Was Churchill one of the worst war criminals of all time ?

O'Leprosy

Was Churchill one of the worst war criminals and fascists the world has ever seen ? A German historian has stated that the UK killed more than 635,000 civilians, including 75,000 children, during indiscriminate raids over five years. It made no military sense - the peak of the bombing campaign was between January 1945 and April 1945 when the war was effectively won. The daily death toll of 1,023 was twice as many each day as were killed in the German bombing of Coventry.

Also in 1919, Churchill called for airborne chemical assaults on "uncooperative Arabs" (actually Kurds and Afghans). "I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas," he declared in the House of Commons. "I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes." At least 20,00 Kurds were murdered by posinous gas, with the operation directed by yet another british 'hero' - Dresden 'Bomber' Harris. Some years later, a certain Adolph Hitler would apply this gaseous philosophy to another troublesome "tribe."

On british Imperialism and thuggery throughout the world he said "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race, has come in and taken their place."

But rightly Hitler is called a war criminal, surely Churchill should be too ?

(BTW, my signature refers to my interest in the martial art of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Jiu-Jitsu )

Capt'n Midnight

Bomber Harris was undoubtedly a war criminal.

Because he could see that the Blitz did not break the spirit of the locals.
Material shortages meant that killing and dehousing workers didn't have much effect. ( bit like the famous oil refinery raid - it was only at IIRC 65% capacity so they were able to pipe around the damaged bits and were back up and processing all the available fuel within IIRC 3 weeks )

Churchill made many mistakes - look at the attack on Turkey.
But what would have happened had others been in charge ?

I'm suprised you didn't mention the Cossacks. Or NOT doing anything to save the Jews on the lines of "we will stop bombing civilians if you stop the gassing"
Or the the French fleet. Compare how the different north African ports were captured.

In any event the what the Americans were doing to the Japanese was even worse, and they were ramping up too.

mike65

A German historian has stated..blah blah blah

Mike.

O'Leprosy

Your point ?

mike65

Moany German issues complaint 60 years after the event. Shrugs.

Mike.

O'Leprosy

635,000 innocent civilians killed and you call it a "Moany German issue"

DublinWriter

O'Leprosy wrote:

But rightly Hitler is called a war criminal, surely Churchill should be too ?

The phrase "Who feckin' started it!" springs to mind.

Although, seriously, Churchill did sanction the use of gas on the Kurds in the early '30's, sixty years before Saddam thought of using the same wheeze (pardon the pun).

brianthebard

I dislike the fact that the op referred to Churchill as a fascist, there are specific and fairly complex definitions of fascism to which Churchill does not adhere. Also, in my mind at least, war is criminal, there are deaths on all sides. No one comes out of it clean. Not defending Churchill just stating my opinion.

O'Leprosy

Give War a Chance - Eyewitness Accounts of Mankind's Struggle Against Tyranny, Injustice and Alcohol-Free Beer by P. J. O'Rourke ....:)

http://www.groveatlantic.com/grove/bin/wc.dll?groveproc~genAuth~568~0

Boston

I remember this thread before, your selective quotes about the arabs is misleading. Quote the whole thing or none of it. From what I recall he talked about the use of gas as appose to an all out assault killing lots of civilians. Also the germans where the first to bomb civilian targets by plane, look up the spanish civil war, and the baques region.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Yea, that quote is always being brought up.

It needs to be taken in the context of the speech. There's transcripts all over the net.

O'Leprosy

" Also the germans where the first to bomb civilian targets by plane, Spainish Civil War " Spainish civil war started in July 1936.

According an article in the Guardian " An uprising of more than 100,000 armed tribesmen against the British occupation swept through Iraq in the summer of 1920. In went the RAF. It flew missions totalling 4,008 hours, dropped 97 tons of bombs and fired 183,861 rounds for the loss of nine men killed, seven wounded and 11 aircraft destroyed behind rebel lines. The rebellion was thwarted, with nearly 9,000 Iraqis killed. " Looks like the Brits beat the Nazi's to it.
( Article in full http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html#article_continue )

If you think I'm been hard on poor old Winston by not quoting the 'hero' in full, then you take the honour upon yourself.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

A memo on the subject.

Winston Churchill wrote:

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

GENERAL ISMAY FOR C.O.S. COMMITTEE

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 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 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.

Winston Churchill

It shows quite clearly that he was a leader doing his job. Protecting his people. Not a killer.

Capt'n Midnight

Boston wrote:

Also the germans where the first to bomb civilian targets by plane, Spainish Civil War " Spainish civil war started in July 1936.

Wrong.
But then again Africans don't count.

But Morocco would have been the first place where an undefended town was bombed.

It's a great book.

http://www.svenlindqvist.net/text_only.asp?cat=2&lang=2&id=88

FROM CHECHAOUEN TO GUERNICA

Everyone knows about Guernica in Chechaouen. In Guernica no one has ever heard of Chechaouen. And yet they are sister cities. Two small cities, clinging to mountainsides, a few miles from the northern coast of Spain and Morocco, respectively. Both of them are very old-Guernica was founded in 1366, and Chechaouen in 1471. Both are holy places-Guernica has the sacred oak of the Basque people, and Chechaouen has Moulay Abdessalam Ben Mchich's sacred grave. Both are capitals-Guernica for the Basques, and Chechaouen for the Jibala people. Both had populations of about 6,000 when they were bombed, Guernica in 1937 and Chechaouen 1925. Both were bombed by legionnaires-Guernica by Germans serving under Franco, and Chechaouen by Americans under French command, serving the interests of the Spanish colonial power.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Oh and here's the quote the OP mentioned:

WInston Churchill wrote:

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.

As you can see, they are not quite the sweeping statements that they selective quotes make them out to be. He saw it as a last resort.

O'Leprosy

Says it all doesn't it.

sean_keevey wrote:

It shows quite clearly that he was a leader doing his job. Protecting his people. Not a killer.

Well there we go. Every political leader in the world can be exonerated by the simple little phrase " he was a leader doing his job ". So was Stalin, Mao, Pinochet, Hitler etc and including receiving money in brown paper bags, doing it for the country.

sean_keevey wrote:

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.

Well, what a wonderful humanitarian. He's up there with Alfred Nobel, Florence Nightingale, Gandhi etc. Your hero ? Seems I've stumbled on the winston churchill fan club. I suppose if he had killed thousands of Irish people with poisionous gas he'd be a even bigger hero ? After all he'd be excused as " a leader doing his job ".

Thomas_S_Hunterson

I think any rational person could see that the actions of the aforementioned Pinochet, Hitler etc. involved them going far beyond the protection of their people and the reasonable use of force. Correct me if i'm wrong but I don't think the holocaust was about protecting anyone.

Boston

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Wrong.

How so? Your quote seems to indicate that it was the germans that first bombed civilians and that it was during the spanish civil war. I only ment that the germans where the first to use it for franco and that Bilbao was an example of that.

Capt'n Midnight

Boston wrote:

How so? Your quote seems to indicate that it was the germans that first bombed civilians and that it was during the spanish civil war. I only ment that the germans where the first to use it for franco and that Bilbao was an example of that.

Both had populations of about 6,000 when they were bombed, Guernica in 1937 and Chechaouen 1925. Both were bombed by legionnaires-Guernica by Germans serving under Franco, and Chechaouen by Americans under French command, serving the interests of the Spanish colonial power.

Spain - what goes around comes around !

No. because in both cases it was civilians being bombed by the military.

Boston

ah i see

O'Leprosy

sean_keevey wrote:

I think any rational person could see that the actions of the aforementioned Pinochet, Hitler etc. involved them going far beyond the protection of their people and the reasonable use of force. Correct me if i'm wrong but I don't think the holocaust was about protecting anyone.

" the protection of their people " Don't see how the Kurds who lived thousands of miles from britain, who only wanted self determination and had no plans to invade and kill a single uk civilian, needed to be murdered in their thousands for the protection of people in britain ????

" the reasonable use of force " You call the indiscriminate murder of 635,000 civilians "reasonable force " with the peak of the bombing campaign between January 1945 and April 1945 when the war was effectively won !!!! But I suppose if Winston had carried out the holocaust it would have been all ok wouldn't it, " a leader doing his job ".

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.svenlindqvist.net/text_only.asp?cat=2&lang=2&id=88

10.
THE SPLENDID DECISION

On the tenth of May in 1940, Churchill became Prime Minister of England. On the eleventh of May, he gave the order to bomb Germany.

"It was a splendid decision," writes J. M. Spaight, expert on international law and Secretary of the British Air Ministry. Thanks to that decision, the English to-day can walk with their heads held high. When Churchill began to bomb Germany, he knew that the Germans did not want a bombing war. Their airforce, unlike the British, was not made for heavy bombs . Churchill went on bombing, even though he knew that reprisals were unavoidable. He consciously sacrificed London and other English cities for the sake of freedom and civilization. "It was a splendid decision."

Mick86

O'Leprosy wrote:

Was Churchill one of the worst war criminals and fascists the world has ever seen ?

Not even Close.

PHB

War is war, ya gotta do what ya gotta do. Anyone who thinks the war was won by that stage is just being stupid. Considering Hitler's policy of fighting until the death, the war still had lots to be done.

There are no civilians in total war.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

PHB wrote:

There are no civilians in total war.

That's an interesting point, and quite true.

philologos

O'Leprosy wrote:

Also in 1919, Churchill called for airborne chemical assaults on "uncooperative Arabs" (actually Kurds and Afghans). "I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas," he declared in the House of Commons. "I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes." At least 20,00 Kurds were murdered by posinous gas, with the operation directed by yet another british 'hero' - Dresden 'Bomber' Harris. Some years later, a certain Adolph Hitler would apply this gaseous philosophy to another troublesome "tribe."

He called Arabs "dogs" in various speeches in the House of Commons in relation to the British Mandate of Palestine. So this checks in fine with my historical reasoning. He was a racist of the highest degree.

TerrorFirmer

Actually on tracing the bombing of civilians, the Germans attacked English cities with Strategic bombers in the First World War also, almost twenty years before the Spanish conflict, and also predating the Iraqi incident quoted.

TerrorFirmer

PHB wrote:

War is war, ya gotta do what ya gotta do. Anyone who thinks the war was won by that stage is just being stupid. Considering Hitler's policy of fighting until the death, the war still had lots to be done.

There are no civilians in total war.

Although it was clear by 1944 that Germany was decisively loosing the war, by January 1945 it was indisputedly beaten to the point of no return. It was on the brink of total collapse. Bombing cities like Dresden served no military purpose whatsoever, affected no Germany military movements, damaged no means of war production, and did not, overall, shorten the war by as much as one day. War is war, and what has to be done has to be done, but such examples served absolutely no constructive purpose, no matter what way you look at it, apart from killing thousands of civilians.

Zebra3

sean_keevey wrote:

A memo on the subject.

It shows quite clearly that he was a leader doing his job. Protecting his people. Not a killer.

Churchill was protecting the British people by murdering and occupying the Middle East?

Pity his love of freedom for the British didn't extend to a love of freedom for the Arab 'dogs'. :mad:

The reality is the whole war crime thing is a sham. Most US prseidents would be war criminals if the rules applied to them as it did to losers of some wars. The war crime courts that followed WWII as with Saddam's only allowed certain information to be heard and those who were being tried were tried only for things the other side hadn't actually done.

Churchill and Hitler done pretty much the same things. They murdered civilians with no remorse and invaded foreign countries to 'secure' their own country and to rob valuable natural resources.

Thankfully we live in a more civilised world today and that sort of behaviour is history....... :rolleyes:

brianthebard

Please, I'm not a churchill fan but he's not in the same league as Hitler.

Erin Go Brath

Winston Churchill quote during WW1:

"Perhaps the next time round the way to do it will be to kill women, children and the civilian population."

Churchill cared about one thing, and one thing only, victory. His scant disregard for civilian human life, I find quite sickening.

Indiscriminate bombing of civilians was explicitly outlawed under the 1922 Washington Treaty and the targeting of non-combatants was also prohibited under the Geneva Convention.

Hitler and Churchill both defied these and both should have been tried as War criminals.

purple'n'gold

You are only a war criminal if you are on the loosing side. The winners make the rules.

Boston

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Winston Churchill quote during WW1:

"Perhaps the next time round the way to do it will be to kill women, children and the civilian population."

Churchill cared about one thing, and one thing only, victory. His scant disregard for civilian human life, I find quite sickening.

Indiscriminate bombing of civilians was explicitly outlawed under the 1922 Washington Treaty and the targeting of non-combatants was also prohibited under the Geneva Convention.

Hitler and Churchill both defied these and both should have been tried as War criminals.

Was there a single party to the war that didn't?

Erin Go Brath

purplengold wrote:

You are only a war criminal if you are on the loosing side. The winners make the rules.

Absolutely! Winston Chuchill: "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."

boston wrote:

Was there a single party to the war that didn't?

Probably not. Overly blood thirsty leaders, who ever they are should be held accountable for their armies actions. The indiscriminate killing thousands of civilians during the war is inherently immoral, and winning doesnt justify it. Its a sad state of affairs when many thousands of innocents lose their life because some leader feels he has the right to drop bombs in cities and kill tens of thousands of women and children. The Dresden bombing, and the A-bombs dropped in Japan are two of the worst atrocities. The Allies may have won the war, but they covered themselves in shame!

Zambia

Once warfare became total in the 20th century this is the effect

Cities are bombed relentlessly , every aspect of the enemy is attacked.

If the major nations of the world went to war again 635,000 would be a miracle figure to walk away with. If Germany had the means to cause this damage in 1940 to a british City would they have refrained from doing so?

As regards the British in 1920 Iraq. I reckon the soldiers on the ground given the option of hand to hand fighting with the enemy or sitting in base while the RAF dwindled them down would have no trouble deciding.

As for Churchill being a racist , most people where racist back then Irish included.

IMO Winston churchill was not a war criminal.

johnnyskeleton

Boston wrote:

Was there a single party to the war that didn't?

The Greeks? The Poles? The Danish? The French? The Sweedes? The Australians? The Kiwis?

The Russians, bad as they were, didn't firebomb cities or drop nuclear bombs on cities, AFAIK.

jhegarty

johnnyskeleton wrote:

The Russians, bad as they were, didn't firebomb cities or drop nuclear bombs on cities, AFAIK.

They didn't have a nuclear bomb... .i am quite sure if they had there would be a smoky hole where Berlin used to be...

Zambia

johnnyskeleton wrote:

The Greeks? The Poles? The Danish? The French? The Sweedes? The Australians? The Kiwis?

Minimal air force, Minimal air force , Minimal air force , Minimal air force, Minimal air force, Minimal air force.

The Russians did not have the bombers to perform these operations either.

O'Leprosy

Zebra3 wrote:

Churchill was protecting the British people by murdering and occupying the Middle East?

Pity his love of freedom for the British didn't extend to a love of freedom for the Arab 'dogs'. :mad:

Yeah, thats the thing about the British view of their great empire, for them to throw their weight around, invading and occupying countries etc is something they are proud of perversly, but for anyone to do that to them is the crime of the all time.

O'Leprosy

Zambia232 wrote:

As regards the British in 1920 Iraq. I reckon the soldiers on the ground given the option of hand to hand fighting with the enemy or sitting in base while the RAF dwindled them down would have no trouble deciding.

See your from Belfast. Obviously unionist values. We can murder as many as we like, but so long as our poor little boys are ok then it's all right.

jhegarty

O'Leprosy wrote:

See your from Belfast. Obviously unionist values. We can murder as many as we like, but so long as our poor little boys are ok then it's all right.

attack the post , not the poster....

Zebra3

Erin Go Brath wrote:

The Allies may have won the war, but they covered themselves in shame!

More Anglo-American propaganda. "We won the war and our leaders aren't war criminals". :rolleyes:

Capt'n Midnight

Erin Go Brath wrote:

The Dresden bombing, and the A-bombs dropped in Japan are two of the worst atrocities. The Allies may have won the war, but they covered themselves in shame!

Don't forget Hamburg and the firebombing of japanese cities in general. The raid on Tokoyo that killed more than the A bombs.

Doenitz was found guilty of war crimes and was sent to prison for 10 years for the same sort of stuff the American submariners were doing to the Japanese.

Capt'n Midnight

Zambia232 wrote:

As regards the British in 1920 Iraq. I reckon the soldiers on the ground given the option of hand to hand fighting with the enemy or sitting in base while the RAF dwindled them down would have no trouble deciding.

it was economics,
the RAF said they could do it cheaper than soldiers on the ground

Capt'n Midnight

jhegarty wrote:

They didn't have a nuclear bomb... .i am quite sure if they had there would be a smoky hole where Berlin used to be...

casualties in the battle of Berlin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin

[Russian]
Archival research
81,000 dead or missing (including 2,800 Polish)
280,000 sick or wounded
Total casualties 361,367 men[5]

[german]
Estimates:
150,000–173,000 killed
200,000 wounded
134,000 captured

not too sure how reliable this exact number is but is sounds like numbers I've read elsewhere. A nuke would have killed less. German civilian casualties are hard to ID since IIRC they didn't distinguish military and civilian ones in the records.

TerrorFirmer

Zambia232 wrote:

Minimal air force, Minimal air force , Minimal air force , Minimal air force, Minimal air force, Minimal air force.

The Russians did not have the bombers to perform these operations either.

The Russians did not bomb Berlin but they pounded it with possibly the greatest force of artillery the world has ever seen, for many successive days from when Berlin came into range until the end of the war. What difference does it really make where it comes from...

Fratton Fred

Eric Cantona talked about sea gulls following a trawler, I think that means all great men have people around trying to pick off scraps.

Churchill was no saint, but he was what was needed at the time.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055056671&referrerid=&highlight=

county

O'Leprosy wrote:

See your from Belfast. Obviously unionist values. We can murder as many as we like, but so long as our poor little boys are ok then it's all right.

well from that out of order post we can see you quite the bigot

Zambia

O'Leprosy wrote:

See your from Belfast. Obviously unionist values. We can murder as many as we like, but so long as our poor little boys are ok then it's all right.

Actually your wording is silly but you have the right idea.

In warfare the idea is to defeat the enemy or achieve your objective with as little damage to your forces as possible.

That would not be a unionist view it would be a military one and mine.

War is something that if it starts you dont fight it with one hand behind your back.

Zambia

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

it was economics,
the RAF said they could do it cheaper than soldiers on the ground

I would be inclined to agree

Zambia

county wrote:

well from that out of order post we can see you quite the bigot

thanks for that but its ok , I dont consider the word Unionist or Republican an insult.