I've long been aware of that the claim that he carried out such an atrocity is nonsense, but had vaguely assumed that he probably did urge something like that- after all poison gas wasn't as taboo then as it is now and Churchill did come up with a lot of miserable schemes. However it turns out that even that version wildly distorts what Churchill actually proposed. Paul Bogdanor's list of 200 Chomsky lies (Chomsky is another who has spread this myth) provides the actual context for the phrase:
“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.”In other words Churchill was urging the use of tear gas as a means of minimising fatalities that might be caused with conventional weapons. Tear gas would not routinely be described as "poison gas" nowadays so using the phrase without any context to make it clear that he wasn't referring to stuff like mustard gas or Sarin is deliberately misleading.
5 comments:
I'm a little suspicious of those 200 Chomsky lies, for reading the first one
The Lie:
“in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe
under Russian rule was practically a paradise.”
it might be stupid, but isn't the context North Vietnam, whereas it looks as if it's about the UK or W.Germany.
I see what you mean, if the context is Vietnam then I got the wrong impression.
That said the claim wouldn't be much weaker even in context so Bogdanor might have simply assumed a certain familiarity with Chomsky's output.
I can remember reading that years ago and at the time gained the impression that he mistakenly thought mustard gas was mostly an irritant.
He once mentioned 'drenching German cities with mustard gas' in a memo as a retaliation (I think) for the V1s. Bomber command looked into it and decided incendiary bombs would be effective enough.
There's also a fair chance Churchill said a lot of off-colour things when he was pissed.
I have heard Germans say that the Americans did use mustard gas in the attack on Würzburg.
"I can remember reading that years ago and at the time gained the impression that he mistakenly thought mustard gas was mostly an irritant."That could explain the confusion, if the misunderstanding originated with the man himself.
It's interesting though, isn't it, that people feel the need to try and pretend Churchill said this, or Chomsky said that? Maybe it's human nature to, Economist style, simplify and exaggerate.
Post a Comment