Hoss

Couple of good points but for example there really wasn't going to be an oil shortage until much later in the War the main purpose of blockages etc is to cut off essentials imo at the time oil not being one of them but a big player W2, this is rather long winded but worth studying imo it shows a part of the inter-political wrangling long before the first shot was even fired 1914 and a 'hurry up get it done' scenario shortly after the Armistice was signed ie the taking of Mosal. people may ask what has this to do with the initial post but its important I think to try understand the big players who push the buttons and a secret slicing of the pie before the war was even three months old.......... >During World War I (1914-18), strategists for all the major powers increasingly perceived oil as a key military asset, due to the adoption of oil-powered naval ships, new horseless army vehicles such as trucks and tanks, and even military airplanes. Use of oil during the war increased so rapidly that a severe shortage developed in 1917-18. The strategists also understood that oil would assume a rapidly-growing importance in the civilian economy, making it a vital element in national and imperial economic strength and a source of untold wealth to those who controlled it. Already in the United States, John D. Rockefeller, founder of Standard Oil Company, was the world's richest person. The British government, ruling over the largest colonial empire, already controlled newly-discovered oil in Persia (now Iran) through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. Since Britain lacked oil in the home islands, British strategists wanted still more reserves to assure the future needs of their empire. An area of the Ottoman Empire called Mesopotamia (now Iraq), shared the same geology as neighboring Persia, so it appeared especially promising. Just before war broke out in 1914, British and German companies had negotiated joint participation in the newly-founded Turkish Petroleum Company that held prospecting rights in Mesopotamia. The war ended the Anglo-German oil partnership and it exposed the territories of the German-allied Ottoman Empire to direct British attack. As war continued, oil seemed ever more important and shortages ever more menacing to the imperial planners. Sir Maurice Hankey, powerful Secretary of the British War Cabinet, wrote to Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour during the war's final stage, to argue that oil had become absolutely vital to Britain and that oil resources in Mesopotamia would be crucial in the future. "Control of these oil supplies becomes a first-class war aim" Hankey said enthusiastically, as British troops closed in on Baghdad. (1) Unfortunately for the British, they had ceded much of the oil-producing area in northern Iraq to their French ally in the secret Sykes-Picot Accord of early 1916, carving up the soon-to-be defeated Ottoman Empire. British diplomacy and military plans changed course to recoup what had already been given away. In August 1918, Balfour told assembled Prime Ministers of the British Dominions that Britain must be the "guiding spirit" in Mesopotamia, so as to provide a key resource that the British Empire lacked. "I do not care under what system we keep the oil," he said. "But I am quite clear it is all-important for us that this oil should be available." To this end, British forces raced to capture the key northern city of Mosul several days after the armistice was signed. Britain thus outmaneuvered the French, establishing a military fait accompli in the oil zone of Northern Mesopotamia. The French were furious. France, too, lacked oil fields in its home terriorites, and its politicians and imperial strategists saw Mesopotamia as a key resource for France's future industrial and military might. In the months after the armistice, nothing caused greater friction between the two allies than the oil question. During the Versailles Peace Conference, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George and his French counterpart Georges Clemenceau nearly came to blows over Mesopotamian (Iraqi) oil, according to eyewitness accounts. US President Wooddrow Wilson apparently intervened and only barely restrained them. Finally, in the secret San Remo Agreement of 1920, the two rivals agreed to give Britain political control over all Mespoltamia, in return for France taking over the German quarter share in the Turkish Petroleum Company. All this before a drop of oil had been discovered in the disputed territory! The French government was not satisfied with its secondary role in world oil, fearing the might of the big British and US companies. In an effort to strengthen and "liberate" France, the government in Paris set up the Compagnie Francaise des Pétroles in 1924 to take up the French share in Mesopotamia – now a British colony(2) renamed Iraq . Further French legislation in 1928 referred to the company as an instrument to curtail "the Anglo Saxon oil trusts" and to develop Mesopotamian oil as a strategic resource of the French empire. The uneasy settlement between the British and the French did not end the great power dispute over Iraq's oil, however. The United States government and US oil companies were furious at the Anglo-French agreement, which left nothing for them! Before the end of 1920, following the companies' strategic prompting, the US press began to denounce the Anglo-French accord as "old-fashioned imperialism." In Washington, some talked of sanctions and other measures against these ungrateful recent allies. Relations between Washington and London cooled swiftly and a young State Department legal advisor named Allen Dulles(3) drew up a memorandum insisting that the Turkish Petroleum Company (TPC) concession agreement with the dismembered Ottoman Empire was now legally invalid and would no longer be recognized by the United States. Soon London bowed to this transatlantic pressure and signaled that it was ready for a deal that would give the US a "fair" share. In response, Washington told its major oil companies that they should act as a consortium in future negotiations. Walter Teagle, Chairman of Jersey Standard (later Exxon), the biggest US company, took the lead role as negotiator for the consortium. Thus began lengthy secret talks in London. No oil had yet been found, but prospects had brightened. In October 1927, the British exploration team under D'Arcy hit a gusher, proving oil reserves in large quantities near Kirkuk in northern Iraq. In July 1928, the quarreling parties finally reached a famous accord, known as the "Red Line Agreement," which brought the US consortium into the picture with just under a quarter of the shares and an agreement to jointly develop fields in many other Middle East countries falling within the red line marked on the map by the negotiators. Throughout this phase, as in all later phases of Iraq's oil history, major international powers combined national military force, government pressure and private corporate might to win and hold concessions for Iraq's oil. The defeated and dismembered Ottoman Empire and its defeated ally Germany lost all oil rights they might otherwise have claimed. At the same time, the three victors of the war – Britain, France and the United States – shared out Iraqi oil among themselves on a basis of relative power. The dominant colonial power, Britain, came out with nearly a half share, while the two lesser powers on the regional stage – the US and France – each won close to a quarter share. D'Arcy, who discovered Iraq's oil, died a poor man, while Calouste Gulbenkian, the crafty businessman who had put together the company, managed to extract a five percent personal share, making him one of the world's richest men.(4) The people of Iraq were not consulted, nor did they derive any benefit from these arrangements.< Regards Eric

Hi Chris Sorry for my quickie was a joke btw I'll round up what I have strapwise and post soon I've never been very good at authenticating them but getting better slowly. Eric

Well thats alright for you Paul Rick wants me on the stand is he a defence lawyer? Rick Start with the mid no wait late 19th century its easier then get back. Eric

The US forces didn't do much regarding the counter kaiserschlacht as for material the artillery rounds were frankly junk, if you could ask grunts. It pissed me off Wilson got so involved it was nothing to do with him his fourteen points was purely political for the USA's own postwar gains. If the war had finished late 1915 America would have welcomed Germany with open arms. What was going to happen in Russia was long overdue and the west east Europe boarders would have looked different today. Austria would have crushed all the slav states no doubt about it. Germany and England together would have dominated world affairs and controlled western Europe, France was always a carbuncle on our foot they can never make their minds what type of government they want. Overhaul I think it would have been a better Europe Germans are wonderful people beautiful country. Eric

Simple the US should never have got involved in any shape or form, international pacts are the scourge of mankind. Eric

Mark I'm sure Ed is the man I need to see a maker and dates myself there is quite a few variants to the back straps for a start then there is dyed leather and some latter ones don't have the same thread all sorts of things. Some guys collect nothing but Lugers its fascinating, the whole thing I love em when they have unit stamps etc. Eric

No Eric

Hi Mark Have any interesting bits and pieces tools etc seeing you guys can't shoot em, for example I'm looking for a period right angle 08 water hose fitting and a belt pick and and and oh help sorry........... Eric the Nut

Kornel thanks for showing I only have a couple not like you heavy hitters! Eric

Hi Dan I liked to see it also sometimes boiler and lid colours are flipped yet the kit looks matching Mr Wartime is a mad scientist lol! Eric

Hi Chris you mean the M87's ? yea from not having one 8months ago now I've a few only one (from Brian L.) has the hanging hook though, I like em they don't go for much mate lets keep it that way folks! Eric

Made up a little shelf display hope you like it. Eric

Hard luck Ed btw you didn't bite, I love me guns mate God Bless the US Eric

Gents I don't have a reference book no more but believe these were frankly deemed a bad design, weren't they typical made by non regular bayonet makers? Chris one is made by Beka Rekord unpopular with the troops they stopped production sometime in '15 went the way of others like Gottscho bayos with break easy blades and most had to be refitted with flashguards...think they just gave up on em. Nice bayonets btw Chris honest I've always wanted a nice sawback one of these. Eric

uumm find that hard to believe, you guys know though I thought they just dropped making them and concentrated on ersatz conversions nothing more, Eric

Its yours along with the lanyard thingy this experience has put me right off lugers...blooming things. Eric

Nice where did you get the export thingy from? Eric

Thanks Ed Had another look there is a faint stamp in the inside just below the BA ink issue, half of me wishes UPS were still looking for me lol! Eric

Thanks Chris well it doesn't look the same bit miffed on the lanyard Porto means nothing to me, bummer.

Yea your right the news is bad the lanyard is not German but Portuguese what's the thoughts on the non maker marked pouch and issue stamp? Eric

Sorry Ed had other things happening plus UPS had a hard time finding me. Eric

Robin Is there anything out there confirming or denying W1 flamethrower units put the totty on their helmets. Could we put it to bed one way or the other with the W1 thingy coming up if I've missed pics sorry this is a long thread. I've read the regular troops hated them showing up even more than MGSs squads, have any info in your files etc? Cheers

A nice issue Red with a post 1910 date/reg stamp. Eric

I Pardon You

To each his own Would you rip off the rotten rags of Nefertiti and wrap her in modern cloth just to look/say this is how it must of looked back in the day? dunno, maybe its part of the whole issue of what's ok under restoration, maybe go for something, a product that doesn't take but locks a piece in its present state if one wishes. Chris please leave alone if you're unhappy with the way it looks now I'd buy it, you could hold it out and blast with a ballistol product personally I wouldn't I see too much gear on the net buffed up cleaned it leaves me miffed. I've a camo helmet that still shreds dirt after all these years one day it will no doubt cease but the helm will still have the 'look'. Eric Lol forget it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!