There's a little book on sale in a record shop in Bristol (UK), called RISE. The book's called The Serviceman's Guide to the Invasion of Iraq 1943, it gives a brief synopsis of the history of Britain's involvement in the region, and also gives credence to Roberts assertions.
Also, the trenches were supplied almost completely by trains - troops, ammunition, victuals, etc. Each side even had its own small-gauge railways to supply ammunition, etc. right up to and into the front line.
The Anglo-Persian OC WAS an early part of oil colonialism, but it is a huge leap in logic to say that it caused WWI. William Engdahl, who Rob seems to be a fan of, proposed that theory as part of his claim that Germany acted in "self-defence" against UK-Franco-Russian encirclement. Hmm...
Google "trench railways" and click the first link. There's the mongo's version. Or Google narrow-gauge/light rail in WWI. Or feldbahn. And those were just the littul-'uns, a-hyuh, a-hyuh. Never mind the big fuckers that took all those big-chinned men from Calais to the front.
Seems you're running out of sarcasm...and straw-man arguments. Maybe you can effect a resupply of hay sometime soon. Perhaps on a trench rail system.
You're not even a good troll, really. You forget that it only takes someone fifty seconds or so to type a message, and then they forget about you.
Still, at least you have the decency to post unfunny crap when you know you've been made to look like an idiot, cowering behind typed smarm like a terrier with psoriasis.
Also - the Dutch and Belgians....major European powers? You've got to be fucking joking. The Belgians shit their pantaloons at the first sign of British disapproval of their repulsive colonial regimes. The Dutch had been nowhere for the last 200 years. The Russians were crumbling before the eyes of the world and on the verge of bankruptcy. Get a fucking grip, Robert, before you embarrass yourself even more .
"See that wanker with the Noam Chomsky book? That's you, that is..."
Oh God, Robert, no....he is truly gone fucking bananas. The Royal Navy in 1914 had a grand total of zero oil-fired battleships, and four only by 1916. As well as having an enormous native supply of Welsh coal, the best in the world (without regard to nationalism).
His is the pet theory to end all pet theories.
I wish I could build a time machine and return to convince my 14-yr old self not to worship this shoddy twat.
yes, there's no reason to believe Rob Newman's theory at all since other war-winning weapons like tanks and planes, and essential supply vehicles like trucks, all run on coal.
of course, the Allies eventually lost world war 1 due to the large numbers of coal-powered tanks, planes, trucks and submarines the Germans were able to build.
Proof, if any were needed, that oil was of no significance in the conflict.
Yes, I can see how huge amounts of oil would be needed in such a fast-moving conflict as World War 1. Sometimes armies advanced as much as three or even four feet per day.
Still, I did play down the significance of the thirty or so tanks the Germans built in the war, and I do try to forget those harrowing images of all those brave trucks going over the top and squelching across no-mans land.
No, I'm well aware of the 100 Days campaign at the end of 1918 (just 100 days out of four years, obviously), but on the Western and Eastern fronts it *was* almost completely static for most of the war. Those German troops - and civilians, too - were starved by the Royal Navy blockade, enforced by almost entirely coal-fuelled ships, backed by guns and howitzers made in factories powered by coal. The speed of tanks in WWI never topped 7mph, and usually a lot less.
@Withnail1969 is that the allied loss when on dec 9th 1918 the kaiser was forced to abdicate as part of the german surrender thus bringing the war to an end?
@Withnail1969 Didn't you listen to him? Oil powered warships were far more efficient than coal powered. Britain had the huge advantage here having ready access to oil. The German Fleet, if it remained coal-powered would have stood no chance against the British. So oil was critical for both navies. You reveal your ignorance simply by saying "oil was of no significance" which flies in the face of everyone else's opinion, including British and German statesmen of the time.
@beastatlay i can find evidence to back up Robs theory and yours so i cant see how you are right, plus you just tend to rubbish his arguments without maybe submitting your theories on world war 1, it does seem obvious to me that it was the Germans attempting to amass an empire and military force to rival Great Britains and Britains attempt to forge alliances to thwart them and the rail link was a big factor in this, your insults are also childish, your getting a thumbs down from a fellow Taff
With reagards to his views on WW1 its utter rubbish that is disporved by looking at ALL the facts and not just the one or two points that make his view seem plausable. Its poorley researched and misleading and in some case's just down right lies. I had thought he was better than this.
Germany was plotting war long before oil was found in Iraq, as proved by germnan doucments on various issues.
Germany never sent troops to Iraq, it was the Turks we fought.
We didn't send out best troops to Iraq.
The vast amount of fighting went on in Europe
the war didn't start just because a duke was shot, there are serval reasons all linked that Britian could have no control over. Such as the naval arms race or Austria wanting to take back Serbia.
the 2nd battlion he talks of where in India in August 1914 and didn't get to Iraq until November. By which time the 1st battilion had already seen action in France. Whats more the history of the 2nd Batt is easy to find out not hidden away.
He's just using the bits that fit his theory and then claiming that what he says has been covered up so that he can dismiss all the facts that go against what he is sauing.
"The first world war should be taught in our schools as an invasion of Iraq" ... I was never satisfied with the explanation given in school either about the reasons for the start of World War 1 ... the Berlin - Basra transcontinental railway, otherwise known as the Orient Express, and the shipment of oil from Iraq to Germany was the real cause of World War 1 ... if you look at history with this clear perspective, then the socio-economic policy of the last hundred years all makes sense ...
No it's not, it can be edited by anyone. You don't get many factual books with 'Wikipedia' as a note. Wikipedia can be edited by basically anybody. I've read facts from reputable sources only to have them perverted almost beyond recognition on Wiki.
The Brits got their butts kicked in Iraq, The Battle of Kut was one of the worse losses in British Military History.
geezzerboy 7 months ago
whatever the arguements world war 1 was a horrible bloodbath.
shaftsbury94 1 year ago
he sounds like galloway when he says basra
palkom13 1 year ago
There's a little book on sale in a record shop in Bristol (UK), called RISE. The book's called The Serviceman's Guide to the Invasion of Iraq 1943, it gives a brief synopsis of the history of Britain's involvement in the region, and also gives credence to Roberts assertions.
1numanoid 1 year ago
I'm sorry, but 51 divisions being sent to Iraq? I mean come on.
paratrooper6 1 year ago
damn -- this guy is THE BUSINESS !!
tumadoireacht 2 years ago
Also, the trenches were supplied almost completely by trains - troops, ammunition, victuals, etc. Each side even had its own small-gauge railways to supply ammunition, etc. right up to and into the front line.
The Anglo-Persian OC WAS an early part of oil colonialism, but it is a huge leap in logic to say that it caused WWI. William Engdahl, who Rob seems to be a fan of, proposed that theory as part of his claim that Germany acted in "self-defence" against UK-Franco-Russian encirclement. Hmm...
beastatlay 2 years ago
Comment removed
Withnail1969 2 years ago
Google "trench railways" and click the first link. There's the mongo's version. Or Google narrow-gauge/light rail in WWI. Or feldbahn. And those were just the littul-'uns, a-hyuh, a-hyuh. Never mind the big fuckers that took all those big-chinned men from Calais to the front.
Seems you're running out of sarcasm...and straw-man arguments. Maybe you can effect a resupply of hay sometime soon. Perhaps on a trench rail system.
"lol", as you might say.
Chin-chin.
beastatlay 2 years ago
Comment removed
Withnail1969 2 years ago
You're not even a good troll, really. You forget that it only takes someone fifty seconds or so to type a message, and then they forget about you.
Still, at least you have the decency to post unfunny crap when you know you've been made to look like an idiot, cowering behind typed smarm like a terrier with psoriasis.
Now I'm going for a jobby. Bye.
beastatlay 2 years ago
Comment removed
Withnail1969 2 years ago
Also - the Dutch and Belgians....major European powers? You've got to be fucking joking. The Belgians shit their pantaloons at the first sign of British disapproval of their repulsive colonial regimes. The Dutch had been nowhere for the last 200 years. The Russians were crumbling before the eyes of the world and on the verge of bankruptcy. Get a fucking grip, Robert, before you embarrass yourself even more .
beastatlay 2 years ago
"See that wanker with the Noam Chomsky book? That's you, that is..."
Oh God, Robert, no....he is truly gone fucking bananas. The Royal Navy in 1914 had a grand total of zero oil-fired battleships, and four only by 1916. As well as having an enormous native supply of Welsh coal, the best in the world (without regard to nationalism).
His is the pet theory to end all pet theories.
I wish I could build a time machine and return to convince my 14-yr old self not to worship this shoddy twat.
beastatlay 2 years ago
yes, there's no reason to believe Rob Newman's theory at all since other war-winning weapons like tanks and planes, and essential supply vehicles like trucks, all run on coal.
of course, the Allies eventually lost world war 1 due to the large numbers of coal-powered tanks, planes, trucks and submarines the Germans were able to build.
Proof, if any were needed, that oil was of no significance in the conflict.
Withnail1969 2 years ago
Haha, brilliant Withnail1969, excellent comment.
erkd1 2 years ago
Yes, I can see how huge amounts of oil would be needed in such a fast-moving conflict as World War 1. Sometimes armies advanced as much as three or even four feet per day.
Still, I did play down the significance of the thirty or so tanks the Germans built in the war, and I do try to forget those harrowing images of all those brave trucks going over the top and squelching across no-mans land.
beastatlay 2 years ago
Comment removed
Withnail1969 2 years ago
No, I'm well aware of the 100 Days campaign at the end of 1918 (just 100 days out of four years, obviously), but on the Western and Eastern fronts it *was* almost completely static for most of the war. Those German troops - and civilians, too - were starved by the Royal Navy blockade, enforced by almost entirely coal-fuelled ships, backed by guns and howitzers made in factories powered by coal. The speed of tanks in WWI never topped 7mph, and usually a lot less.
beastatlay 2 years ago
Comment removed
Withnail1969 2 years ago
@Withnail1969 is that the allied loss when on dec 9th 1918 the kaiser was forced to abdicate as part of the german surrender thus bringing the war to an end?
dayiiv 1 year ago
@dayiiv I'm not aware of any significant events on december 9th 1918.
Withnail1969 1 year ago
@Withnail1969 you can find it on wikipedia or you can go fuck yourself cos i really dont care today.
dayiiv 1 year ago
@dayiiv i looked on wikipedia but i could not find any significant events on december 9th 1918.
Withnail1969 1 year ago
@Withnail1969 then you are inept at reading. its where i read it when i checked my facts.
dayiiv 1 year ago
@dayiiv please give me a link to a page which states the Kaiser abdicated on December 9th 1918, thank you.
Withnail1969 1 year ago
@Withnail1969 Didn't you listen to him? Oil powered warships were far more efficient than coal powered. Britain had the huge advantage here having ready access to oil. The German Fleet, if it remained coal-powered would have stood no chance against the British. So oil was critical for both navies. You reveal your ignorance simply by saying "oil was of no significance" which flies in the face of everyone else's opinion, including British and German statesmen of the time.
LordClaremorris 1 year ago
@LordClaremorris i think you need to read my comment again and ask yourself whether or not i'm being sarcastic.
Withnail1969 1 year ago
@Withnail1969 Indeed, didn't realise. Apologies sir.
LordClaremorris 1 year ago
@beastatlay i can find evidence to back up Robs theory and yours so i cant see how you are right, plus you just tend to rubbish his arguments without maybe submitting your theories on world war 1, it does seem obvious to me that it was the Germans attempting to amass an empire and military force to rival Great Britains and Britains attempt to forge alliances to thwart them and the rail link was a big factor in this, your insults are also childish, your getting a thumbs down from a fellow Taff
lickstickly 1 year ago
With reagards to his views on WW1 its utter rubbish that is disporved by looking at ALL the facts and not just the one or two points that make his view seem plausable. Its poorley researched and misleading and in some case's just down right lies. I had thought he was better than this.
MutantBlues 2 years ago 4
why why? im interested to know. Im all studying this, and want to know where to look, show me a direction?
joseph72790 2 years ago
I second the motion.
subscooby 2 years ago
Germany was plotting war long before oil was found in Iraq, as proved by germnan doucments on various issues.
Germany never sent troops to Iraq, it was the Turks we fought.
We didn't send out best troops to Iraq.
The vast amount of fighting went on in Europe
the war didn't start just because a duke was shot, there are serval reasons all linked that Britian could have no control over. Such as the naval arms race or Austria wanting to take back Serbia.
MutantBlues 2 years ago 4
also
the 2nd battlion he talks of where in India in August 1914 and didn't get to Iraq until November. By which time the 1st battilion had already seen action in France. Whats more the history of the 2nd Batt is easy to find out not hidden away.
He's just using the bits that fit his theory and then claiming that what he says has been covered up so that he can dismiss all the facts that go against what he is sauing.
MutantBlues 2 years ago 4
george carlin
Lik2012 2 years ago
one of the gretest stand up performances i've ever heard. utterly perfect.
gushoodwink 2 years ago
Allaahu Akbar
soulcru5h 3 years ago
Absolutely superb,as always.
mamalazarou87 4 years ago 4
"The first world war should be taught in our schools as an invasion of Iraq" ... I was never satisfied with the explanation given in school either about the reasons for the start of World War 1 ... the Berlin - Basra transcontinental railway, otherwise known as the Orient Express, and the shipment of oil from Iraq to Germany was the real cause of World War 1 ... if you look at history with this clear perspective, then the socio-economic policy of the last hundred years all makes sense ...
AvangionQ 4 years ago 25
Agreed!
Kalydosos 4 years ago
WoW thats so incisive,AvanggionQ did you work that out yourself, or just watch the video
fallisja1 3 years ago 12
fallisja1 - I watched the video, did some independent research and came up with the same conclusion ...
AvangionQ 3 years ago
'independent research' meaning you looked it up on wikipedia.
FraserTheMentalist 3 years ago 4
Wikipedia being one of many independently corroborating sources, yes.
AvangionQ 3 years ago 2
Yeah, if you think wikipedia is a trustworthy source then you're doing a poor job of pretending to be intelligent.
FraserTheMentalist 3 years ago 2
Wikipedia is an extremely reliable source.
maraudingchimpanzee 2 years ago
No it's not, it can be edited by anyone. You don't get many factual books with 'Wikipedia' as a note. Wikipedia can be edited by basically anybody. I've read facts from reputable sources only to have them perverted almost beyond recognition on Wiki.
FraserTheMentalist 2 years ago 2
I think he worked it out ! Then looked at the video.
gv1955 3 years ago 2
@fallisja1 or maybe he was pointing out his personal moment of realisation and you are a picky dick.
dayiiv 1 year ago
i love newman, especially this performance.
reverendgisher 4 years ago 7