Winston Churchill's Secret Poison Gas Memo
0 views
Skip to first unread message
j corlett
Nov 9, 2005, 12:47:40 AM11/9/05
to Re...@googlegroups.com
Winston Churchill's Secret Poison Gas Memowww.globalresearch.ca
Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation
Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation
Winston Churchill's Secret Poison Gas Memo
www.globalresearch.ca 29 July 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html
Winston Churchill's Secret Poison Gas Memo
[stamp] PRIME MINISTER'S PERSONAL MINUTE
[stamp, pen] Serial No. D. 217/4
[Seal of Prime Minister]
10 Downing Street, Whitehall [gothic script]
GENERAL ISMAY FOR C.O.S. COMMITTEE [underlined]
1. I want you to think very seriously over this question of poison gas. I
would not use it unless it could be shown either that (a) it was life or death
for us, or (b) that it would shorten the war by a year.
2. It is absurd to consider morality on this topic when everybody used it
in the last war without a word of complaint from the moralists or the Church.
On the other hand, in the last war bombing of open cities was regarded as
forbidden. Now everybody does it as a matter of course. It is simply a
question of fashion changing as she does between long and short skirts for
women.
3. I want a cold-blooded calculation made as to how it would pay us to use
poison gas, by which I mean principally mustard. We will want to gain more
ground in Normandy so as not to be cooped up in a small area. We could
probably deliver 20 tons to their 1 and for the sake of the 1 they would bring
their bomber aircraft into the area against our superiority, thus paying a
heavy toll.
4. Why have the Germans not used it? Not certainly out of moral scruples or
affection for us. They have not used it because it does not pay them. The
greatest temptation ever offered to them was the beaches of Normandy. This
they could have drenched with gas greatly to the hindrance of the troops. That
they thought about it is certain and that they prepared against our use of gas
is also certain. But they only reason they have not used it against us is that
they fear the retaliation. What is to their detriment is to our advantage.
5. Although one sees how unpleasant it is to receive poison gas attacks,
from which nearly everyone recovers, it is useless to protest that an equal
amount of H. E. will not inflict greater casualties and sufferings on troops
and civilians. One really must not be bound within silly conventions of the
mind whether they be those that ruled in the last war or those in reverse
which rule in this.
6. If the bombardment of London became a serious nuisance and great rockets
with far-reaching and devastating effect fell on many centres of Government
and labour, I should be prepared to do [underline] anything [stop underline]
that would hit the enemy in a murderous place. I may certainly have to ask you
to support me in using poison gas. We could drench the cities of the Ruhr and
many other cities in Germany in such a way that most of the population would
be requiring constant medical attention. We could stop all work at the flying
bomb starting points. I do not see why we should have the disadvantages of
being the gentleman while they have all the advantages of being the cad. There
are times when this may be so but not now.
7. I quite agree that it may be several weeks or even months before I shall
ask you to drench Germany with poison gas, and if we do it, let us do it one
hundred per cent. In the meanwhile, I want the matter studied in cold blood by
sensible people and not by that particular set of psalm-singing uniformed
defeatists which one runs across now here now there. Pray address yourself to
this. It is a big thing and can only be discarded for a big reason. I shall of
course have to square Uncle Joe and the President; but you need not bring this
into your calculations at the present time. Just try to find out what it is
like on its merits.
[signed] Winston Churchill [initials]
6.7.44 [underlined]
Source: photographic copy of original 4 page memo, in Guenther W. Gellermann,
"Der Krieg, der nicht stattfand", Bernard & Graefe Verlag, 1986, pp. 249-251
[stamp] PRIME MINISTER'S PERSONAL MINUTE
[stamp, pen] Serial No. D. 217/4
[Seal of Prime Minister]
10 Downing Street, Whitehall [gothic script]
GENERAL ISMAY FOR C.O.S. COMMITTEE [underlined]
1. I want you to think very seriously over this question of poison gas. I
would not use it unless it could be shown either that (a) it was life or death
for us, or (b) that it would shorten the war by a year.
2. It is absurd to consider morality on this topic when everybody used it
in the last war without a word of complaint from the moralists or the Church.
On the other hand, in the last war bombing of open cities was regarded as
forbidden. Now everybody does it as a matter of course. It is simply a
question of fashion changing as she does between long and short skirts for
women.
3. I want a cold-blooded calculation made as to how it would pay us to use
poison gas, by which I mean principally mustard. We will want to gain more
ground in Normandy so as not to be cooped up in a small area. We could
probably deliver 20 tons to their 1 and for the sake of the 1 they would bring
their bomber aircraft into the area against our superiority, thus paying a
heavy toll.
4. Why have the Germans not used it? Not certainly out of moral scruples or
affection for us. They have not used it because it does not pay them. The
greatest temptation ever offered to them was the beaches of Normandy. This
they could have drenched with gas greatly to the hindrance of the troops. That
they thought about it is certain and that they prepared against our use of gas
is also certain. But they only reason they have not used it against us is that
they fear the retaliation. What is to their detriment is to our advantage.
5. Although one sees how unpleasant it is to receive poison gas attacks,
from which nearly everyone recovers, it is useless to protest that an equal
amount of H. E. will not inflict greater casualties and sufferings on troops
and civilians. One really must not be bound within silly conventions of the
mind whether they be those that ruled in the last war or those in reverse
which rule in this.
6. If the bombardment of London became a serious nuisance and great rockets
with far-reaching and devastating effect fell on many centres of Government
and labour, I should be prepared to do [underline] anything [stop underline]
that would hit the enemy in a murderous place. I may certainly have to ask you
to support me in using poison gas. We could drench the cities of the Ruhr and
many other cities in Germany in such a way that most of the population would
be requiring constant medical attention. We could stop all work at the flying
bomb starting points. I do not see why we should have the disadvantages of
being the gentleman while they have all the advantages of being the cad. There
are times when this may be so but not now.
7. I quite agree that it may be several weeks or even months before I shall
ask you to drench Germany with poison gas, and if we do it, let us do it one
hundred per cent. In the meanwhile, I want the matter studied in cold blood by
sensible people and not by that particular set of psalm-singing uniformed
defeatists which one runs across now here now there. Pray address yourself to
this. It is a big thing and can only be discarded for a big reason. I shall of
course have to square Uncle Joe and the President; but you need not bring this
into your calculations at the present time. Just try to find out what it is
like on its merits.
[signed] Winston Churchill [initials]
6.7.44 [underlined]
Source: photographic copy of original 4 page memo, in Guenther W. Gellermann,
"Der Krieg, der nicht stattfand", Bernard & Graefe Verlag, 1986, pp. 249-251
Winston S. Churchill: departmental minute (Churchill papers: 16/16) 12 May
1919 War Office
I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have
definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour
of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer
affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting
shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.
I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.
The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced
to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses
can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror
and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.
from Companion Volume 4, Part 1 of the official biography, WINSTON S.
CHURCHILL, by Martin Gilbert (London: Heinemann, 1976)
1919 War Office
I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have
definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour
of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer
affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting
shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.
I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.
The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced
to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses
can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror
and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.
from Companion Volume 4, Part 1 of the official biography, WINSTON S.
CHURCHILL, by Martin Gilbert (London: Heinemann, 1976)
Henry Gonzalez, US Congressman, referred to this in the House of
Representatives on March 24, 1992:
"But there again, where is the moral right? The first one to use gas against
Arabs was Winston Churchill, the British, in the early 1920's. They were Iraq
Arabs they used them against."
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920324g.htm
"Moral right" is of course the reason this piece of history has now been
dredged up again - by people who see contradictions in the pious arguments of
Messrs. Bush, Blair et al. And this seems only fair. In 1998 Clinton denounced
opponents to his planned attack on Iraq for "not remembering the past".
> I remain unconvinced that the UK used chemical weapons > in the middle east
in the 1920s.... > but I'm open to correction.
Not easy. And if you'd rather not...
Churchill thought of it as poison gas - and so, apparently did everyone else.
The idea of using it was his alone. And he is also is also to have given the
authorization to the RAF. He wanted gas to be used in addition to regular
bombing: "against recalcitrant Arabs as experiment". According to Simons, gas
was not dispensed in bombs.
The intention was to quell a growing rebellion in remote villages. He met with
objections but maintained that "we cannot in any circumstances acquiesce in
the non-utilisation of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy
termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier".
It seems Churchill wanted to cause "disablement", "discomfort or illness, but
not death".
In any case, to Churchill this was not a moral issue. Here is part of a memo,
so you can see it through his eyes. He wrote this during WWII, when he
contemplated using poison gas, but never did:
Representatives on March 24, 1992:
"But there again, where is the moral right? The first one to use gas against
Arabs was Winston Churchill, the British, in the early 1920's. They were Iraq
Arabs they used them against."
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920324g.htm
"Moral right" is of course the reason this piece of history has now been
dredged up again - by people who see contradictions in the pious arguments of
Messrs. Bush, Blair et al. And this seems only fair. In 1998 Clinton denounced
opponents to his planned attack on Iraq for "not remembering the past".
> I remain unconvinced that the UK used chemical weapons > in the middle east
in the 1920s.... > but I'm open to correction.
Not easy. And if you'd rather not...
Churchill thought of it as poison gas - and so, apparently did everyone else.
The idea of using it was his alone. And he is also is also to have given the
authorization to the RAF. He wanted gas to be used in addition to regular
bombing: "against recalcitrant Arabs as experiment". According to Simons, gas
was not dispensed in bombs.
The intention was to quell a growing rebellion in remote villages. He met with
objections but maintained that "we cannot in any circumstances acquiesce in
the non-utilisation of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy
termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier".
It seems Churchill wanted to cause "disablement", "discomfort or illness, but
not death".
In any case, to Churchill this was not a moral issue. Here is part of a memo,
so you can see it through his eyes. He wrote this during WWII, when he
contemplated using poison gas, but never did:
Excerpts below by www.informaitionwar.org
BACKGROUND: In 1917, following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the British
occupied Iraq and established a colonial government. The Arab and Kurdish
people of Iraq resisted the British occupation, and by 1920 this had developed
into a full scale national revolt, which cost the British dearly. As the Iraqi
resistance gained strength, the British resorted to increasingly repressive
measures, including the use of posion gas.] NB: Because of formatting
problems, quotation marks will appear as stars * All quotes in the excerpt
are properly footnoted in the original book, with full references to British
archives and papers. Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. *IRAQ: FROM
SUMER TO SUDAN*. London: St. Martins Press, 1994:
Winston Churchill, as colonial secretary, was sensitive to the cost of
policing the Empire; and was in consequence keen to exploit the potential of
modern technology. This strategy had particular relevance to operations in
Iraq. On 19 February, 1920, before the start of the Arab uprising, Churchill
(then Secretary for War and Air) wrote to Sir Hugh Trenchard, the pioneer of
air warfare. Would it be possible for Trenchard to take control of Iraq? This
would entail *the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to
cause disablement of some kind but not death...for use in preliminary
operations against turbulent tribes.*
Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against
the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): *I do
not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour
of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.* Henry Wilson shared
Churchills enthusiasm for gas as an instrument of colonial control but the
British cabinet was reluctant to sanction the use of a weapon that had caused
such misery and revulsion in the First World War. Churchill himself was keen
to argue that gas, fired from ground-based guns or dropped from aircraft,
would cause *only discomfort or illness, but not death* to dissident
tribespeople; but his optimistic view of the effects of gas were mistaken. It
was likely that the suggested gas would permanently damage eyesight and *kill
children and sickly persons, more especially as the people against whom we
intend to use it have no medical knowledge with which to supply antidotes.*
Churchill remained unimpressed by such considerations, arguing that the
use of gas, a *scientific expedient,* should not be prevented *by the
prejudices of those who do not think clearly*. In the event, gas was used
against the Iraqi rebels with excellent moral effect* though gas shells were
not dropped from aircraft because of practical difficulties [.....]
Today in 1993 there are still Iraqis and Kurds who remember being bombed
and machine-gunned by the RAF in the 1920s. A Kurd from the Korak mountains
commented, seventy years after the event: *They were bombing here in the
Kaniya Khoran...Sometimes they raided three times a day.* Wing Commander
Lewis, then of 30 Squadron (RAF), Iraq, recalls how quite often *one would get
a signal that a certain Kurdish village would have to be bombed...*, the RAF
pilots being ordered to bomb any Kurd who looked hostile. In the same vein,
Squadron-Leader Kendal of 30 Squadron recalls that if the tribespeople were
doing something they ought not be doing then you shot them.*
Similarly, Wing-Commander Gale, also of 30 Squadron: *If the Kurds hadn't
learned by our example to behave themselves in a civilised way then we had to
spank their bottoms. This was done by bombs and guns.
Wing-Commander Sir Arthur Harris (later Bomber Harris, head of wartime
Bomber Command) was happy to emphasise that *The Arab and Kurd now know what
real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within forty-five minutes a
full-size village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants
killed or injured.* It was an easy matter to bomb and machine-gun the
tribespeople, because they had no means of defence or retalitation. Iraq and
Kurdistan were also useful laboratories for new weapons; devices specifically
developed by the Air Ministry for use against tribal villages. The ministry
drew up a list of possible weapons, some of them the forerunners of napalm and
air-to-ground missiles:
Phosphorus bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet [to maim livestock]
man-killing shrapnel, liquid fire, delay-action bombs. Many of these weapons
were first used in Kurdistan.
Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. *Iraq: From Sumer to Saddam*.
London: St. Martins Press, 1994.
BACKGROUND: In 1917, following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the British
occupied Iraq and established a colonial government. The Arab and Kurdish
people of Iraq resisted the British occupation, and by 1920 this had developed
into a full scale national revolt, which cost the British dearly. As the Iraqi
resistance gained strength, the British resorted to increasingly repressive
measures, including the use of posion gas.] NB: Because of formatting
problems, quotation marks will appear as stars * All quotes in the excerpt
are properly footnoted in the original book, with full references to British
archives and papers. Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. *IRAQ: FROM
SUMER TO SUDAN*. London: St. Martins Press, 1994:
Winston Churchill, as colonial secretary, was sensitive to the cost of
policing the Empire; and was in consequence keen to exploit the potential of
modern technology. This strategy had particular relevance to operations in
Iraq. On 19 February, 1920, before the start of the Arab uprising, Churchill
(then Secretary for War and Air) wrote to Sir Hugh Trenchard, the pioneer of
air warfare. Would it be possible for Trenchard to take control of Iraq? This
would entail *the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to
cause disablement of some kind but not death...for use in preliminary
operations against turbulent tribes.*
Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against
the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): *I do
not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour
of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.* Henry Wilson shared
Churchills enthusiasm for gas as an instrument of colonial control but the
British cabinet was reluctant to sanction the use of a weapon that had caused
such misery and revulsion in the First World War. Churchill himself was keen
to argue that gas, fired from ground-based guns or dropped from aircraft,
would cause *only discomfort or illness, but not death* to dissident
tribespeople; but his optimistic view of the effects of gas were mistaken. It
was likely that the suggested gas would permanently damage eyesight and *kill
children and sickly persons, more especially as the people against whom we
intend to use it have no medical knowledge with which to supply antidotes.*
Churchill remained unimpressed by such considerations, arguing that the
use of gas, a *scientific expedient,* should not be prevented *by the
prejudices of those who do not think clearly*. In the event, gas was used
against the Iraqi rebels with excellent moral effect* though gas shells were
not dropped from aircraft because of practical difficulties [.....]
Today in 1993 there are still Iraqis and Kurds who remember being bombed
and machine-gunned by the RAF in the 1920s. A Kurd from the Korak mountains
commented, seventy years after the event: *They were bombing here in the
Kaniya Khoran...Sometimes they raided three times a day.* Wing Commander
Lewis, then of 30 Squadron (RAF), Iraq, recalls how quite often *one would get
a signal that a certain Kurdish village would have to be bombed...*, the RAF
pilots being ordered to bomb any Kurd who looked hostile. In the same vein,
Squadron-Leader Kendal of 30 Squadron recalls that if the tribespeople were
doing something they ought not be doing then you shot them.*
Similarly, Wing-Commander Gale, also of 30 Squadron: *If the Kurds hadn't
learned by our example to behave themselves in a civilised way then we had to
spank their bottoms. This was done by bombs and guns.
Wing-Commander Sir Arthur Harris (later Bomber Harris, head of wartime
Bomber Command) was happy to emphasise that *The Arab and Kurd now know what
real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within forty-five minutes a
full-size village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants
killed or injured.* It was an easy matter to bomb and machine-gun the
tribespeople, because they had no means of defence or retalitation. Iraq and
Kurdistan were also useful laboratories for new weapons; devices specifically
developed by the Air Ministry for use against tribal villages. The ministry
drew up a list of possible weapons, some of them the forerunners of napalm and
air-to-ground missiles:
Phosphorus bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet [to maim livestock]
man-killing shrapnel, liquid fire, delay-action bombs. Many of these weapons
were first used in Kurdistan.
Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. *Iraq: From Sumer to Saddam*.
London: St. Martins Press, 1994.
Email this article to a friend
To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global
Research's News and Discussion Forum , at
http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/index.php
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants
permission to cross-post original Global Research (Canada) articles in their
entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the
text & title of the article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged as
follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca .
For cross-postings, kindly use the active URL hyperlink address of the original
CRG article. The author's copyright note must be displayed. (For articles from
other news sources, check with the original copyright holder, where
applicable.). For publication of Global Research (Canada) articles in print or
other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
edi...@globalresearch.ca .
For media inquiries: edi...@globalresearch.ca
© Copyright belongs to the author, 2004. For fair use only/ pour usage équitable
seulement.
To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global
Research's News and Discussion Forum , at
http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/index.php
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants
permission to cross-post original Global Research (Canada) articles in their
entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the
text & title of the article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged as
follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca .
For cross-postings, kindly use the active URL hyperlink address of the original
CRG article. The author's copyright note must be displayed. (For articles from
other news sources, check with the original copyright holder, where
applicable.). For publication of Global Research (Canada) articles in print or
other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
edi...@globalresearch.ca .
For media inquiries: edi...@globalresearch.ca
© Copyright belongs to the author, 2004. For fair use only/ pour usage équitable
seulement.
[home]
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages