soc.history.war.misc

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?