Revisionist History-OT

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

ORIGINAL: Revthought
Though, as Churchill came pretty close to ordering the death of tens of millions of people through the deployment of weaponized anthrax in Germany. I'm glad he decided not to because, it would have been pretty difficult to spoil the moral high ground the Allies had during the war against the Nazis in the eyes of history; just look at our use of nuclear weapons.

Interesting - can you give a source?

warspite1

No - because like much of the nonsense around Sir Winston Churchill, it is sensationalist rubbish. But there you go.....needless to say Robert Harris is a trendy lefty for whom sticking the boot into WSC probably gives him a major thrill - even though he's spinning lies and half-truths to do so.

http://www.julianlewis.net/essays-and-t ... 1982-02-01

[postfux]

ORIGINAL: robinsa

ORIGINAL: postfux

I dont see a problem comparing ancient times with modern ones. Society and weapons are more sophisticated but people stayed the same.

What did the Romans do after the first (or second) phonician war or the first (or second or third) macedonian war? They didnt crucify everyone or such. They reduced their enemies ability to fight and trade and therefore eliminated them as a threat and a major power. And they made them pay reparations.

Perhaps they went too easy or too hard on Carthage or Macedonia but it was always the other side who wanted a rerun, for obvious reasons.

I fail to see how history can be used as a justification. It has happend before so it is accepted practice? Concentration camps in North Korea are not morally acceptable just because it has done before by Germans, Japanese and Russians (and more on different scales).

[robinsa]

ORIGINAL: robinsa

ORIGINAL: Alpha77
However....... I read above how cruel the firebombing and atomic bombs were. Which is true.... and horrible way to die. But we also need to see human nature. They always will fight each other. And look at acient times of warfare, or Napoleonic times. Now in these times the civilians suffered too. Not as much as in WW2, but for sure there was plunder of territories. So civilians would starve. Millions starved in the 30 year war too. And as for methods of killing, is being hacked to pieces by swords less cruel then blown apart by a bomb ? So war was always cruel from the beginning of times. Or burning down villages in the middleages perhaps with some people stil inside the houses? That is litterally "fire bombing" in a more primitive form. Only the scale and areas affected of cause changed with technology.

I am not sure how comparing this to ancient times can help us understand or justify this.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

ORIGINAL: Revthought
Though, as Churchill came pretty close to ordering the death of tens of millions of people through the deployment of weaponized anthrax in Germany. I'm glad he decided not to because, it would have been pretty difficult to spoil the moral high ground the Allies had during the war against the Nazis in the eyes of history; just look at our use of nuclear weapons.

Interesting - can you give a source?

warspite1

No - because like much of the nonsense around Sir Winston Churchill, it is sensationalist rubbish. But there you go.....needless to say Robert Harris is a trendy lefty for whom sticking the boot into WSC probably gives him a major thrill - even though he's spinning lies and half-truths to do so.

http://www.julianlewis.net/essays-and-t ... 1982-02-01

https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org ... andum.html

"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."

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Alpha77



Interesting - can you give a source?

warspite1

No - because like much of the nonsense around Sir Winston Churchill, it is sensationalist rubbish. But there you go.....needless to say Robert Harris is a trendy lefty for whom sticking the boot into WSC probably gives him a major thrill - even though he's spinning lies and half-truths to do so.

http://www.julianlewis.net/essays-and-t ... 1982-02-01

https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org ... andum.html

"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."

warspite1

Not sure, other than the usual muck-spreading/guilt by association tactic, why you have quoted this on its own in a conversation about whether Churchill wanted to use Anthrax as an offensive weapon against the Germans.

This comment, even allowing for it being written in 1919 hardly puts Churchill up for humanitarian of the year, but it adds nothing to the argument as to whether Churchill "came pretty close" to ordering Anthrax dropped on Germany towards the end of the war - which of course he didn't - and, moreover, does not undo the lies and half-truths of the BBC article that falsely makes out he did.

Even Harris, later on, had the good grace to admit he shouldn't have said some of the things he did.

In 1919, given the experiences Churchill has gone through (and also the education) would I like to think I would have had a more Christian, a more humane view? Yes of course. I'm sure we would all like to believe that. But of course we cannot guarantee that and to try and suggest that amongst his contemporaries at home and abroad, Churchill's view was unique at the time, would be wrong in the extreme. They were less enlightened times - and if we are honest - were to stay as such the world over, for many many years to come.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: robinsa

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Revthought

The Soviets did not want the war to end before their enterance into the Asian land war, and the United States... Well come to your own conclusions. My thought is they wanted to use the atomic bomb to test, and then demonstrate to the Soviets, the destructive power of the weapon.

This is a classic misconception. As if Stalin was doing a Mussolinesque move: when he joined the war when France was in her death throes (Germany's gonna swallow everything! I must do something and do it now [:D]).

It IS the other way around. FDR basically harassed ([:D]) him big time so that Uncle Joe unleashed his hordes. Stalin managed to find excuses to not attack Japan until the Tehran Conference in 1943 IIRC. Then he promised he would unleash his hordes (once the nazis were finished). Which he did.

What is the misconception? As far as I know it is a known fact that the Japanese had contacted the Soviets to get some sort of negotiated peace and the soviets stalled.

If I recall correctly the soviets even proposed that they would invade Hokkaido and make it part of the Soviet union, something the US could not accept.

The "misconception" was right there before your very eyes ie in bold letters

So the Japanese wanted peace and the USSR was supposed to obey a sneaky enemy (Khalkhin Gol, Pearl Harbor)?

The point here is that the US and USSR were allies and the point - yet again- is that the Roosevelt administration harassed Stalin big time, until the latter agreed to attack the aforementioned sneaky enemy.

The sentence in bold letters is er deceiving... It hides the fact that the US ASKED the Soviets to attack the Japanese... That's why it's a classic misconception I guess. After the war, the Cold War... let's bury these facts. Needless to say it's revisionist history.

Best regards [:)]

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Not sure, other than the usual muck-spreading/guilt by association tactic, why you have quoted this on its own in a conversation about whether Churchill wanted to use Anthrax as an offensive weapon against the Germans.

The circumstances are much less serious in 1919. What were his thoughts decades later when the stakes were inconceivably greater than the prolonged resistance of some tribal groups?

This comment, even allowing for it being written in 1919 hardly puts Churchill up for humanitarian of the year, but it adds nothing to the argument as to whether Churchill "came pretty close" to ordering Anthrax dropped on Germany towards the end of the war - which of course he didn't - and, moreover, does not undo the lies and half-truths of the BBC article that falsely makes out he did.

If he's willing to gas some tribesmen who've nowhere near the resources of a modern nation state, what would he do when faced with the Nazi war machine?

Even Harris, later on, had the good grace to admit he shouldn't have said some of the things he did.

I confess no great deal of familiarity with the claims in question beyond Churchill's approval for chemical weapons in the instance I quoted. I don't proscribe your view, that the claims can be dismissed as groundless when you spend time considering his history regarding chemical weapons.

I did like the Archangel movie with Danial Craig though.

In 1919, given the experiences Churchill has gone through (and also the education) would I like to think I would have had a more Christian, a more humane view? Yes of course. I'm sure we would all like to believe that. But of course we cannot guarantee that and to try and suggest that amongst his contemporaries at home and abroad, Churchill's view was unique at the time, would be wrong in the extreme. They were less enlightened times - and if we are honest - were to stay as such the world over, for many many years to come.

That's a fair point. I just think it's important to take into consideration the measure he proposes in 1919.

This is the Empire against tribal groups: as mismatched a fight as it can get. Yet Churchill is willing to utilize chemical weapons.

Two decades later and the fight is no longer as mismatched and the Empire is in real threat. Would Churchill really notconsider the possibility?

[Alpha77]

This may be also not totally on topic re. Anthrax, but I thought of this German raid in the back of my head, and found this:

"Secrecy shrouded the affair at Bari. The public was eventually told of the devastating raid at Bari but the presence of mustard gas was not divulged. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was particularly adamant that the role mustard gas played in the tragedy remain a secret. He believed that publicizing the fiasco would hand the Germans a propaganda victory. This secrecy may have caused additional deaths because if the word of the presence of mustard agent had been disseminated, more victims, especially civilians, may have sought proper treatment."

Source:
http://mcm.dhhq.health.mil/cb_exposures ... stard.aspx

Here a short video from the Bari raid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NonWxm4aYHc

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Not sure, other than the usual muck-spreading/guilt by association tactic, why you have quoted this on its own in a conversation about whether Churchill wanted to use Anthrax as an offensive weapon against the Germans.

The circumstances are much less serious in 1919. What were his thoughts decades later when the stakes were inconceivably greater than the prolonged resistance of some tribal groups?

This comment, even allowing for it being written in 1919 hardly puts Churchill up for humanitarian of the year, but it adds nothing to the argument as to whether Churchill "came pretty close" to ordering Anthrax dropped on Germany towards the end of the war - which of course he didn't - and, moreover, does not undo the lies and half-truths of the BBC article that falsely makes out he did.

If he's willing to gas some tribesmen who've nowhere near the resources of a modern nation state, what would he do when faced with the Nazi war machine?

Even Harris, later on, had the good grace to admit he shouldn't have said some of the things he did.

I confess no great deal of familiarity with the claims in question beyond Churchill's approval for chemical weapons in the instance I quoted. I don't proscribe your view, that the claims can be dismissed as groundless when you spend time considering his history regarding chemical weapons.

I did like the Archangel movie with Danial Craig though.

In 1919, given the experiences Churchill has gone through (and also the education) would I like to think I would have had a more Christian, a more humane view? Yes of course. I'm sure we would all like to believe that. But of course we cannot guarantee that and to try and suggest that amongst his contemporaries at home and abroad, Churchill's view was unique at the time, would be wrong in the extreme. They were less enlightened times - and if we are honest - were to stay as such the world over, for many many years to come.

That's a fair point. I just think it's important to take into consideration the measure he proposes in 1919.

This is the Empire against tribal groups: as mismatched a fight as it can get. Yet Churchill is willing to utilize chemical weapons.

Two decades later and the fight is no longer as mismatched and the Empire is in real threat. Would Churchill really notconsider the possibility?

warspite1

Well lets be honest, in some peoples eyes WSC is second only to Hitler in terms of being the great satan, and to others still, like David Irving, WSC is of course the cause of WWII.

Trying to reason with such people is pointless. Providing a source to show this outlandish claim was nonsense (unlike the claimant who has provided no such evidence to support the original "claim" itself) is apparently pointless. WSC (by today's standards very unpleasantly) writes of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes in 1919 and that, apparently, "proves" WSC would have ordered the offensive use of biological weapons against Germany 30-odd years later - and what was it? "came pretty close". .

But there comes a point at which one just has to hold their hands in the air and walk away because its all too frustrating for words. As all good conspiracy theorists know, its easy to start up any old rubbish with the odd sentence here and the odd paragraph there - they don't of course have to prove anything, just make a load of unsubstantiated claims, add 2 + 2 and get 5 and, if all else fails, just wilfully mis-inform - like Harris did.

If it makes you feel better, if it helps you sleep nights then just carry on believing every conspiracy theory out there (or at least the ones regarding WSC).

[postfux]

I actually read the link provided by Warspite and to be honest I am shocked.

The article is about the fact that it is unfair to bring Churchill in connection with anthrax...

...because he wanted to use gas.

Here is what he thought about using gas against germany, a question that was brought up above:

" 6. If the bombardment of London really 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 anything 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 always have all 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 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 [Stalin] 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.

W.S.C."

He didnt get his will in the end:

"I am not at all convinced by this negative report. But clearly I cannot make head against the parsons and the warriors at the same time.

The matter should be kept under review and brought up again when things get worse.

W.S.C"

Even if the first memo is about "constant medical attention" , to hit in a "murderous place" can hardly be wrong understood. How should constant medical attention be provided in this scenario? Neither doctors nor hospitals work well in the envisioned environment. I also more than question there would have been the capacity to treat the expected number of gas victims ("most of the population") even without the hospitals beeing "drenched" in poison gas along with the rest of the city.


To my eyes that is a genocidal agenda. Churchill was expecting to "square" Stalin with his plans?!

If this was the poltical will behind the bombing campaign i see my opinion the firebombing of german cities where the outcome of a military logic (we have the bombers, so lets use them and lets use them effectivly) challenged to a point I guess I am wrong.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: postfux

I actually read the link provided by Warspite and to be honest I am shocked.

The article is about the fact that it is unfair to bring Churchill in connection with anthrax...

...because he wanted to use gas.

Here is what he thought about using gas against germany, a question that was brought up above:

" 6. If the bombardment of London really 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 anything 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 always have all 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 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 [Stalin] 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.

W.S.C."

He didnt get his will in the end:

"I am not at all convinced by this negative report. But clearly I cannot make head against the parsons and the warriors at the same time.

The matter should be kept under review and brought up again when things get worse.

W.S.C"

Even if the first memo is about "constant medical attention" , to hit in a "murderous place" can hardly be wrong understood. How should constant medical attention be provided in this scenario? Neither doctors nor hospitals work well in the envisioned environment. I also more than question there would have been the capacity to treat the expected number of gas victims ("most of the population") even without the hospitals beeing "drenched" in poison gas along with the rest of the city.


To my eyes that is a genocidal agenda. Churchill was expecting to "square" Stalin with his plans?!

If this was the poltical will behind the bombing campaign i see my opinion the firebombing of german cities where the outcome of a military logic (we have the bombers, so lets use them and lets use them effectivly) challenged to a point I guess I am wrong.

warspite1

Perhaps if you read the article properly, perhaps if you were not so disingenuous as to miss out vital paragraphs and have those included made out of context, then you would be less shocked. But why ruin a good WSC conspiracy theory with facts?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: postfux

Even if the first memo is about "constant medical attention" , to hit in a "murderous place" can hardly be wrong understood. How should constant medical attention be provided in this scenario? Neither doctors nor hospitals work well in the envisioned environment. I also more than question there would have been the capacity to treat the expected number of gas victims ("most of the population") even without the hospitals beeing "drenched" in poison gas along with the rest of the city.

warspite1

That would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

So let's just fill in a few blanks that you conveniently left out [8|]

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.

You seem to have missed that one and started at point 6.... why was that?

You also seem to have missed the point that this minute was written in July 1944 pre the V.2. At this time Churchill was being warned by his technical experts that the V.2 rocket was going to kill 4,000 civilians per rocket.

With that background Churchill looked at the possibility of using poison gas to stop the Germans from making and launching these weapons.

Or what are you saying? If the Germans had developed a rocket that would kill 4,000 at a time, the British should have done nothing? Really? 4,000 at a time? That would have been war winning power.

[postfux]

1. Please elaborate on "funny" given the quote you are providing. How many victims of poison gas could be treated at once in Britain today? And how many in Germany in July 44?

2. I was directly quoting Churchill, from a link provided some postings earlier for everyone to read and obviously shortened. Nothing misleading here. Everybody was free to read how W.S.C. started from "life or death for us" in point 1 to reduce this to a "serious nuicance" in point 6, were he was pretty detailed on what he thought should trigger "drenching" the cities in poison gas. Nothing misleading here.

3. You are misquoting, sir

"His own book on British scientific intelligence in the Second World War had stressed how greatly the "experts" had erred in overestimating the size of the V.2 rocket (not the V.I flying bomb referred to by Harris on the BBC), with each being thought capable by some of inflicting up to 4,000 casualties (according to the Ministry of Home Security in 1943), and with the size of the warhead still being thought – at the time of the Churchill initiative of July 1944 dramatised by Newsnight – to be between three and seven times as great as it really was."

Please try to keep the standard you set for others.

4. Germany a deadly threat in July 44? With a war winning super secret weapon in the pipeline? Sounds like a conspiracy theory. If they would have shortened the war by a year it would not have lasted long.

[warspite1]

Okay let me try one more time to make you understand.

What started this particular topic off? The line from Revthought:

Though, as Churchill came pretty close to ordering the death of tens of millions of people through the deployment of weaponized anthrax in Germany.

The poster was asked to quote a source for this, and not surprisingly so as it is a pretty big claim – not just that WSC came close to ordering it but also that he was even considering it in the first place.

Nothing was forthcoming and this was not surprising given that it was rubbish.

I provided a link to show how some people can think this claim is true i.e. the sensationalist and inaccurate documentary that purposely misled by quoting selected extracts from different minutes and then putting things together to make it look like WSC wanted to drop Anthrax bombs on Germany in an offensive strike.

Mind_messing then added a well-known Churchill quote from 1919 in which WSC advocated the use of gas in Mesopotamia against “uncivilised tribes”. The idea of course being that if such a view is held about the use of gas in 1919, then it adds fuel to the idea that 25 years later, WSC would have considered using chemical weapons. Not sure they follow necessarily but that is a matter of opinion and we can agree to disagree. From my side, at best, it does not paint WSC in a good light by the standards of today but is a useful quote for WSC detractors as they can use this to claim he was anything from an Anthrax bomber to Jack the Ripper.

However, you then said you read the article and decided that you were sufficiently outraged to post your view. So what did the article say and what did you say? Why were you so outraged?

Well interestingly in posting you did exactly what the original TV program did; you wilfully mis-led by picking out only the selected parts of texts that you needed in order to give the story the twist you wanted. Please note postfux that in so doing you are not making something real, you are just spreading a lie.

So what has got you all excited about this article? Well it seems that you have read the article as stating that WSC did not want to use Anthrax on Germany – he wanted to use Mustard gas. You then set about copying out selected points from the article to support that “fact”. There was just one problem. It’s cobblers.

The article is about the fact that it is unfair to bring Churchill in connection with anthrax...

...because he wanted to use gas.

Okay how about some context. “because he wanted to use gas”. Do you provide some background or some context for that? No of course not. Why would you? By stating what you have it sounds like WSC is looking to use gas as an offensive weapon then, faster than you can say “war criminal” you rattle off selected extracts

Here is what he thought about using gas against germany, a question that was brought up above:

" 6. If the bombardment of London really 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 anything 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 always have all 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 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 [Stalin] 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.

So what was wrong with what you quoted? Well for one thing you started with points 6 and 7. What happened to points 1-5? And point 1 in particular given that it is that that governs all other points? Did they tell a story that perhaps didn’t fit your “WSC is a filthy warmonger” fabrication? You made a bit of a mistake in keeping the reference to the bombardment of London in place – although again, because you have not provided the context of when and under what circumstances this comment was made – you probably thought the quotes remain hideous enough as they are.

You finish off with three more comments, the last of which I have no idea what you are talking about. The penultimate one refers to WSC “squaring things with Stalin” (which of course is something that you would expect the two Allies to do for so big an operation) but which you have added an exclamation mark too. I have no idea what you read into that but you clearly feel it’s really important - ohhh another smoking gun boys!

The third paragraph from the end was the doozy. Your moral outrage oozes from every pore as you quote “constant medical attention”, “murderous place” and “drenched” in poison.

I tried in my subsequent posts to point out that you had got the context wrong and that you had mis-quoted, but of course you do not want to read that because you are too “shocked” and in such a state of high dudgeon at the callousness of the murderous WSC.

In response you provided 4 points.

1. Please elaborate on "funny" given the quote you are providing. How many victims of poison gas could be treated at once in Britain today? And how many in Germany in July 44?

Funny? It’s not funny. Like I said, it would have been funny if it wasn’t so tragic. What are you asking that for? What has that question got to do with anything? I mean anything?

1940
Hitler: Listen Goering, I need you to flatten London.
Goering: I am sorry Mein Fuhrer. I have checked the hospital situation for London and environs, and it appears that their emergency services could not cope with a sustained bombing campaign.
Hitler: Oh okay. Thanks for checking anyway. Fancy a pint?

1945
President Truman: Say Tibbets, whatcha doin over the next few days - I need you to drop a big fat juicy atomic bomb
Tibbets: Sorry Mr Pres, my peeps tell me that the number of serious burns units in Hiroshima and environs could not cope with such a bomb
President Truman: Oh okay, Thanks for checking. I'll get Oppenheimer to cancel Manhattan. Fancy a pint?

I mean seriously, what does that question have to do with anything?

2. I was directly quoting Churchill, from a link provided some postings earlier for everyone to read and obviously shortened. Nothing misleading here. Everybody was free to read how W.S.C. started from "life or death for us" in point 1 to reduce this to a "serious nuicance" in point 6, were he was pretty detailed on what he thought should trigger "drenching" the cities in poison gas. Nothing misleading here.

Yes, you "obviously shortened" by removing the context [8|] You were quoting selected passages to make your false “case”. You have made it sound (I refer to your opening paragraph) as though WSC wanted to use gas on Germany. How does that sound? Well that sounds like he wanted to use gas offensively. That is how you have made it sound. Even if you were to then admit (which you appear not to want to do) that he wanted to use gas only defensively, you still do not tell the reader that it was in "last resort" territory. I quoted the background to WSC’s remarks in the previous post. “Everybody was free to read….” So why not quote the background in your post? – moreover and far more to the point – if you read that and know WSC’s view, then why are you proclaiming such indignation at what was an extreme precaution?

3. You are misquoting, sir

"His own book on British scientific intelligence in the Second World War had stressed how greatly the "experts" had erred in overestimating the size of the V.2 rocket (not the V.I flying bomb referred to by Harris on the BBC), with each being thought capable by some of inflicting up to 4,000 casualties (according to the Ministry of Home Security in 1943), and with the size of the warhead still being thought – at the time of the Churchill initiative of July 1944 dramatised by Newsnight – to be between three and seven times as great as it really was."

Please try to keep the standard you set for others.

In quoting that statement you have just made my point for me!! Listen, let me explain it as simply as I can. In 1944 London is being bombed by the V1 rockets. That is something of a nasty surprise (my eldest brother was evacuated out of London because of them). However, the Allies are aware that this is just the start and that there is a newer, more deadly weapon on its way. AS YOU HAVE JUST CONFIRMED Allied scientists believed that this second weapon was something else altogether and was capable of killing 4,000 at a time in 1943 – and still thought to be between 3 and 7 times greater than it actually was in July 1944 when Churchill wrote the piece in question.

Remember we have the power of hindsight, you sit there in your comfortable 21st century home and pontificate on what leaders (who have a world of life or death responsibility on their shoulders) should or shouldn’t do. But in July 1944 Churchill did not know for certain what was coming down the tracks and could only go on what he had been told. Effectively what you are saying – over and above the obfuscation - is that even though, at this stage in the war, Britain is faced potentially with a weapon that will kill and maim in their thousands (and if it’s that effective, could be used to disrupt the ports of Dover, Portmouth, Southampton etc) Churchill has no right to look at all the options? You cry into your beer about German civilians – but British and other Allied civilians don’t matter? Nice.

4. Germany a deadly threat in July 44? With a war winning super secret weapon in the pipeline? Sounds like a conspiracy theory. If they would have shortened the war by a year it would not have lasted long.

More guff. WE KNOW exactly what the German “wonder weapons” were capable (or not capable) of. In the summer of 1944 Churchill did not. He only had what his “experts” could guess at. Unlike you, sitting in your Ivory Tower, Churchill did not have the luxury of hindsight, WSC could not afford to get it wrong. Bottom line, WSC did not want to use gas against Germany, but wanted to have all options available pending how things developed. The V.2 was nowhere near as bad as feared – and voila, no gas was used against Germany. Or what are you saying? That gas was not used only because Churchill the warmonger, desperate to kill millions, was strapped into a strait jacket by the cabinet

King George: No! naughty Churchill, you must not use gas on Germany".
Churchill: Want too!
King George: I said no!
Churchill: Pleeeeeeease.... just a little gas?
King George: If you don't stop with this nonsense we won't let you out to play.
Churchill: Not fair. Its not its not its not.


As for your last sentence (underlined) sorry but that is a laugh or cry moment……

[bobdina]

Excellent rebuttal .

[Grfin Zeppelin]

ORIGINAL: bobdina

Excellent rebuttal .

Indeed.

[desicat]

Churchill should be required reading but I doubt today's "Special Snowflakes" could handle the shock. I have read where his book The River War has been banned in England but I don't know if that is true. I do know that certain passages are now considered "hate speech".

The River War is an amazing read and I am fortunate to have one of the earlier editions that did not suffer from later heavy editing.

[postfux]

It did make the decision to post only part of the memo because of the length and the fact the full text was readily available in this threat.

I even thought about the possibility of beeing challenged on this but must admit I never had this thought because of the starting statement. The omission of churchills opinion that poison gas is not a deadly weapon is a much more heinous crime than leaving out the deadly threat to Britain in point 1.

In my eyes the ending stattements of point 6 and 7 pretty much reflect his position on the use of poison gas including when it should be used and to which effect. Because of the inclusion of "constant medical attention" I was also of the opinion that the exclusion of poison gas not beeing deadly weapon is alright and specifically refered to this topic.

Not posting the whole memo was a mistake. Not because I think it was misleading in any way but because it can be used as an angle for a personal attack. That I get called a liar by the man who clearly misquoted and made a big point about the 4000 caualities/ missile at the time of the memo and didnt have the character to at least admit the mistake is telling, but not about me.

This character assissanation is even more absurd when you read my opinions on strategic bombing posted in this threat exactly before the poison gas was brought up (a thing that was completly new to me).

But back to misquoting. You changed your line of arguing to a perceived threat of 4000 civilist/ missile at the time of the memo to a warhead 3-7 times as big as he really was. That would be 738kg Amatol x 3-7. Pretty impressive. A war winning super weapon? Hardly. The british Grand Slam carried 4144 kg Hexogen. Churchill made the perhaps fitting description of a "serious nuisance" (please refer to the complete text for full context) - surely to the war effort and not to the people directly effected. I am not blind to the needless suffering this weapon brought.

The threat posed by Germany in July 44 with the beachhead expanding and Bagration kicking of viewed ex ante? I was always under the impression the Allied planers were suprised by German resiliance and not the sudden collapse of the Reich.

The V2 to my knowledge was built in bomb save shelters and was not fired from the german population centers so I fail to see how drenching german cities in poison gas could be considered helpfull.

Disclaimer: I am neither an expert on military hardware (data from wikipedia) or allied planing in the last stages of the war so if you know better please correct me and feel free to insult me as an ignorant fool but not as a revisionist liar.

Back to the memo. I still cant change my oponion about this. I dont see it as a wish for an assessment of threats and options but as a demand to back Churchills plans, expressed partly in a bullyish way like calling potential oponents "psalm-singing uniformed defeatist" (please read the full text in the link provided above for context).

Another telling thing is the disappointment he expressed when he was turned down. That doesnt make the impression he was very open minded about the outcome of his proposal. (again link above)

Warspite, you can be proud of your country and its constitution and tradition that brought forward a military leadership which turned down the wish of their most powerfull politian after years of total warfare, the country still beeing under constant attack. That would not have been thinkable in every country especially under totalitarian rule. You can also choose to follow the great leader in unblinking loyality.

How would you have voted on the memo?

[Alpha77]

On topic perhaps a bit more for the orig topic (about a-bombs)

"Visiting the Site of the First Atomic Bomb at Gunpoint:"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Mka8lb ... tml5=False

[warspite1]

Well I said I would try one more time and, having done so, I would not ordinarily make any further comment. However as you have raised some additional points I will answer these.

First and foremost I am very disappointed that you feel that I have made a personal attack on you. I fail to see where I have personally attacked you.

This is a grown up forum and from time to time – particularly where there are contentious subjects under discussion, it is to be expected that debate can get heated, and arguments put forth robustly. Have a look at some of the exchanges between myself and mind_messing in the past! That does not always follow of course. I am pretty much diametrically opposed to robinsa’s position on this thread for example, but he conducts himself in a way such that while I do not share his views, I fully recognise his right to state them.

So why – while not personally attacking you – has my response been “robust”? Well quite simply because you have been disingenuous in your response. I am not taking about a matter of opinion, I am talking about distorting the facts just as Robert Harris did in the sensationalist TV documentary. Additionally you also continue to insist on using hindsight in your arguments which is frustrating as hell, and you have made absolutely no allowance for the situation at the time.

So for the final time I will respond to you on this subject.

It did make the decision to post only part of the memo because of the length and the fact the full text was readily available in this threat.

Okay, that is your story (and I think you were being disingenuous) but frankly, now you have confirmed you are aware of Point 1 and you still believe WSC wanted to use gas, it is kind of moot.

I even thought about the possibility of beeing challenged on this but must admit I never had this thought because of the starting statement. The omission of churchills opinion that poison gas is not a deadly weapon is a much more heinous crime than leaving out the deadly threat to Britain in point 1.

Given that gas is unsatisfactory because of wind conditions and because the populace can be provided with gas masks to nullify it, I would suggest it’s probably less deadly than being hit by a V2 [8|].

In my eyes the ending stattements of point 6 and 7 pretty much reflect his position on the use of poison gas including when it should be used and to which effect.

And that is the point, it doesn’t. You have lost the context, you have lost the conditions, all you have done is made WSC sound like you want him to. No restrictions, no caveats, just an insane old warmonger wanting to murder as many people as possible.

Its not rocket science. Look at this sentence.

"If a man were to kill my family I would have no qualms in saying "I want to kill that man". Now, if you take away the part in bold, my actions are seen in a completely different light. Why do you not understand that?

Not posting the whole memo was a mistake. Not because I think it was misleading in any way

Correct and incorrect – in that order

but because it can be used as an angle for a personal attack

This character assissanation

insult me as an ignorant fool

That I get called a liar

Re the first two points, I have done nothing of the sort. You may want to grow up on that front. Re the third point I have not called you a fool, but I do think your views are mis-guided. Re the final point, yes I accused you of spreading the lie that Robert Harris helped create by doing the things that he did i.e. mis-quoting and quoting out of context. I do not apologise for that.

But back to misquoting. You changed your line of arguing to a perceived threat of 4000 civilist/ missile at the time of the memo to a warhead 3-7 times as big as he really was. That would be 738kg Amatol x 3-7. Pretty impressive. A war winning super weapon? Hardly. The british Grand Slam carried 4144 kg Hexogen.

The threat posed by Germany in July 44 with the beachhead expanding and Bagration kicking of viewed ex ante?

I don’t fully understand your point in the second paragraph but I think I get the jist. You have made two big issues here – and I have been at fault in encouraging you in both. Firstly you have latched onto the size of the V.2 and whether Churchill would have thought the estimates were 4,000 dead per bomb or a number smaller than that. Secondly you have latched on to my “war winning” comment – although see below.

This part of your argument is where you fail to understand that the use of hindsight in these discussions is totally pointless. The actual numbers here are pretty immaterial. Why? Because they are guess work, and in the same way that scientists and technical “experts” got things wrong on the low side, they also got things wrong on the high side. What is “known” is that this new weapon is big and its powerful and it’s going to hurt. Now, how big? How accurate? How many can be launched? What range? well, no one can say for certain, but is WSC going to gamble or press for a course of action that he thinks is right (as any responsible leader does)?

You yourself admitted that

I was always under the impression the Allied planers were suprised by German resiliance and not the sudden collapse of the Reich.

Quite. How many times during the war had the German surprised the Allies? So as I outlined before, let’s re-cap on the real life situation that faces WSC. No hindsight, no hyperbole, just facts and advice that WSC was receiving.

As you say, D-Day and Bagration have happened. However, the Allies have not yet made the breakout in France, Caen a day-1 target has still not been taken, the Russians are making huge progress but what if they run out of steam? the British Army (not sure about the US) is literally running out of men, divisions are being merged to maintain others in the field, despite the Germans being beaten they then put the V.1 into play and London is under the blitz once more and this is to be followed by a bigger, more deadly weapon and who knows what else? This is where the questions above come in. In this scenario WSC as leader of the UK, needs to ensure he does not drop the ball. If he does and the Allies suffer a reverse and/or civilian casualties rocket, there will only be one person to blame. As I’ve said, real life, real lives, real decisions to be made, real contingencies to be explored.

The V2 to my knowledge was built in bomb save shelters and was not fired from the german population centers so I fail to see how drenching german cities in poison gas could be considered helpfull.

And Churchill’s military leaders were in agreement with you and, ultimately, so was WSC.

Back to the memo. I still cant change my oponion about this. I dont see it as a wish for an assessment of threats and options but as a demand to back Churchills plans

Demand? I won’t insult you by asking if you know how a democracy works, but this wasn’t Nazi Germany.

expressed partly in a bullyish way like calling potential oponents "psalm-singing uniformed defeatist" (please read the full text in the link provided above for context).

Another telling thing is the disappointment he expressed when he was turned down. That doesnt make the impression he was very open minded about the outcome of his proposal.

Why do you think that WSC is considered the right man for the job in the dark days of May 1940? Within a few weeks, we (Commonwealth) were at war, on our own, and still proving how unprepared we were in many ways for that war after 9 months. It took someone with drive, energy, guts and yes, at times a downright unpleasant character to get the job done. Churchill, as we know, suffered fools badly and was frustrated with some of the people he had to deal with. Bullying? Yes I suspect it goes with the job. Often things don’t just come to people, they have to be fought for. Churchill was no doubt no different here than he was about other matters.

Disappointed? Well yes, like almost all people who get into positions of power, he happened to think he was right and did not like to be disagreed with. Its life.

Warspite, you can be proud of your country

Thank-you, yes for the most part I am.

…and its constitution

No, for the simple reason that we don’t have one.

and tradition that brought forward a military leadership which turned down the wish of their most powerfull politian after years of total warfare, the country still beeing under constant attack. That would not have been thinkable in every country especially under totalitarian rule. You can also choose to follow the great leader in unblinking loyality.

Except you have mis-read this completely. Yes, the minute shows that WSC wanted to explore this option – AND I REPEAT ONCE AGAIN POINT 1 AS THE GOVERNING CONDITION. What actually happened? The Americans broke out to the West and Caen was taken leading to the dash across France in the Autumn (whereupon the Germans once again surprised the Allies). The Soviets didn’t stall. The V.2 began landing in September and was nowhere near as bad as originally feared. So what happened to the gas? What did WSC do next? You say he wanted to use gas? So where are the cabinet papers showing him bringing the subject up again? Where in the memoirs of the military leaders such as Lord Alan Brooke is mention made of Churchill clamouring for the use of gas? You insist this wasn’t a case of exploring the options but a man hell bent on using gas for no good reason? Okay, so where is your proof? Why are you so desperate to attack a man's reputation based on one dodgy dossier?

How would you have voted on the memo?

I would like to think I would have done as WSC did. I put forward my ideas and, as Prime Minister, expected to be listened to, while at the same time listening to my professional advisors. If my professional advisors told me that the use of gas was impractical in stopping the problem I was trying to solve I would like to think I would listen. Being an insufferable old bugger, and the Prime Minister, I would ensure that I would make my displeasure at being overruled known.

But fact is, just like WSC, I would not have wanted to use gas in the first place, so the fact I didn’t have to would have been a welcome relief.