" ... with high-explosive shell, fragments of which inflict poisonous and festering wounds"
During wwi the British army loaded HE with explosives that gave off poisonous gases when the shells exploded. Which is what WSC refers to. On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Editor, Finest Hour <[email protected]>wrote: > On second thought, why offer it privately? Churchillians will need the > ammo. What with the Syria business, people who always equate "us" with > "them" will inevitably try to say "we" were just as bad.... > > My name is Mark Edger and I am a researcher working in the BBC history >> development team. I am currently doing some work looking at the development >> of chemical weapons by Britain during the first world war and Winston >> Churchill’s advocacy of their use both during the war and against the >> Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War. I was wondering if this is >> something that you might be able to discuss with me at some point? It would >> be really useful to get an experts eye view on the history and also discuss >> where documents pointing to this advocacy might be? >> > > Dear Mr Edger: > > Historians from Sir Martin Gilbert forward have covered these topics so > often in the past that I am surprised they still raise controversy. No > doubt their shock value is still high, given what's been going on in Syria. > > Churchill himself confused the subject when he referred to "poison gas" > instead of tear gas (which he defined as "lachrymatory gas") on the > question of Iraqi rebels in 1921. See for example Martin Gilbert's > Churchill Centre lecture, "Churchill and Bombing Policy": > > http://www.winstonchurchill.**org/images/pdfs/for_educators/** > Gilbert%20TCC%20Lecture%**20CHURCHILL%20AND%20BOMBING%**20POLICY.pdf<http://www.winstonchurchill.org/images/pdfs/for_educators/Gilbert%20TCC%20Lecture%20CHURCHILL%20AND%20BOMBING%20POLICY.pdf> > > Quoting from the above: "Continuing to use the Royal Air Force in Iraq > would entail, as Churchill explained to Air Marshal Trenchard, ‘the > provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause disablement > of some kind but not death...'" In the event, gas of any kind was not used. > > Churchill's general philosophy leading up to WW2 remained along the same > lines—as illustrated by this comment to the House of Commons on 13 May 1932 > (my book* page 190): > > "Nothing could be more repugnant to our feelings > > than the use of poison gas, but there is > > no logic at all behind the argument that it is > > quite proper in war to lay a man low with > > high-explosive shell, fragments of which > > inflict poisonous and festering wounds, and > > altogether immoral to give him a burn with > > corrosive gas or make him cough and sneeze > > or otherwise suffer through his respiratory > > organs.…The attitude of the British Government has > > always been to abhor the employment of > > poison gas. As I understand it, our only procedure > > is to keep alive such means of studying > > this subject as shall not put us at a hopeless > > disadvantage if, by any chance, it were used > > against us by other people." > > Accordingly, in World War II he was always prepared to use gas > ruthlessly--if it were first used by the enemy. > > Often cited without context is his 1943 remark about "drenching Germany" > with poison gas. This was a response, not a recommendation. From FINEST > HOUR 117, Winter 2002-03, Q&A column, pages 43/47: > > Q: "In February 1943, during the German counter-offensive in the Donets > Basin, Churchill was informed that the Germans might use poison gas against > the Russians. What was Churchill’s response? > > A: "In a minute to the Chiefs of Staff Committee Churchill wrote, 'We > shall retaliate by drenching the German cities with gas on the largest > scale.'" > > > As to the use of "poison" gas against the Bolsheviks, I do not have a > quotation to hand. But, given his consistency on what to use and when to > use it, from World War I forward, I am sure it would be along the same > lines. > > We have to consider attitudes at the time. After the Bolshevik Revolution > and the Russian exit from WW1, this same Churchill advocated sending a > "commissar" (as he put it) to Lenin, who would offer—in exchange for Russia > re-entering the car—that Britain would guarantee Lenin's revolution! > > I think this illustrates that in both World Wars, Churchill's main aim was > victory. To that end he would consider almost anything, although he never > advocated the first use of poison gas. > > I have always been impressed with the words of his daughter Lady Soames: > "My father would have done almost anything to win the war, and I daresay he > had to do some pretty rough things. But they didn't unman him." > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "ChurchillChat" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
