World wars I &II were about oil in Iraq
Debate Rounds (3)
As a side note, the Anglo-Iraqi War (1941) lasted less than one month, and offered a strong base of British operations for continuing wartime efforts in the Mideast. While the implication is clear that the British Empire shed the blood of belligerents and innocents alike to maintain control of Iraq's resource routes, one must be careful not to assume that the Iraqis were apt to respect basic human rights and dignities; following the Anglo-Iraqi armistice, over a hundred Jews in Baghdad lost their lives at the hands of angry Iraqis, the latter of whom having turned their frustrations on innocent civilians.
Quote - ' In short, oil played a limited role in the military decisions and operations of both wars.'
Reply - Without a secured oil supply, neither side could conduct a proper military campaign. Thus, it was absolutely vital that oil supplies be the main priority.
British send troops to stop German railway to Baghdad. http://www.revisionist.net...
As well in Serbia British military and intelligence networks were most active prior to outbreak of war. Major R.G.D. Laffan was in charge of a British military training mission in Serbia just before the war. Following the war, Laffan wrote of the British role in throwing a huge block on the route of the German-Baghdad project:
"If 'Berlin-Baghdad' were achieved, a huge block of territory producing every kind of economic wealth, and unassailable by sea-power would be united under German authority," warned R.G.D. Laffan. Laffan was at that time a senior British military adviser attached to the Serbian Army.
"Russia would be cut off by this barrier from her western friends, Great Britain and France," Laffan added. "German and Turkish armies would be within easy striking distance of our Egyptian interests, and from the Persian Gulf, our Indian Empire would be threatened. The port of Alexandretta and the control of the Dardanelles would soon give Germany enormous naval power in the Mediterranean."
Note - World War II was just a reinforcing of the previous war efforts. The beginning of World War I was at the same time as oil became a recognized fuel source which was far more efficient than coal powered vessels.
This statement, while a great deal more specific than the original arguments presented, still fails to specifically address the precise manner in which Iraqi oil reserves served as a nucleus for both wars, as opposed to freedom and protection of human rights. Perhaps the original argument was too hyperbolic, and should have been pruned to specifics so as to accommodate the point trying to be made in the above block quote.
In light of the direct quote that these wars had "nothing to do with freedom and protection of human rights," the most effective and simple counterargument is to point to the liberation of the concentration camps toward the end of World War II. While this certainly wasn't the main aim of the war (and no knowledgeable individual would argue otherwise), it negates the idea that the war had "nothing to do" with protecting or preserving human rights. Per "A Short History of Human Rights," the author discusses the Nuremberg trials, noting that "officials from the defeated countries were punished for committing...'crimes against humanity'." The violation of the basic human rights of the Jews was a focal point of these trials. These trials involved crimes committed during World War II. It follows, then, that "World War II...had nothing to do with freedom and protection of human rights" is a null statement.
2. My opponent has concentrated his efforts on the release of prisoners after the war was finished. It should be made clear that all wars have prisoners and the release of prisoners after a war is finished is nothing unusual or extraordinary. What is important is what was the cause of the war in the first place. Obviously, the first actions of a war will give important clues as to what the motives are behind the reasons for having the war. thus, the first actions of the British in world War I were to send troops to Baghdad to stop the Germans and Turks from building a railway to Baghdad. The second World War was just a reinforcement of this same policy as well as some unfinished business from the last war.
3. Human rights were of little importance during the course of these two wars. Soldiers were sent into battle with little or no protection or armour. Thousands of soldiers were sent in against machine gun positions which were really just suicide attacks which had no prospects of success. Thus, this is evidence that the commanders had little respect for human life.
Reference from source - https://en.wikipedia.org...
The railway became a source of international disputes during the years immediately preceding World War I. Although it has been argued that they were resolved in 1914 before the war began, it has also been argued that the railway was a leading cause of the First World War. Technical difficulties in the remote Taurus Mountains and diplomatic delays meant that by 1915 the railway was still 480 kilometres (300 mi) short of completion, severely limiting its use during the war in which Baghdad was occupied by the British while the Hejaz Railway in the south was attacked by guerrilla forces led by T. E. Lawrence. Construction resumed in the 1930s and was completed in 1940.
TheFelchster forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.