soc.history.war.misc

martin wrote:
> Last night I listened to a one-hour standup act by Rob Newman, a
> satirist, author, comedian and political activist (this was on a BBC
> digital radio statio, BBC 7).
>
> He made quite a few claims which I can't say I've ever heard of
> before, and would like a few comments from people here.
>
> One claim he made (quite seriously, I should point out) was that World
> War One, from the very beginning, was all about the race for Iraqi
> oil.
>
> He said that in 1914, while the Dorset Regiment's 1st battalion was
> being sent to Mons, its 2nd battalion was being sent straight to Iraq,
> and added: "you won't see anything about that mentioned on the
> regiment's official website", as if it's some sort of cover-up.
>
> He mentioned the proposed Berlin Baghdad Railway as part of Europe's
> race for Iraq's oil, and dismissed Britain's accepted reason for
> entering the war in order to help Belgium by implying that Belgium
> could have defended itself quite adequately if it had brought its
> troops back from the Congo.
>
> He rubbished the idea that it had much to do with the assassination of
> Archduke Ferdinand, saying "no-on'e THAT popular", and claimed that it
> was really the first step in grabbing Iraqi oil, and that present
> military involvement in Iraq is merely a continuation of this. His
> Wikipedia page includes this:
>
> "A mixture of stand-up comedy and introductory lecture on geopolitics
> and peak oil, in Apocalypso Now Newman argues that twentieth-century
> Western foreign policy, including World War I, should be seen as a
> continuous struggle by the West to control Middle Eastern oil."
>
> So, is he talking any sense?
>

I would at least read Yergin's "The Prize". He's vastly oversimplified
it. Now, a lot of the backstory to *WWII* was about things like the US
cutting off oil to the Japanese. Again, "The Prize" is a good survey.

--
Les Cargill