Churchill and the Kurds

[bmichaelh]

Did Winston Churchill order the use of mustard gas against the Kurds in the 1920s?

Thanks.

[Maple]

1. Churchill

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)

[CubsFan1982]

2. Considering that Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time...

I'd say the likelihood is slim to none.

[Dufaeth]

3. According to wikipedia:

(a user editable encyclopedia):
"In 1920, the Arab and Kurdish people of Mesopotamia revolted against the British occupation, which cost the British dearly. As the Mesopotamian resistance gained strength, the British resorted to increasingly repressive measures, and Winston Churchill himself, in his role as Colonial Secretary, authorized the use of chemical agents, mostly mustard gas, on the Mesopotamian resistors. Mindful of the financial cost of suppressing the dissidents, Churchill was confident that chemical weapons could be inexpensively employed against the Mesopotamian tribes, saying "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes"Although opposition to the use of gas and technical difficulties may have prevented the gas from being used in Mesopotamia..."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons#Chemical_warfare_in_the_interwar_years

[xray s]

4. This is why we are getting our ass kicked

Because Americans are ignorant of history (not youbmichaelh, you are trying to learn. 90%+ of America doesn't care about understanding the history of the region we are now occupying by force).

They are fools destined to pay a high price for their ignorance.

But hey, why think about stuff like this when we can talk all day about Michael Jackson running around in pajamas.

[r3dhawk]

5. umm

so according to wikipedia, they weren't gassed.

[xray s]

6. No. That is not what the wikipedia article said

And here is the full text of the source of the wikipedia statement , from their footnote link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_07.shtml

Did the British actually use gas in their attempts to suppress the Iraqi revolt in 1920?

Elen - Italy; Douglas - USA; BJ - USA; Jolyon - USA

DH: I am myself not sure whether Britain actually used gas on the tribesmen. I used to believe they did but the latest source I used (Lawrence James, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire) says on p.400 'By September the local commander, General Sir Aylmer Haldane, was beginning to get the upper hand (in putting down the Iraqi revolt), although he was still desperate enough to clamour for large supplies of poison gas. It was not needed, for air power had given his forces the edge whenever the going got tough.'

The author refers to a report in the Public Record Office. The British government admitted that questionable methods had been used in Iraq, but it was glad they were not noticed because of the troubles in Ireland at the time. These methods included machine-gunning fleeing tribesmen from the air. Several thousand Iraqis were killed

So...whether the Iraqi's were actually gassed or not is an open question. But there is no doubt that the implication is the gas was being used for some purpose, or why the clamor for more?

Besides, whether the British were slaughtering Iraqis with gas or machine gunning them down, my point that Americans are totally ignorant of the history of western involvement in the Middle East is as true as the sun rising in the east tomorrow morning.