First World War all about oil?

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
The_Enigma
Member
Posts: 2270
Joined: 14 Oct 2007 14:59
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: First World War all about oil?

Post by The_Enigma » 10 Sep 2009 15:02

From my current uni reading one gains the impression that in the 19th and early 20th Century the Empire never went to war based solely on resource/economic reasons; they all appear to be about power, public manipulation and politics.

For example when gold was a major resource to have access to, the Empire didn’t acquire it by force from the Boers etc If they were running a policy of resource denial surely they would have taken military action asap to ensure the Boers couldn’t sell to anyone else and to ensure it was in British hands? From what i can see the mines in South Africa, and those then acquired via war, were controlled via private companies and it was the latter, or so it would appear, that were the ones screwing over the Boers (etc)r and dragged the Empire into war because of politics/public manipulation etc Where and why was this "policy" change, from not being bothered to actively seeking to deney resources to another state?

On top of which, did the oil fields in Iraq belong to British companies? If so surely it would be a case of imposing an embargo or a tariff system? Looking on the wiki's Mesopotamian campaign i note several things; the fighting in the Middle East did not start until several months following the European War and after some events on either side (not sure to be honest who was in the "right" and who was in the "wrong") and that the article claims the first British troops in Persia.

With that information one would raise the point of how was the war about oil and the fields under Iraq if that all didn’t kick off till after the start of the main fighting and when British forces did arrive it was to protect installations in Persia (at first).

If Britain wanted to deny these resources, why wait until after the outbreak of the war to do so and why not take more extreme measures prior to it i.e. armed conflict to place these areas firmly in British hands and so that private companies would not be endangered by states outside of Empire?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15665
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: First World War all about oil?

Post by ljadw » 10 Sep 2009 15:21

The_Enigma wrote:From my current uni reading one gains the impression that in the 19th and early 20th Century the Empire never went to war based solely on resource/economic reasons; they all appear to be about power, public manipulation and politics.

For example when gold was a major resource to have access to, the Empire didn’t acquire it by force from the Boers etc If they were running a policy of resource denial surely they would have taken military action asap to ensure the Boers couldn’t sell to anyone else and to ensure it was in British hands? From what i can see the mines in South Africa, and those then acquired via war, were controlled via private companies and it was the latter, or so it would appear, that were the ones screwing over the Boers (etc)r and dragged the Empire into war because of politics/public manipulation etc Where and why was this "policy" change, from not being bothered to actively seeking to deney resources to another state?

On top of which, did the oil fields in Iraq belong to British companies? If so surely it would be a case of imposing an embargo or a tariff system? Looking on the wiki's Mesopotamian campaign i note several things; the fighting in the Middle East did not start until several months following the European War and after some events on either side (not sure to be honest who was in the "right" and who was in the "wrong") and that the article claims the first British troops in Persia.

With that information one would raise the point of how was the war about oil and the fields under Iraq if that all didn’t kick off till after the start of the main fighting and when British forces did arrive it was to protect installations in Persia (at first).

If Britain wanted to deny these resources, why wait until after the outbreak of the war to do so and why not take more extreme measures prior to it i.e. armed conflict to place these areas firmly in British hands and so that private companies would not be endangered by states outside of Empire?
About the fighting in the Middle East starting several months after the outbreak of WW I :probably because the Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers several months after the outbreak of WW I . :)

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15665
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: First World War all about oil?

Post by ljadw » 10 Sep 2009 15:45

From "Oil in Iraq "(to long to type all ) :The Anglo Persian Oil Company :majority of the shares belonged to the British Government ;Royal Dutch Shell (40 % British ):holding oil concessions in Iran .In 1914 British,Dutch and German hel a meeting at Londeon to exploit oil in Iraq by means of the Turkish Petroleum Company (The Germans were asked to participate because German banks had obtained concessions from the sultan . Before the war TPC shareholding was the following :APOC :47,5 RDS 22,5 Deutsche Bank 22,5 Gulbelkian(Armenian ) 5 Thus before the war:there was agreement on oil in Iraq . I will search for the oil production in Iraq before WW I,but I think it was neglectable in proportion to the oil production of Iran ,Russia and the USA .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15665
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: First World War all about oil?

Post by ljadw » 10 Sep 2009 16:03

Only in 1938 Iraq began to export oil in significant qualities :the production was 4000000 a year till WW II .Thus my point of vue is that the importance of the oil of Iraq for the outbreak of WW I was nihil .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15665
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: First World War all about oil?

Post by ljadw » 10 Sep 2009 16:25

South wrote:Good morning Ljadw and all,

The formally named Berlin to Bagdad RR was actually planned to extend to Basra.

The BB RR with spur to Basra would have been a competitor to the Suez Canal.



Warm regards,

Bob
South,good afternoon. I looked on information on the BB RR and honestly,I see no threat for the Suez Canal from the BB RR. 1) the transport by ship was quicker and cheaper 2)What did Germany import from "East of Suez " ? 3 ) In 1914 an agreement was reached between Germany and the UK for the problem of the BB RR . I think it was a question of prestige,being fashion in these days to build railways and to follow the exemple of the US tycoons,who had made a fortune of it (Harriman,Vanderbilt ) .Btw :after WW I the BB RR was seldom used ,the oil from Iran being transported by ships;I think the idea of oil being transported over thousands of miles was and is an illusion . Cheers .

User avatar
The_Enigma
Member
Posts: 2270
Joined: 14 Oct 2007 14:59
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: First World War all about oil?

Post by The_Enigma » 10 Sep 2009 17:32

ljadw wrote:
The_Enigma wrote:From my current uni reading one gains the impression that in the 19th and early 20th Century the Empire never went to war based solely on resource/economic reasons; they all appear to be about power, public manipulation and politics.

For example when gold was a major resource to have access to, the Empire didn’t acquire it by force from the Boers etc If they were running a policy of resource denial surely they would have taken military action asap to ensure the Boers couldn’t sell to anyone else and to ensure it was in British hands? From what i can see the mines in South Africa, and those then acquired via war, were controlled via private companies and it was the latter, or so it would appear, that were the ones screwing over the Boers (etc)r and dragged the Empire into war because of politics/public manipulation etc Where and why was this "policy" change, from not being bothered to actively seeking to deney resources to another state?

On top of which, did the oil fields in Iraq belong to British companies? If so surely it would be a case of imposing an embargo or a tariff system? Looking on the wiki's Mesopotamian campaign i note several things; the fighting in the Middle East did not start until several months following the European War and after some events on either side (not sure to be honest who was in the "right" and who was in the "wrong") and that the article claims the first British troops in Persia.

With that information one would raise the point of how was the war about oil and the fields under Iraq if that all didn’t kick off till after the start of the main fighting and when British forces did arrive it was to protect installations in Persia (at first).

If Britain wanted to deny these resources, why wait until after the outbreak of the war to do so and why not take more extreme measures prior to it i.e. armed conflict to place these areas firmly in British hands and so that private companies would not be endangered by states outside of Empire?
About the fighting in the Middle East starting several months after the outbreak of WW I :probably because the Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers several months after the outbreak of WW I . :)
Please see the point raised in the title and in the original post, if the war was about oil why did the fighitng in the Middle East not start until several months following the European War.

User avatar
The_Enigma
Member
Posts: 2270
Joined: 14 Oct 2007 14:59
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: First World War all about oil?

Post by The_Enigma » 10 Sep 2009 17:33

ljadw wrote:Only in 1938 Iraq began to export oil in significant qualities :the production was 4000000 a year till WW II .Thus my point of vue is that the importance of the oil of Iraq for the outbreak of WW I was nihil .
Excellent piece of informatiron

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6272
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: First World War all about oil?

Post by Terry Duncan » 11 Sep 2009 01:23

Only in 1938 Iraq began to export oil in significant qualities :the production was 4000000 a year till WW II .Thus my point of vue is that the importance of the oil of Iraq for the outbreak of WW I was nihil .
Almost certainly correct. Sadly this means some people will have to abandon a conspiricy theory, which is unlikely sadly, although they do grasp at any that present themselves even if they are contradictory. When there is a choice between facts and a conspiricy theory with very little to support it the latter will find believers quickly. Didnt somebody once say that the conspiricy theory was the new religion?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15665
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: First World War all about oil?

Post by ljadw » 11 Sep 2009 06:26

Terry Duncan wrote:
Only in 1938 Iraq began to export oil in significant qualities :the production was 4000000 a year till WW II .Thus my point of vue is that the importance of the oil of Iraq for the outbreak of WW I was nihil .
Almost certainly correct. Sadly this means some people will have to abandon a conspiricy theory, which is unlikely sadly, although they do grasp at any that present themselves even if they are contradictory. When there is a choice between facts and a conspiricy theory with very little to support it the latter will find believers quickly. Didnt somebody once say that the conspiricy theory was the new religion?
Maybe one should say 'an old religion" ? Not only 09 /11,but also Dallas 1963,Hitler and Bormann alive in 1945,Churchill "knowing" of the bombardment of Coventry,Roosevelt "knowing "of Pearl Harbour ,aids made artificially in an US army lab to exterminate the blacks,the Jews kidnapping young white girls,the communist revolution of 1917 the work of a international Jewish conspiracy ..........Human nature will naver change

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4009
Joined: 29 Oct 2008 22:53
Location: England

Re: First World War all about oil?

Post by Attrition » 11 Sep 2009 10:34

Temperamentally I favour the cock-up theory of history too, the trouble that a lot of the cock-ups are conspiracies that have backfired.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15665
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: First World War all about oil?

Post by ljadw » 11 Sep 2009 17:57

Attrition wrote:Temperamentally I favour the cock-up theory of history too, the trouble that a lot of the cock-ups are conspiracies that have backfired.
See the last post on "Hitler's military competency " :lol:

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6272
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: First World War all about oil?

Post by Terry Duncan » 11 Sep 2009 18:41

See the last post on "Hitler's military competency "
Having just read the post concerned I can say that some people have far too much time and not enough sedatives.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4009
Joined: 29 Oct 2008 22:53
Location: England

Re: First World War all about oil?

Post by Attrition » 11 Sep 2009 20:55

Does anyone know of a cock up in history that isn't a conspiracy gone wrong?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15665
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: First World War all about oil?

Post by ljadw » 11 Sep 2009 21:06

I know what a cock means 8-) ,but what is the meaning of cock up ?

User avatar
The_Enigma
Member
Posts: 2270
Joined: 14 Oct 2007 14:59
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: First World War all about oil?

Post by The_Enigma » 11 Sep 2009 21:31

A screw-up, some thing that has gone wrong.

Return to “First World War”