Winston Churchill's Secret Poison Gas Memo

[Sayeret]

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 [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]

Source: photographic copy of original 4 page memo, in Guenther W. Gellermann, "Der Krieg, der nicht stattfand", Bernard & Graefe Verlag, 1986, pp. 249-251

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html

[oldsoak]

Not suprised. The use of "ultimate weapons" was always a possibility. We did not use it because we had conventional means at our disposal and we felt the war was winnable without using chemical warfare. Churchill behaved no differently to any other national leader of the time in that respect - he asked for advice on the pro and cons of using gas to se if it was a real option or not.

[Kitsune]

"Why have the Germans not used it"? Interesting is that the Germans had Tabun (that wasn't known to the Allies), which is WAY more effective than Mustard, and lots of it. The eradication of entire British cites would have been possible with Tabun. This is still one of the great mysteries of the war to me. (Not that it is unfortunate, though).

Possible explanations are:

1) During their campaigns the Germans relied on speed and movement. Gas is of no use when one uses Blitzkrieg tactics. Plus, they were nearly always winning in the firstyears of the war, so did not feel the need to use gas.

2) Hitler had been a gas victim in WWI himself. Probably he had a personal aversion against it.

3) The Germans were the only ones who had Tabun and were therefore at an huge advantage compared to the British or Soviets. But perhaps they did not know it or weren't sure wether this was indeed the case and did not want to find out the hard way.

[Stolly]

The Germans were using gas, just not on the battlefield.

[Opening Batsman]

The Germans were using gas, just not on the battlefield.

The Poms even used gas on Aussies to test how it worked in tropical climates. It worked a lot better (or worse). The fact that the Aussies volunteered for the testing is beside the point, it is still something we can use to bash the Poms with. :P

[Sayeret]

The eradication of entire British cites would have been possible with Tabun. This is still one of the great mysteries of the war to me. (Not that it is unfortunate, though).

Yeah but Tabun was a much more modern chemical weapon and also a nerve agent rather than a blister agent like Mustard gas.

Even though Mustard gas isn't as lethal as Tabun it's still lethal and also extremely poisonous. Even if with it’s Tabun Germany could not expect to totally destroy Great Britain, Soviet Union, and United States. Hitler ordered a launch of V2 bourne Tabun towards London at the end of the war but it never took place because all the trains, fuel, and other materials needed to launch the rockets were unavailable because the constant attacks by American and British aircraft.

[oldsoak]

The Germans were using gas, just not on the battlefield.

The Poms even used gas on Aussies to test how it worked in tropical climates. It worked a lot better (or worse). The fact that the Aussies volunteered for the testing is beside the point, it is still something we can use to bash the Poms with. :P

..favourtism ! They never allowed us to volunteer ! :P
...I feel a monty python sketch coming on... :lol:

[Kitsune]

Even though Mustard gas isn't as lethal as Tabun it's still lethal and also extremely poisonous. Even if with it’s Tabun Germany could not expect to totally destroy Great Britain, Soviet Union, and United States. Sure. Nobody said so. My point was, that the British might have regretted the usage of mustard in 1944. Not that it would have changed the eventual outcome. The war would just have been even more horrible for both sides.


Hitler ordered a launch of V2 bourne Tabun towards London at the end of the war but it never took place because all the trains, fuel, and other materials needed to launch the rockets were unavailable because the constant attacks by American and British aircraft. Or his orders were simply not carried out anymore. Hitler also had ordered largescale destruction to the German infrastructure itself, that was also not carried out. More and more officers knew that the war was lost (they tried to kill him on July 20th 1944, remember?), he could even less rely on people in 1945. Simple orders were not the problem, since there is always some 150% guy. But firing a Tabun filled V2 needs a lot of people and the likelihood of someone deliberatly messing it up was so much greater.

[Gyles84]

It's amazing how neither the Soviets or Nazis used chem/bio weapons against each other. Not outside Moscow in 1941 or at the gates of Berlin in '45. Considereing this was mean to be a war of annihilation, and the two demi-gods running the show, why was the order never given?

[oldsoak]

It nmight be that the gases had no antidote and protective measures of the time were simply inadequate. That would restrict its usage on a battlefront. also, once used, secret weapons are no longer secret and its only a matter of time before the enemy industrial complex comes up with a copy or something similar.

[Brzeczyszczykiewicz]

It's amazing how neither the Soviets or Nazis used chem/bio weapons against each other. Not outside Moscow in 1941 or at the gates of Berlin in '45. Considereing this was mean to be a war of annihilation, and the two demi-gods running the show, why was the order never given?

Well it's quite possible that the Soviets used the Francisella tularensis bacteria against the German forces approaching Stalingrad in 1942- pathogen was probably released from aircraft flying over the German units. At first only the German side suffered from the outbreak, later the illness also weakened the Soviet side. The number of tularemia victims in Soviet Army suddenly increased from ca. 10 000 in 1941 to almost 100 000 in 1942, and in 1943 decreased back to 10 000...

[Brzeczyszczykiewicz]

double

[wiking]

Gruinard island. isn't that what it called, the island of scotland were the english were testing Anthrax and it all went horribly wrong?

I've allways believed, and so does many ppl i know, that Hitler didn't use gas in the war due to his own experiences with it in WW1.

But lack of adaption to the new tactics of the German army might be a good reason too.

[Para]

Winston Churchill not only had tests carried out on gas but also on germ warfare. Extensive test where carried on Anthrax up on a small Scottish Island which has only just been decontaminated a few years back. Churchill had no desire to use this weapon but felt they needed to know about in case it was used on Britain, then it would have been used on Germany. Rather like the Atom bomb, if some one else also has it then you are less likely to use it.

[Kitsune]

Only that Anthrax is not an very effective war weapon. It does not kill very efficiently, but lingers in the ground for decades. So its not much of an help, but does enrage the enemy. Plus it effects your own troops when they occupy the defeated enemies territory.
It comes down to it that mustard gas was the most effective thing the British had in the WMD departement.

[Para]

What you say about Anthrax is true but if scatter quite a bit over a country then there is No need to occupy it, but it was tried and tested but never used. Also at end the War there was a mass of chemical and germ weapons found in Germany they where packed in concrete in some old ships then taken out to the deepest part of the Atlantic ocean and sunk.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

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.

heh heh - looks like this is nothing new.