Difference between revisions of "Winston Churchill/Chemical warfare"

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(template)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{concept
 
{{concept
|constitutes=war crime, terrorism
+
|constitutes=war crime
 
|description=Winston Churchill was apparently keen to use chemical weapons.
 
|description=Winston Churchill was apparently keen to use chemical weapons.
 
}}
 
}}
These documents show that [Winston Churchill]] was enthusiastic about the use of, Chemical weapons - or ''poison gas'' as he preferred to refer to them. Note that [[UK]] did [[British use of Chemical weapons in Iraq|use chemical weapons in Iraq]].
+
These documents show that [[Winston Churchill]] was enthusiastic about the use of, Chemical weapons - or ''poison gas'' as he preferred to refer to them. Note that [[UK]] did [[British use of Chemical weapons in Iraq|use chemical weapons in Iraq]].
  
 
==Departmental Minute dated 12 May 1919==
 
==Departmental Minute dated 12 May 1919==

Latest revision as of 05:07, 15 February 2018

Concept.png Winston Churchill/Chemical warfare
(war crime)Rdf-entity.pngRdf-icon.png
Winston Churchill was apparently keen to use chemical weapons.

These documents show that Winston Churchill was enthusiastic about the use of, Chemical weapons - or poison gas as he preferred to refer to them. Note that UK did use chemical weapons in Iraq.

Departmental Minute dated 12 May 1919

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 [Wikispooks emphasis] and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.[1]

Declassified Personal Minute from 1944

[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]

[2]

References

  1. Churchill papers: 16/16 - War Office. Quoted in Companion Volume 4, Part 1 of the official biography, WINSTON S. CHURCHILL, by Martin Gilbert (London: Heinemann, 1976)
  2. Source: photographic copy of original 4 page memo, in Guenther W. Gellermann, "Der Krieg, der nicht stattfand", Bernard & Graefe Verlag, 1986, pp. 249-251

Many thanks to our Patrons who cover ~2/3 of our hosting bill. Please join them if you can.