"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On 19 Oct 2003 15:11:17 -0700, (robert arndt)
wrote:



Because they HAD to. They were cut off from all natural sources.


Well yes and no

They started building those plants a long time before the war began
so as to be independent of foreign suppliers, memories of the
blockade of WW1 were doubtless a significant factor but
its worth recalling that similar plants were built in Britain which
wasnt cut off.

In those days both Germany and Britain had ample coal reserves
so being less reliant on foreign oil suppliers was seen as good
strategy.

Britain had the best coal in the world, and, thanks to Churchill, the
Iraqi
and Kuwaiti oil as well, subject to the not-to-be-discounted difficulty
of
getting it safely to where it was needed.

Interested in the UK coal to oil facilities. Would you care to enlarge?


There was a major plant on ICI Billingham, I watched them
demolish it in the early 70's. It was extremely amusing as
what looked to be simple brick buildings were actually
reinforced concrete with a brick skin.

The look on the crane drivers face as his wrecking ball
bounced off the wall was priceless.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nationonfilm/to...ical-industry/

Fascinating. Thank you.

South Africa was pretty big on this in the 80's I believe, but for much
the
same reasons as Germany in WW2 ISTR; difficulty importing it and no
natural
reserves to speak of.

Do you think there's anything in the OP's suggestion that the US would
have
exported, or allowed the export of US oil? Venezeluan oil?


They did allow some exports of oil to Spain but only after
the Spaniards closed their waters to German U-Boats
and began interning crews , that was in 1943 or so.

That would make sense. I know Franco was always at great pains not to annoy
the Allies; must have really ****ed Hitler off after all the help he gave
him!

John