Reading through the whole thread in search of the word ‘petroleum’, all I found is the word ‘fuel’ in the above quote. In my analysis, the black gold should be seen as the major issue that was at stake – take a chance to check yourself in the light of the following facts:
At the end of the 19th century the German railway company Berlin-Bagdad was granted the first oil concession in the region which is now northern Irak.
Not only were the contracted petrol resources the world’s most abundant at that time, but the oil was of highest quality and, moreover, nearly trickeling through the surface.
(Excerpts from Wikipedia on Rudolf Diesel):
“… soon after Gottlieb Daimler and Karl Benz had invented the motor car in 1887, Diesel published a treatise entitled (…) [Theory and Construction of a Rational Heat-engine to Replace the Steam Engine and Combustion Engines Known Today] and formed the basis for his work on and invention of the diesel engine.
…29 September 1913, Diesel boarded the post office steamer Dresden in Antwerp on his way to a meeting of the Consolidated Diesel Manufacturing company in London. He took dinner on board the ship and then retired to his cabin at about 10 p.m., leaving word for him to be called the next morning at 6:15 a.m. He was never seen alive again. (…).
There are various theories to explain Diesel’s death. His biographers, such as Grosser (1978),[3] present a case for suicide, and clearly consider it most likely. Other theories suggest that various people’s business or military interests may have provided motives for homicide. Evidence is limited for all explanations.”
The french version is exactly the same up to the last paragraph which, intriguingly enough, reads differently:
(My translation) "Numerous hypotheses have been put forth on this disappearance, knowing that he was a German engineer, author of an invention already aknowledged as a breakthrough, and leaving for England to work for the British Admiralty, while the international tensions that were to lead to WWI had already become evident.
In 1916 (in the midst of WWI) the secret Sykes-Picot agreement between the French and the British governments was concluded, with terms for the sharing of influence in the region roughly comprised between Bagdad and Damascus.
Wikipedia details the following consequences of the deal: “The agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western/Arab relations. It did negate the promises made to Arabs[28] through T. E. Lawrence for a national Arab homeland in the area of Greater Syria, in exchange for their siding with British forces against the Ottoman Empire.”
Got the clue to what WWI was really about?
Small wonder that after the even bigger Saudi oil fields were discovered, the Anglo-Saxons decided that they needed a strategic stronghold as close as possible to this new black gold eldorado, i.e. Israel, which means that Israel was not the consequence of WW2, rather WW2 was the consequence of the decision to create a military fortress near the Saoudian oilfields.
Take again a chance to find out yourself – yet this time what the Shoah was about.
And today Lybia gives us a clue to what’s in the pipeline beyond petroleum: don’t think Gaddafi got killed by the French/US-coalition for oil – it was all about Europe’s (and later on the whole world’s) future energy source, i.e. solar energy.
Look at a map and find out where the Sahara comes closest to the Mediterranean…
the combatants had large standing armies and large reserves, large stocks of weaponry and the industry to produce much more, worked constantly demonizing each other and updating their invasion plans. just like here in the USA.
Perhaps you’d like to explain why Ploiești, the closest oil fields to Germany and AH, wasn’t taken until Romania allied with Russia two years after the war began.
Generally, WWI and car threads are the ones I read and not skim. However, a Rudolph Diesel conspiracy theory? That takes it to another level! How can I resist? Sparrowish, I welcome you to the SDMB.
Technically correct, but Austria-Hungary would not have started it unless it was assured of back up by Germany. If Germany said, “No don’t do it,” Austria-Hungary would have backed down on almost all it’s demands.
I literally re-read it last week, and am reading Castles of Steel at the moment. There were numerous occasions reading it when you just have to roll your eyes at the Kaisers antics and think “Christ, this guys an idiot”.
I’m not saying he gets all the blame but man, pick pretty much anyone off of the german street. Give him a field marshals uniform and start calling him “The All-highest” and it’s hard to see how he could have done a worse job.
I’m also curious. Does anyone know how he’s treated by German historians writing in German?
I didn’t even know Ploiesti until minutes ago when I looked it up in Wikipedia.
Perhaps, if I had known the complex oil development saga about Poliesty, I would have become a specialist in Romanian oil history, thus possibly missing out completely on the higher-level issue the Germans were probably pursuing with the Berlin-Baghdad railway project in order to conquer the then world’s largest Mesopotamian oil reserves, as well as to gain access to the Persian Gulf for exporting this oil to their naval forces, which I guess was their main supply concern at that time.
At the same occasion, I found some confirmation that this German strategy caused the Anglo-Americans to react with WWI. (Excerpts from Wikipedia about the Berlin-Baghdad railway):
“The Germans gained access to and ownership of oil fields in Iraq.” (I also learned that the Deutsche Bank held a 40% stake, i.e. the largest, in the project, and got an oil concession in 1911). “The railway became a source of international disputes during the years immediately preceding World War I. (…) … it has also been argued that the railway was a leading cause of the First World War.”
In the bibliography, I found a book-title which seems to summarize my intuitive synthesis on WWI (I haven’t read the book): William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. ISBN 0-7453-2310-3
I’d refute this a bit. You’re right about most of Europe, but I’d say the Kaiser also truly ruled his country up until WWI. His father (who reigned for a brief period) and grandfather (who ruled over Prussia and unified Germany for many years) were content to let Bismarck essentially run the affairs of state. Only a few times did the first Kaiser ever seriously disagree with Bismarck, and when he did Bismarck immediately offered to resign. The Kaiser would then relent, because the first Kaiser Wilhelm pretty much felt Bismarck was his best Ace, the best man for the job, and any single policy issue wasn’t worth losing Bismarck’s abilities over. The constitution of Prussia and later unified Germany was very different from German governments that followed, in that the Chancellor’s only power base was the monarch. In fact for many years Bismarck was unable to get budgets passed in the Prussian Diet, so he simply continued operating the government and collecting taxes as necessary, with no formal budget.
There were complicated layers of legislative power as well as a lot of “devolved government” and complicated legislative/monarchical systems for the Kingdoms that made up the German Empire, but at the imperial level the Kaiser really did have all the actual power. However during the brief period that the German Empire existed, that power was mostly wielded by Bismarck, but when Kaiser Wilhelm II ascended to the throne he took the reins himself, and truly ruled his country from the 1890s until 1914 or so. He was nowhere near the governor that Bismarck was, and thus lots of things got delegated that Bismarck traditionally didn’t delegate, because while interested in running things the Kaiser wasn’t interested in doing the work and had a short attention span. But it’s still not fair to say he didn’t truly rule his country, the Kaiser really did, even though his focus was short and his goals not always clearly understood. A lot of the foreign policy belligerence and general ineptitude at foreign policy seen from Germany from the late 19th up until WWI was entirely because of the Kaiser’s personal control of things.
Once the Great War actually started, the Kaiser essentially became a figure head, by the end of the war figures like Hindenburg were truly running Germany and the Kaiser had virtually no say in anything whatsoever.
There’s speculation that he suffered from brain damage due to a loss of oxygen at birth. The Kaiser was a breach birth, and the doctors were largely incompetant. For example, his shoulder was damaged, and his left arm was significantly shorter than his right. I believe it took some time to start him breathing.
In regards to the information you guys are puting out - thank you. What a treat to find a place where intelligence is encouraged and accepted - not just trash talk.
I have a question about the end of WWI. I have never been able to find out why the time and date was chosen - 11/11, etc. Two possibilities: it has something to do with when it started; the German celebration of ‘Fasching’ occurs then - it is a rather emasculating time.
If this is not the correct forum, please advise. My dad was in WWI…
As near as I can tell, it’s because it was cute. No rational reason, much like the rest of the war.
And he was? That is fascinating! I was at a meeting of a group of WWI aerohistorians and the elderly German gent next to me pointed to my book on the Fokker DVII and said, “Chu know, I chused to fly those.” It was awesome. My own grandfathers were too old.
And Alice65, welcome aboard! Absolutely the right forum and absolutely the right board. ETA: You will like it here.
I didn’t think it was “chosen,” but just happened. The Germans were clearly not going to win, and so continuing the war was pointless. They asked for an end, and everyone (with a huge sigh of relief) said yes.
There might have been some intentionality in the hour of the armistice: 11:00. Somebody might have had a sense of theater, or mythology, or symbology. But probably it was just a convenient time.
re the OP, could it not be said that WWI had already been “avoided” a couple of times, and that serious crises had occurred earlier – 1905, perhaps – when war might have broken out…but didn’t? This is alluded to in the movie “The Wind and the Lion,” where war comes close to breaking out in 1904. Is there any historical accuracy to that? Weren’t there other points where war was imminent? I also seem to remember that Germany threatened war with Britain during the Boer war.
So…if it was “avoidable” a handful of times…might it not have been avoidable once again?
(And, yeah, I know, Ion Perdicaris was a man! Damn fine movie, though!)
There is something to be said that the various wars in Yugoslavia in the 90s were just a continuation of WWI. “Some damned fool thing in the Balkans,” as Bismark said.
Sparrowish, I have no doubt there were those in powerful channels who recognized the potential of a strategic resource like oil, just like those of the aeroplane and motor carriage. For your assertion to stand however, you will need more than tenuous allusions.
Cite proof of the, ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘when’ and ‘why’ that oil caused World War 1. I am interested, I mean that sincerely.
I have many old books from that era, I haven’t read them recently so they kind of blend in together in my thinking. I just have to dig them out of the boxes to see what is said about the War. There are some which deal specifically with war. No sleep tonight. Oh, yes, my Dad was barely 17 and stationed in Germany as the driver for some officer. I have quite a bit of memorabilia from then. Maybe that is why I have always found this topic intriguing.
Pershing ordered agressive attacks on the last day because he believed that the Germans had to understand that they’d been defeated. Just yelling “olly-olly oxen-free” and everyone go home would encourage them to launch a new attack as soon as they’d recovered. Marshal Foch said: “This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years.” He was off by ony a few months.