Excellent discussion, gentlemen.
As a result, I think the oil objective has been put into context. That is, it was a consideration, but it is a stretch to term any of these campaigns as "oil wars".
How Much of WW2 Was an Oil War?
Moderator: sniper1shot
-
Ron Klages
- In Memorium †
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 1:39 pm
- Location: Lynnwood, Washington
Question
Sorry I am late to the discussion but I do not know what is meant by "an oil war".
I have heard of a nuclear war, a war of attrition, a conventional war, a lightning war, a just war, a police action war, the Boer war, the indian wars, the Spanish American war, the Civil War and there have been many of these, the war to end all wars, the European war, the war in the Pacific, the war of the Roses, the Trojan war, the war of the worlds, the thirty years war, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Falklands war, war of Silesia and there were several, the Nepoleonic wars and countless others far to long to name, but I am not aware of an 'oil war'.
What was it, when did it happen and who was involved?
Ron Klages
I have heard of a nuclear war, a war of attrition, a conventional war, a lightning war, a just war, a police action war, the Boer war, the indian wars, the Spanish American war, the Civil War and there have been many of these, the war to end all wars, the European war, the war in the Pacific, the war of the Roses, the Trojan war, the war of the worlds, the thirty years war, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Falklands war, war of Silesia and there were several, the Nepoleonic wars and countless others far to long to name, but I am not aware of an 'oil war'.
What was it, when did it happen and who was involved?
Ron Klages
Ron Klages
Lynnwood, Washington USA
Lynnwood, Washington USA
-
Nebelwerfer
- Member
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:15 pm
Dear Ron Klages,
An "Oil War" is a war or major campaign in which the primary objective is the control or securing of oil resources in the ground (usually with oil refining capacity already installed.)
An example of a war in which the major objective was oil is the First Gulf War (1991.) Sure, liberating the undemocratic nation of Kuwait was the public relations reason for the war, but believe me that the US (and even Europe)would not have committed such resources if Kuwait and Saudi Arabia's oil resources would not have been threatened. For example, the West essentially sat by idly as genocide happened in Uganda and then later in Sudan-Darfur.
Nebelwerfer
An "Oil War" is a war or major campaign in which the primary objective is the control or securing of oil resources in the ground (usually with oil refining capacity already installed.)
An example of a war in which the major objective was oil is the First Gulf War (1991.) Sure, liberating the undemocratic nation of Kuwait was the public relations reason for the war, but believe me that the US (and even Europe)would not have committed such resources if Kuwait and Saudi Arabia's oil resources would not have been threatened. For example, the West essentially sat by idly as genocide happened in Uganda and then later in Sudan-Darfur.
Nebelwerfer
-
Ron Klages
- In Memorium †
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 1:39 pm
- Location: Lynnwood, Washington
OK but
What was the real reason for World War I?
Why did Hitler invade Poland, France, Russia?
Why did Hitler declare war aganist the US?
Why did NATO go to fight in Yugoslavia in the 90's?
To simply define a war by a single resource is simplistic in my opinion. I do not agree that the war in the Gulf in 1991 was an "oil war". It was a war started by one country [Iraq] to control another [Kuwait] and expand it's influence in a region [middle east]. Europe and the US used this opportunity to exert their influence in the region and in the process if they freed Kuwait, then fine.
I agree that the reasons sometimes given for going to war are highly idealized and moralistic but the hidden cause is not for a single resource. Oil is important today but will it be so in 20 years? What will be important in 20 years is a favorable realtionship within the region. Unfortunately the purpose of saving other men is and never will be a reason leaders go to war. If the Sudan, Ruwanda and Somalia were of political significance in the long term then it is possible that the leaders would have gone to prevent the genocide. We never went to war in WW II to stop the genocide in Europe or China. Churchil went to war to save the empire and Russia and the US went to war to expand their influence either by land conquast or economis conquest.
Oil is an element in the equation but not the sole reason. If it were the sole element then why wouldn't the oil using nations take control of the nation being invaded? Control is gained by establishing long term friends-ie The royals in Saudi Arabia.
The road to war, in my opinoin, is a road paved by desire for power, influence and control.
Beats regards,
Ron Klages
[/list]
Why did Hitler invade Poland, France, Russia?
Why did Hitler declare war aganist the US?
Why did NATO go to fight in Yugoslavia in the 90's?
To simply define a war by a single resource is simplistic in my opinion. I do not agree that the war in the Gulf in 1991 was an "oil war". It was a war started by one country [Iraq] to control another [Kuwait] and expand it's influence in a region [middle east]. Europe and the US used this opportunity to exert their influence in the region and in the process if they freed Kuwait, then fine.
I agree that the reasons sometimes given for going to war are highly idealized and moralistic but the hidden cause is not for a single resource. Oil is important today but will it be so in 20 years? What will be important in 20 years is a favorable realtionship within the region. Unfortunately the purpose of saving other men is and never will be a reason leaders go to war. If the Sudan, Ruwanda and Somalia were of political significance in the long term then it is possible that the leaders would have gone to prevent the genocide. We never went to war in WW II to stop the genocide in Europe or China. Churchil went to war to save the empire and Russia and the US went to war to expand their influence either by land conquast or economis conquest.
Oil is an element in the equation but not the sole reason. If it were the sole element then why wouldn't the oil using nations take control of the nation being invaded? Control is gained by establishing long term friends-ie The royals in Saudi Arabia.
The road to war, in my opinoin, is a road paved by desire for power, influence and control.
Beats regards,
Ron Klages
[/list]
Ron Klages
Lynnwood, Washington USA
Lynnwood, Washington USA
-
Nebelwerfer
- Member
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:15 pm
Dear Ron Klages,
Good point that most wars are about broader issues than a single natural resource.
However, some wars are very focused on specific natural resources.
However, there have been numerous wars over fertile soil, access to a single river or seaport, control of a single mountain pass, and other very narrow natural resource considerations.
I still think the 1991 Gulf War was fundamentally about oil. You are correct that the objective was in fact to obtain or retain influence in the region. However, the only major reason for a distant power like the US to want (desperately) hegemony in that particular region is to control the oil; that region would be insignificant otherwise. Africa is still a good counterpoint to this. In other words, the US does not readily intervene in Africa because hegemony there is not of particular strategic interest (I mean the continent overall, not the Suez canal or the Cape shipping routes-which by the way are important because oil tankers pass them in great numbers.)
Good point that most wars are about broader issues than a single natural resource.
However, some wars are very focused on specific natural resources.
However, there have been numerous wars over fertile soil, access to a single river or seaport, control of a single mountain pass, and other very narrow natural resource considerations.
I still think the 1991 Gulf War was fundamentally about oil. You are correct that the objective was in fact to obtain or retain influence in the region. However, the only major reason for a distant power like the US to want (desperately) hegemony in that particular region is to control the oil; that region would be insignificant otherwise. Africa is still a good counterpoint to this. In other words, the US does not readily intervene in Africa because hegemony there is not of particular strategic interest (I mean the continent overall, not the Suez canal or the Cape shipping routes-which by the way are important because oil tankers pass them in great numbers.)
-
Enrico Cernuschi
- Patron
- Posts: 1086
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 2:05 am
- Location: Pavia
Hi Gentlemen,
I tried to explain it before, I'll try again.
Both World wars were oil wars. During this debate there was an hell of confusion between oil campaigns and oil wars.
An oil campaign is a short time matter and, generally, it's a failure as to destroy oil fields and, above all, the facilities is not an impossible task.
It was possible to cut the Rumenian production in 1916 and the Germans, in spite of this experience, had the same bad surptise ay Maykop in 1942 being almost unable to catch anything of the local production after they had conquered the fields.
To say that Rommel was going to seize the M.E. oil fields to furnish germany is, so, a nonsense. They would have been wrecked before and not a single drop would arrive, at least, in Europe (an other detail, you folks, as there were no pipe lines between the Haifa and Beirut harbours and Europe how do you believe the crude would be take at home? Have you got an idea of the dimensions of the taker Axis and French fleet in the Med.?)
So, once dismissed the idea of the oil campaign we have the principle of the oil war. This is a long term affair needing years after the victory before to be able to collect the benefits.
An effort of this size may be eneavoured only by a country which has yet the capitals and the necessary tecnology.
The moral is that only USA, UK and - with terrible waste and an economical defeat at the end of the torpedo run as 1989 confirmed - USSR could dare to win, in pratical term, an oil war. Japan, Germany and Italy could only hope in a compromise peace, as they did so the end is: who is guilty of first blood for oil?
Bye EC
I tried to explain it before, I'll try again.
Both World wars were oil wars. During this debate there was an hell of confusion between oil campaigns and oil wars.
An oil campaign is a short time matter and, generally, it's a failure as to destroy oil fields and, above all, the facilities is not an impossible task.
It was possible to cut the Rumenian production in 1916 and the Germans, in spite of this experience, had the same bad surptise ay Maykop in 1942 being almost unable to catch anything of the local production after they had conquered the fields.
To say that Rommel was going to seize the M.E. oil fields to furnish germany is, so, a nonsense. They would have been wrecked before and not a single drop would arrive, at least, in Europe (an other detail, you folks, as there were no pipe lines between the Haifa and Beirut harbours and Europe how do you believe the crude would be take at home? Have you got an idea of the dimensions of the taker Axis and French fleet in the Med.?)
So, once dismissed the idea of the oil campaign we have the principle of the oil war. This is a long term affair needing years after the victory before to be able to collect the benefits.
An effort of this size may be eneavoured only by a country which has yet the capitals and the necessary tecnology.
The moral is that only USA, UK and - with terrible waste and an economical defeat at the end of the torpedo run as 1989 confirmed - USSR could dare to win, in pratical term, an oil war. Japan, Germany and Italy could only hope in a compromise peace, as they did so the end is: who is guilty of first blood for oil?
Bye EC
Ciàpla adasi, stà léger.
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
oil war????
Hmmmmm, this is an interesting posit
WW2 was not an Oil War in the modern sense that it was started for the main strategic reason of securing oil. Yes, during the conflict there were campaigns, sometimes major, fought for the short-term strategic gain of oil, or rather petrol - the Caucasus campaign for example - but fewr than you'd think from all this.
The war as fought in the Western Desert was NOT fought because of Libyan oil, it was to stop Italy/Germany cutting the vital link to Commonwealth manpower resources that was the Suez Canal. Yes, a war was fought, a REAL side show, in the form of the Iraq campaign, but the result was never in doubt.
Oil/Petrol was however a tactical weapon during WW2, in the sense that securing it and withholding it became a weapon. Cutting Rommels air bridge to/from italy froze him in his tracks in '43; bombing the Ploesti oilfields did the same to german/Axis forces in Southeastern Europe; sinking tankers coming from the US to the UK to deprive Britain of fuel was an economic/military weapon. The creation of ersatz petrol by Germany was a tool that allowed them to be not QUITE as dependant on foreign oil reserves.
Japan? Yes they invaded the Dutch East Indies to secure oil when the US embargo began to bite hard.....yet that neednt have started a war with the US. Maybe its just me, but I seem to remember they landed in Malaya at exactly the same time! Was WW2 a "rubber war"?? lol lol And the war in the Pacific started with an attack on Pearl Harbour, I was always taught; with the US' espoused policy of isolationism, i somehow dont think they would have intervened to support the Dutch!
WW2 was not an Oil War with capital letters - it was an "oil war" in the sense that it was sometimes fought with oil as a weapon, an economic one as often as a military one, where the deprivation of it was as impacting as the gaining of it.
Oh, and NATO intervened in Yugoslavia - because SOMEONE had to, and the UN has become hopeless at that; the last successful "offensive" intervention carried out by a purely altruistic UN was the Belgian Congo in the '60s.
Regards, Phylo
WW2 was not an Oil War in the modern sense that it was started for the main strategic reason of securing oil. Yes, during the conflict there were campaigns, sometimes major, fought for the short-term strategic gain of oil, or rather petrol - the Caucasus campaign for example - but fewr than you'd think from all this.
The war as fought in the Western Desert was NOT fought because of Libyan oil, it was to stop Italy/Germany cutting the vital link to Commonwealth manpower resources that was the Suez Canal. Yes, a war was fought, a REAL side show, in the form of the Iraq campaign, but the result was never in doubt.
Oil/Petrol was however a tactical weapon during WW2, in the sense that securing it and withholding it became a weapon. Cutting Rommels air bridge to/from italy froze him in his tracks in '43; bombing the Ploesti oilfields did the same to german/Axis forces in Southeastern Europe; sinking tankers coming from the US to the UK to deprive Britain of fuel was an economic/military weapon. The creation of ersatz petrol by Germany was a tool that allowed them to be not QUITE as dependant on foreign oil reserves.
Japan? Yes they invaded the Dutch East Indies to secure oil when the US embargo began to bite hard.....yet that neednt have started a war with the US. Maybe its just me, but I seem to remember they landed in Malaya at exactly the same time! Was WW2 a "rubber war"?? lol lol And the war in the Pacific started with an attack on Pearl Harbour, I was always taught; with the US' espoused policy of isolationism, i somehow dont think they would have intervened to support the Dutch!
WW2 was not an Oil War with capital letters - it was an "oil war" in the sense that it was sometimes fought with oil as a weapon, an economic one as often as a military one, where the deprivation of it was as impacting as the gaining of it.
Oh, and NATO intervened in Yugoslavia - because SOMEONE had to, and the UN has become hopeless at that; the last successful "offensive" intervention carried out by a purely altruistic UN was the Belgian Congo in the '60s.
Regards, Phylo
-
bigun1_6605
- New Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 11:16 am
- Location: Montgomery, Al
WWII an oil war? I would say it was the major element. Just a few items:
1) In the US, the war's largest defense contractor was General Motors, with Allison engines and Ford next in line.
2) My father was in the 3rd Photo/Mapping sqd USAAF. He suspected that a lot of mapping areas were selected by oil guys in Washington for post-war explotation.
3) The US strategic bombing campaign of 1944 concentrated on the Germany refineries, and prior to this the Ploesti fields.
4) During the battle of Britian, the RAF had 100 octane gas; the Luftwaffe had 87 octane.
5) Hitler's body was burned with gas, Mussolini's body was hung in a Milan filling station, and Tito attempted suicide but he was driven to the hospital in a car and later executed.
The book the Oil War has many more examples. So IMHO it might not have been an oil war, but it was an oil-driven war.
1) In the US, the war's largest defense contractor was General Motors, with Allison engines and Ford next in line.
2) My father was in the 3rd Photo/Mapping sqd USAAF. He suspected that a lot of mapping areas were selected by oil guys in Washington for post-war explotation.
3) The US strategic bombing campaign of 1944 concentrated on the Germany refineries, and prior to this the Ploesti fields.
4) During the battle of Britian, the RAF had 100 octane gas; the Luftwaffe had 87 octane.
5) Hitler's body was burned with gas, Mussolini's body was hung in a Milan filling station, and Tito attempted suicide but he was driven to the hospital in a car and later executed.
The book the Oil War has many more examples. So IMHO it might not have been an oil war, but it was an oil-driven war.
Alan Cagle
-
Laurent Daniel
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 546
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:29 am
- Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Would you please tell us in which sci-fi movie you got that?Enrico Cernuschi wrote: WW III could be considered, a day, by the scholars of the future, the third global conflict originated in old Mesopotamia as the French (and their german masters) did not appreciate very much the Anglosaxon retourn in Iraq after the French sponsored 1962 coup there.
This is supposed to be an historical forum, not a guess and bet joky forum.
So, the French and their German masters sponsored a coup in Iraq in 1962?
First, in 1962, French and German were allies, as they are still now, no one mastering the other.
Second, what the hell are you talking about?
Regards
Daniel Laurent
Daniel Laurent
-
Enrico Cernuschi
- Patron
- Posts: 1086
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 2:05 am
- Location: Pavia
Take it easy (it's the second time I must remember you this rule of the Forum, boy).
Irak was a Total-Fina Kingdom after the 1962 coup; Paris had tried since 1922 to have got the main thanche of that oil paradise and, at least, was able to get its goal after the helicopter accident which removed the previous Iraqi leader, who was well accepted by the USA and had the merit to remove the traditional UK links of that country with the Anglo-Iranian, later BP.
Good old Saddam used French weaponery and was sponsirized by Paris during the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties. The French cover was weaker in the following decade as an efficent worldwide propaganda had esposed the many (true) crimes of Saddam, but the following result, after the last campaign, to broke all the old contracts with the French companies when the Anglosaxons tanks entered Bagdad was not very appreciated in France.
The Continental opposition at this Anglo Saxon move is on all the newspapers, boy, but I'm afraid you read only the comic page.
So, again, take it easy and try to learn something before to open youm mouth.
By EC
PS I confirm my opinion about the French attitude to be the toads of Germany since the beginning of the Sixties. What strange? It was the same during the Second World War. An exampleì They filled, in July 1942, the Velo d'Hiver and AFTER said the Germans: "Well we rounded up them even if you didn'ask us a damn and not asked for nothing like this. Now you can't not to have them in charge. What about this proof of efficienty and zeal in the new order?" Bye Bye. EC
Irak was a Total-Fina Kingdom after the 1962 coup; Paris had tried since 1922 to have got the main thanche of that oil paradise and, at least, was able to get its goal after the helicopter accident which removed the previous Iraqi leader, who was well accepted by the USA and had the merit to remove the traditional UK links of that country with the Anglo-Iranian, later BP.
Good old Saddam used French weaponery and was sponsirized by Paris during the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties. The French cover was weaker in the following decade as an efficent worldwide propaganda had esposed the many (true) crimes of Saddam, but the following result, after the last campaign, to broke all the old contracts with the French companies when the Anglosaxons tanks entered Bagdad was not very appreciated in France.
The Continental opposition at this Anglo Saxon move is on all the newspapers, boy, but I'm afraid you read only the comic page.
So, again, take it easy and try to learn something before to open youm mouth.
By EC
PS I confirm my opinion about the French attitude to be the toads of Germany since the beginning of the Sixties. What strange? It was the same during the Second World War. An exampleì They filled, in July 1942, the Velo d'Hiver and AFTER said the Germans: "Well we rounded up them even if you didn'ask us a damn and not asked for nothing like this. Now you can't not to have them in charge. What about this proof of efficienty and zeal in the new order?" Bye Bye. EC
Ciàpla adasi, stà léger.
-
Laurent Daniel
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 546
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:29 am
- Location: Bangkok, Thailand
-
Enrico Cernuschi
- Patron
- Posts: 1086
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 2:05 am
- Location: Pavia
All right Laurent,
I presume you know something about the strict French and German entente and partnership, active since 1963, didn't you?
In any alliance there are a knight and and horse.
If you really believe, after 1870, 1914 and 1940, that, today, fifty millions of French may lead 80 millions of Germans, well you may believe everything...
Bye EC
I presume you know something about the strict French and German entente and partnership, active since 1963, didn't you?
In any alliance there are a knight and and horse.
If you really believe, after 1870, 1914 and 1940, that, today, fifty millions of French may lead 80 millions of Germans, well you may believe everything...
Bye EC
Ciàpla adasi, stà léger.
-
timobrienwells
- Supporter
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:17 pm
- Location: australia
History
Enrico it is quite clear to a lot of people on this forum that historically speaking,you are from another planet.Maybe your version of history happened in another Solar System.Could that be it?If it is,then we extend to you a warm welcome to planet Earth.It is strange how your posts are heavy on conspiracy theory,and pretty light on historical fact.
tim wells
-
Laurent Daniel
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 546
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:29 am
- Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Also a bit light on human and social facts.
Immediately after the end of WW2, Charles de Gaulle understood that reconciliation was a must.
As soon as Conrad Adenauer became German Chancellor, contacts were established and co-operation started. They met for the first time on 14 September 1958.
Both France and Germany were still exhausted at that time. Economical recovery was on its way, but still fragile. The misery of war and the suffering of the war aftermath was still present in all minds, both in Germany and France.
The rapid rotation of the French forces occupying Germany was bringing back to France soldiers who started to consider the Germans as "normal human beings", not to mention the friends and, for sure, the girl friends.
And it went on this way, till the creation of the CECA, ancestor of the EU, France and Germany becoming the "engine" of the Europe build up.
None of the two, whether De Gaulle and Adenauer or all their successors without any single exception in both countries, ever tried to take over on the other one. Impossible, totally impossible. Europe was born because of that: The 2 worst enemies from Western Europe, the one who killed each other from 1870 till 1945, were going hand in hand.
There were problems, for sure. Discussions, disagrements, negotiations, etc... Always in a quiet and discreet atmosphere. No open clashes, never.
Except in an essential topic: From where is the best sauerkraut? Alsace or Bavaria
Wait a generation or two, this story will become a school-case for the future generations.
Immediately after the end of WW2, Charles de Gaulle understood that reconciliation was a must.
As soon as Conrad Adenauer became German Chancellor, contacts were established and co-operation started. They met for the first time on 14 September 1958.
Both France and Germany were still exhausted at that time. Economical recovery was on its way, but still fragile. The misery of war and the suffering of the war aftermath was still present in all minds, both in Germany and France.
The rapid rotation of the French forces occupying Germany was bringing back to France soldiers who started to consider the Germans as "normal human beings", not to mention the friends and, for sure, the girl friends.
And it went on this way, till the creation of the CECA, ancestor of the EU, France and Germany becoming the "engine" of the Europe build up.
None of the two, whether De Gaulle and Adenauer or all their successors without any single exception in both countries, ever tried to take over on the other one. Impossible, totally impossible. Europe was born because of that: The 2 worst enemies from Western Europe, the one who killed each other from 1870 till 1945, were going hand in hand.
There were problems, for sure. Discussions, disagrements, negotiations, etc... Always in a quiet and discreet atmosphere. No open clashes, never.
Except in an essential topic: From where is the best sauerkraut? Alsace or Bavaria
Wait a generation or two, this story will become a school-case for the future generations.
Regards
Daniel Laurent
Daniel Laurent
About the question in how far oil played a role in the planning of Barbarossa...I want to point at the audio recording of the talks between Hitler and Mannerheim, made in summer 1942 during Hitler's visit in Finland.
http://www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/viewtopi ... heim+audio
http://www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/viewtopi ... heim+audio
"Tell my mother I died for my country. I did what I thought was best."
John Wilkes Booth
April 12, 1865
John Wilkes Booth
April 12, 1865