The thread makes sense, it's just that the original question is very open to interpretation. Oil in the 1940s was indeed a critical resource, no one was going to win WW2 without oil, even with lost of coal and a FischerTropsch process.
The conversion from oil to coal as the main source for electrical power, that as actually in the 50s. But the strategic value of oil came up with aviation and mechanized warfare.
Coal was also strategic before oil and not just as a fuel for navies since the mid 19th century. Without coal you just couldn't develop a decent industrial base. Even if you had something to trade against it you wouldn't be buying coal for industrial use, you'd buy it for running stuff like trains. Industrial products, especially cast iron and steel, you'd buy finished. Meaning that those countries with sizeable coal reserves had the vast majority of the tremendously important (strategically and economically) steel industry. Meaning they'd have a supply chain advantage in producing everything based on iron, which meant almost every major industry (machines, shipbuilding, railroad material, cars) but that of clothing.
Food was always strategic but food was always produced everywhere you had water, soil, and people. It wasn't such a limiting factor as oil and cola came to be during their respective ages.
Before coal? I guess that precious metals were the limited resource with the most strategic impact. Gold and silver were the basis of commerce, and they ruled as strategic resources for some 2500 years in some places.
Tin was also very important in antiquity as we all know (bronze age and all that). Copper was somewhat scarce so I guess it could also be called a key resource. Not so with iron, it was everywhere in quantities capable of supporting small scale use, and by the time of the industrial revolution there was already an international trade in iron.
Water as a strategic resource? I keep hearing that but I don't believe, for the reason stated by SiLL.