 |
|
Zylka
|
|
Churchill the imperial baby killing fat man!!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000
time: 05:27
|
|
are you sure about chuchhill in ww1, i think he was in the government back then as well. i think he was last in the army in the sudan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander's Horse
|
 |
Panmunjon, hands up!
Jan 1970
time: 15:27
|
|
Yes it was Churchill who advocated the use of gas and the first use was in 1920 against tribesmen - Kurds in Northern Iraq, who were very angry about being dudded out of a state of their own by the British and French, and ultimately by the Versailles Treaty.
This was part of a British policy to use airpower to keep rebellious natives in check by bombing them. The policy was applied throughout the empire after World War 1 but particularly in the frontier territories of India (now the tribal areas of Pakistan) Somaliland and Sudan.
The gas used was mustard gas dropped on villages by aircraft. AFAIK, Iraq was the only colony where gas was used but there may have been others. Here is a little history piece on it all.
quote:
Lessons from Iraq's history
By William Choong
WHEN Iraqi President Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds of northern Iraq in 1988 to put down a rebellion, he was doing what had been done before - by the British.
According to historians, Britain used poison gas to quell a 1920 tribal uprising in the northern Kurdish town of Kirkuk.
Arguing strongly for the use of mustard gas in 1919, Winston Churchill -- then a secretary of state in Britain's War Office -- said he did not understand the 'squeamishness about the use of gas'.
'I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes,' the former British prime minister was quoted in Iraq: From Sumer To Saddam, by Iraqi expert Geoff Simons.
As another war against Iraq starts, poison gas may not be the only bit of history repeating itself.
Some historians note sobering parallels between Britain's adventure in Iraq after World War I and the United States' current campaign.
By looking into the past, Iraq's future looks anything but smooth, they warned.
Between 1914 and 1921, Britain overthrew an authoritarian regime in Baghdad that was a threat to Western powers in the Middle East. It then installed a new political order.
But after a massive Iraqi revolt in 1920, it handed over control of the country, under Western supervision, to the administrative and military elite of the old regime.
'If there is a war, the US could find itself facing choices similar to those faced by Britain between 1914 and 1921,' wrote British historian Charles Tripp in leading French monthly Le Monde Diplomatique.
The problem with Britain's Iraq is that it was an 'artificial state' with borders drawn up by foreigners, say historians who see parallels with the Iraq that the US could soon occupy.
A victorious Britain, after World War I and with a League of Nations mandate, had welded the three disparate regions of Basra, Baghdad and Mosul into a modern state.
The trouble is that the three regions put together by Britain - populated by Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds - hate each other.
In a nightmare scenario, Iraq's three parts could separate - spelling bad news for the region.
|
I think Lunger75 gets the prize for the superb Churchill quotes.
Last edited by Alexander's Horse on 27-03-2003 at 03:56
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-03-2003 08:45
|