded' Allied troops. There's going to be a shortage of airlift space for birthday cakes and no driving because you're tired of walking.

...and for only a little bit. The Germans are going to stop Patton from driving north? Who knows, maybe Montgomery will actually manage to start driving south. After all, the alternative would be to be rescued by Patton...

A German seizure of Antwerp could, as the more realistic German planners hoped, unhinge the Anglo-American drive into Germany for a few months and give the Germans a window of opportunity to try to deal a shattering blow to the Russians. Not that that'll work...

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

They can't extract "massive concessions". The Union companies will just go drill in some other country. The Confederacy will get just the same nonspectacular price for its oil that everyone else does.

But they can. It's what America did to the British and Dutch when oil fields began to be discovered in the Middle East and the Dutch East Indies. American companies were excluding from drilling there, until America passed a law which barred foreign oil companies from having access to American oil and mineral reserves. Despite the fact that the British and Dutch had their own massive reserves, they caved and allowed American companies to drill in their territories.

There's also the point that the Confederate companies would have a huge experience edge. This does matter. In the 1930s, the major oil companies were largely American, British, and Dutch. About the same now.

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Well, first off, a mere lack of indigenous oil is not going to severely retard the North's development: witness Britain and Germany.

Both of whom had an industrial output far inferior to that of the United States. Again, I am not saying that the Union never fully industrializes or something- just that the United States of the 1930s and 1940s is not the 300 pound gorilla that it historically was.

As Ben notes, you're mistaken about US industry prior to 1930. Worse, you seem to virtually ignore what. The South isn't supplying this vital oil prior to 1910. After 1910, she's probably supplying it anyway. Prior to the outbreak of war, I don't see why US industrial development is substantially affected by the fact that oil fields are in Texas. So what if oil costs a bit more? All that means is that more trains continue to be coal fired, those trains are used more than trucks are, and having a car is a bit more of a luxury than it historically was.

NOT that economy killing blow you're looking for.

Secondly, this sort of impoverishment assumes a CSA that is so hostile to the USA that even in peacetime it refuses to sell to its natural best customer. Thirdly, when does Southern oil come to dominate? As I recall, Spindletop was in 1909.

Mexican and Texan fields began to be exploited around the turn of the century. As for your first point, did you even bother to read my last post? I am not supposing that the Confederacy is not selling oil to the Union in peacetime.

Okay, so it is selling oil to the US in peacetime. Then I fail to see the major impact on US ecomomic development. Indigenous oil is NOT necessary to economic development. Ask Japan.

We've got ample alternative sources overseas even if the South tries to put on the squeeze.

Where? Oil wasn't discovered in Venezuela until the early 1920s, and production didn't pick up until the 30s. At best, the US has these long maritime supply lines like Britain did during the World Wars. That makes her much weaker than she was historically.

...but until the early twenties, there's no squeeze anyway. Look at what hauled cargo in 1905. It wasn't trucks. After the early 1920's, as you've noted, the South is selling its oil to the US anyway. I don't see this dramatic impact on US economic development. That there are oil fields in Texas is going to exert a barely perceptible influence until the outbreak of hostilities. It's going to affect US strategic planning. We might do what Britain did and secure ourselves an Iran. There's a good chance we'll look into synthetic oil production. I guess California oil might be studied more carefully.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
The Dutch East Indies are a popular source. Helps that the convoys are going to be out of reach of the vast majority of Confederate raiders.

"At best, the US has these long maritime supply lines like Britain did during the World Wars"

Right. You can see how this is less desireable than getting that oil from Texas, correct? Not to mention that US companies couldn't drill in the Dutch East Indies for most of the 20s. I also don't see why Confederate raiders wouldn't be able to get to those convoys.

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
The Dutch East Indies are a popular source. Helps that the convoys are going to be out of reach of the vast majority of Confederate raiders.

"At best, the US has these long maritime supply lines like Britain did during the World Wars"

Right. You can see how this is less desireable than getting that oil from Texas, correct? Not to mention that US companies couldn't drill in the Dutch East Indies for most of the 20s. I also don't see why Confederate raiders wouldn't be able to get to those convoys.

ALL of this is majestically irrelevant to your originally thesis that US industrial development prior to the war would be hamstrung. Obviously, the impact would be nil.

Once war breaks out, the US is roughly in the position that Germany was when it still held Rumania and Hungary; we've still got California, Pennsylvania, and whatever synthetic production we can come up with. Supplies are straightened -- not cut off. This assumes an effective Southern submarine campaign. It also assumes that British Petroleum et al are unwilling to sell oil to the US even thought she's offering top dollar. Finally, it assumes that the South can effectively defend all of West Texas as well as her eastern heartland.

The WORST CASE sees the US unable to motorize all its infantry divisions. She's probably able to mount barely twice the war effort of Nazi Germany circa 1941. Obviously doomed...

I just don't see it. Oil is not going to win the war for the South. She's got even less of a monopoly on it than she had on cotton -- and THAT didn't win the first war for her. Forcing the US to use 'less convenient' sources of supply is not going to win the war for the South. That's like arguing that I can bend you to my will by forcing you to do your grocerry shopping at the Piggly-Wiggly on the other side of town.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As Ben notes, you're mistaken about US industry prior to 1930.

Ben's point is a red herring. What's important is potential, not actual output.

Okay, so it is selling oil to the US in peacetime. Then I fail to see the major impact on US ecomomic development. Indigenous oil is NOT necessary to economic development. Ask Japan.

Maybe if I repeat this enough it'll stick. That's not what I'm saying.

In a nutshell, without oil, I don't see the US as being the 300 pound gorilla that she was in World War II. She can't build this massive mechanized army and stomp all over the South- what's it going to run on? The US Navy bought most of the oil that Mexico historically exported to the US. What are its ships going to run on? Without widespread civilian autmobile ownership, what factories will churn out aircraft and tanks as was done historically? That's what I'm driving at- the US military is going to be outmoded, and the Union is going to be reliant on long maritime supply lines.

As for Japan, she declared war on us because we placed an oil embargo on her, then promptly seized the Dutch East Indian oilfields for her use, and was ultimately crippled by attacks on her shipping. I think this proves my point quite nicely- not that I think that same fate would have befallen the North, but obviously this is a less than ideal situation to be in.

We should write the scenario with a blatantly pro-Southern briefing. Mad-dog Northern Amero-Nazis decide to crush Southern independence. Britain winds up being the 'arsenal of democracy.' Heroic Southern tankers equip themselves with Matilda II's -- latest product of British military technology.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

That's like arguing that I can bend you to my will by forcing you to do your grocerry shopping at the Piggly-Wiggly on the other side of town.

I dunno. Have you seen the part of town Piggly Wiggly is usually in?

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

We should write the scenario with a blatantly pro-Southern briefing. Mad-dog Northern Amero-Nazis decide to crush Southern independence. Britain winds up being the 'arsenal of democracy.' Heroic Southern tankers equip themselves with Matilda II's -- latest product of British military technology.

Part of your problem is that you react to any hypothetical I put forth on this subject as me wanting a "glorious CSA". All I've said is that I see a South which is still independent, partially industrialized, and had engaged in the typical spate of colonialism in the late Victorian era.

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As Ben notes, you're mistaken about US industry prior to 1930.

Ben's point is a red herring. What's important is potential, not actual output.

Okay, so it is selling oil to the US in peacetime. Then I fail to see the major impact on US ecomomic development. Indigenous oil is NOT necessary to economic development. Ask Japan.

Maybe if I repeat this enough it'll stick. That's not what I'm saying.

In a nutshell, without oil, I don't see the US as being the 300 pound gorilla that she was in World War II. She can't build this massive mechanized army and stomp all over the South- what's it going to run on? The US Navy bought most of the oil that Mexico historically exported to the US. What are its ships going to run on? Without widespread civilian autmobile ownership, what factories will churn out aircraft and tanks as was done historically?

What the hell? Evidently now we ARE supposing the South somehow impedes peacetime oil supply. Else we've GOT the 'widespread civilian automobile ownership.' There are your factories.

You keep trying to retroactively apply the wartime oil shortage to US pre-war development. We'll hit the war with just about the factories and industrial potential we had. Yes, there'll be a severe oil shortage -- but only after war breaks out and it'll be one that hopefully we've foreseen. The oil isn't going to win you the war. You've got to realize that.

That's what I'm driving at- the US military is going to be outmoded, and the Union is going to be reliant on long maritime supply lines.

The first hopefully you can see is nonsense. It's going to be outmoded because a shortage that materializes in 1930 is going to cripple development in 1920? The second depends upon a US that completely fails to anticipate war with the CSA and doesn't plan accordingly.

As for Japan, she declared war on us because we placed an oil embargo on her, then promptly seized the Dutch East Indian oilfields for her use, and was ultimately crippled by attacks on her shipping. I think this proves my point quite nicely- not that I think that same fate would have befallen the North, but obviously this is a less than ideal situation to be in.

Sure. Now invent a North that lacks the technology to synthesize oil, has no domestic sources of supply at all, and is faced by a South with overwhelming sea power, and you're cooking with gas.

Otherwise, you might as well compare us to Ethiopia faced by Italy -- your comparison is quite irrelevant. The better comparison would be with Nazi Germany from 1939 through 1943. Yep, that petrol shortage really knocked her out. She never figured Britain would cut off those overseas supplies...

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

We should write the scenario with a blatantly pro-Southern briefing. Mad-dog Northern Amero-Nazis decide to crush Southern independence. Britain winds up being the 'arsenal of democracy.' Heroic Southern tankers equip themselves with Matilda II's -- latest product of British military technology.

Part of your problem is that you react to any hypothetical I put forth on this subject as me wanting a "glorious CSA". All I've said is that I see a South which is still independent, partially industrialized, and had engaged in the typical spate of colonialism in the late Victorian era.

I thought it was someone else's hypothetical. Anyway, have your CSA be a quasi-Nazi state that practices cannibalism if you want to.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

What the hell? You keep repeating that you're not talking about peacetime oil supply. In that case, we've GOT the 'widespread civilian automobile ownership.' There are your factories.

No. I kept repeating that I didn't think the Confederacy would decline to sell oil altogether during peacetime. What I did think it would do is sell at high prices to the Union, thus retarding the development of the US automobile culture. If gas is so high in the 1920 that cars are a luxury item, Union industrial output come a war in 1930 will be affected. You'll say that this oil could have been bought elsewhere, but it's got to get there from farther away, which makes it more expensive than it historically was. There's also the point that these alternate sources(Venezuela, the Middle East, the Dutch East Indies) were largely undeveloped at the time.

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

What the hell? You keep repeating that you're not talking about peacetime oil supply. In that case, we've GOT the 'widespread civilian automobile ownership.' There are your factories.

No. I kept repeating that I didn't think the Confederacy would decline to sell oil altogether during peacetime. What I did think it would do is sell at high prices to the Union, thus retarding the development of the US automobile culture. If gas is so high in the 1920 that cars are a luxury item, Union industrial output come a war in 1930 will be affected. You'll say that this oil could have been bought elsewhere, but it's got to get there from farther away, which makes it more expensive than it historically was. There's also the point that these alternate sources(Venezuela, the Middle East, the Dutch East Indies) were largely undeveloped at the time.

Iran certainly wasn't underdeveloped. In any case, see the Volkswagen -- folks want cars, and the reason it costs so much in Europe is that governments tax the hell out of it, not that it comes from far away. Ford will make Model T's whether gas is $0.29 a gallon or $0.35 a gallon.

Furthermore, the South is going to have to sell its oil at the market price. If it DOES manage to somehow restrict its sales to the US and only the US, all that will do is accelerate development of wells elsewhere. US oil geologists will be poking around in Saudi Arabia ten years earlier than they were.

So the South can do nil to impede or affect US economic development before the outbreak of war. Barring incredible US stupidity, all it can do as far as the war itself goes is limit American options somewhat. Can we motorize the whole army? Good question -- what held Germany back was a shortage of vehicles, not a shortage of fuel.

The oil's not going to be a logistical atom bomb, that should be clear. IF the war is prolonged, and IF the Confederacy can defend Texas, and IF she can prevent overseas supplies, and IF the US military's demands for fuel are so great that they outstrip domestic supply and reserves, then Southern possession of Texas oil could be a significant factor -- but still not in and of itself a war winner.

I got to thinking about the timeline here.

Let's suppose the South has won the American Civil War. Perhaps she forms an alliance of convenience with France -- supports Maximilian's regime in Mexico and gets French sanction of her designs on Cuba in exchange.

Given her aristocratic romanticism and notions of ruling over a racially distinct underclass, the South quickly forms ties with the various white aristocracies around the Caribbean rim. Mexico's gone that way -- add Central America, Columbia, Venezuela.

By the 1890's the South is more the mistress of the Caribbean than the Southern half of the former United States. This has progressively estranged such border states as Arkansas, Tennessee, and much of Virginia and North Carolina, which are not dominated by aristocracies, are not oriented towards the Caribbean, and are not benefitting economically from this new orientation or participating in the merging of South Carolinian and Columbian gentries. West Texas could go the same way. It's the teeming industrial masses of the Northeast that will eat her beef -- not planters in Cuba.

Perhaps they secede and rejoin the Union politically. Perhaps there's our war. The Union meddling in Tennessee politics. In any case, we could wind up with a 'Confederacy' that consists primarily of loosely linked aristocratic republics around a Caribbean that functions in much the same way that the Meidterranean did for the Roman world. Perhaps war comes when all these states rally to the defense of a Venezuela faced with Yankee or British aggression.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
In any case, see the Volkswagen -- folks want cars, and the reason it costs so much in Europe is that governments tax the hell out of it, not that it comes from far away.

You can't seriously argue that transportation costs do not affect prices. If you're in Cleveland, it oil from the Dutch East Indies or Mexico(via California!) does indeed cost more than Texas oil.

The oil's not going to be a logistical atom bomb, that should be clear. IF the war is prolonged, and IF the Confederacy can defend Texas, and IF she can prevent overseas supplies, and IF the US military's demands for fuel are so great that they outstrip domestic supply and reserves, then Southern possession of Texas oil could be a significant factor -- but still not in and of itself a war winner.

And I'm not saying that it is. What I think this example does is highlight ways in which the US is likely to be a more maritime, foreign oriented power which is more vulnerable than she was historically.

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
In any case, see the Volkswagen -- folks want cars, and the reason it costs so much in Europe is that governments tax the hell out of it, not that it comes from far away.

You can't seriously argue that transportation costs do not affect prices. If you're in Cleveland, it oil from the Dutch East Indies or Mexico(via California!) does indeed cost more than Texas oil.

Sure, it affects prices -- but it's hardly the major determinant. See again the Volkswagen -- however much more gas cost in Hamburg than in Dallas, the difference wasn't enough to kill the desire for cars.

Lately, gas has about doubled in price. Seen anyone reverting to horse and buggy? So go ahead -- figure that somehow the South manages to NOT sell oil to the North (how and why they would do this remains unclear). Have your gallon of gas it Cleveland costing $0.31 instead of $0.25. You won't change anything.

I think that if you look up the cost of buying a car in 1925, look up the cost of fueling it, and work out how much the South could change that cost, you'll discover that the net impact on the total cost of auto ownership will be nil, nada, zippo.

Anyway, on to the cause of our war.

I don't see any revanchist upsurge in the North sixty five years after the defeat at Gettysburg as being especially likely - not as a sole cause, anyway. Naturally, a lingering desire to have a rematch would influence many, but...

I'm starting to like West Texas as the spark in my Caribbean-oriented South concept. First off, I have the impression those cowboys were as often Yankees as Southerners -- certainly the trail was celebrated as a place where Yankee and Rebel mingled in amity and equality. Secondly, the economic ties are going to be with the North, not with the South. Every year, those drovers are going to go up to Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, talk to Yankee businessmen, meet nice girls from Iowa...

They'll be Yankeefied. At any rate, tied to the South as much by the accident of being part of Texas as by any real ties of either interest or culture.

Then comes oil. Gee, where DO the oilmen come from? The heart of all evil...Ohio. The Yankeefication of West Texas deepens. The situation becomes analogous to that obtaining in the Boer Republics before the Boer War. The ostensible, 'native' Texas government will be viewed with impatience and a creeping lack of loyalty by a population that is often Yankee or wouldn't especially object to becoming Yankee -- just as British gold miners in the Boer Republic had little patience for being ruled by a lot of Dutch farmers.

So we've got a bomb on our hands. The Northern military of course realizes the value of the oil. Their pro-West Texan sentiments are nicely tinged with self-interest.

At some point, trade war breaks out between the South and the North. This is fine with the rest of the South -- but doesn't sit at all well with the West Texans. Half of them are Yankees to begin with, they've no market for their cattle, and grant notwithstanding, most Texas oil is naturally going to flow to New York. Now it doesn't.

In the North, gas prices do the same number they did during the oil embargo. Even worse, so do meat prices. They're starving our children (and what a great chance to get that oil).

Insurrection breaks out in West Texas. The Southern government moves to suppress it. Northern newspapers start working overtime to crank out atrocity stories. Southerners insist it's all the work of Yankee agitators...

April 23, 1930. South declares embargo on trade with North in response to northern tariffs on Central American coffee.

June 17, protest march in Waco turns violent. Newspapers in Chicago report 'slaughter.' Two later confirmed as dead.

June 25. As unrest worsens, governor of Texas appeals for CSA troops.

July 7. 3rd Havana Gendarmarie arrive in Waco.

July 9. Chicago Tribune decries 'Nigger occupation troops.'

July 17. Company of Gendarmarie, surrounded by mob, opens fire. Unfortunately, they had a machine gun. 47 killed.

July 28. US President Turner meets with delegation of protestors demanding intervention.

August 10. CSA rejects Northern demands that it conduct a plebescite under US observation as 'an intolerable infringement upon our sovereignity.' CSA delegate's remark that 'you would think they had stopped Pickett' generally viewed as unfortunate.

August 24. CSA demands US stop arms smuggling into Texas. US says it refuses to prevent anyone from exercising his rights as a free citizen.

August 25. CSA mobilizes. USA mobilizes. General MacArthur intones, 'we must have oil within six months or we will lose the war without a shot being fired.' Senator Heeber of the Manifest Destiny Party demands that President Turner 'act before it is too late.'

August 28. US Destroyer depth-charges CSA Submarine Cabo San Lucas after alleged torpedo attack.

September 3. 'Topeka incident.' Alleged Confederate attack on 'Radio Free Texas.' Six bodies in CSA uniforms produced for press.

September 5. In stormy session, USA Congress declares war.

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
Right. You can see how this is less desireable than getting that oil from Texas, correct? Not to mention that US companies couldn't drill in the Dutch East Indies for most of the 20s. I also don't see why Confederate raiders wouldn't be able to get to those convoys.

Does it really make any difference whether it's US companies drilling the oil?

Confederate raiders might be able to get to the convoys. One or two of them, anyway. But one or two raiders won't mean anything to a major oceanic shipping route. To have any chance of affecting it, the Confederacy would have to be able to throw a fleet of submarines into the North Pacific. They can't do that.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
The WORST CASE sees the US unable to motorize all its infantry divisions. She's probably able to mount barely twice the war effort of Nazi Germany circa 1941.

Well, probably about the same. Our reduced USA has about the same number of loyal citizens as Nazi Germany, access to about the same natural resources. The USA probably has more domestic industry- but Germany's got all these French factories and so on working for it.

Still. That's 150 divisions at a pinch. 250 if you really set your minds to it.