Thursday, 1 May 2008

In Europe, Churchill, Britain and Iraq

I can recommend In Europe: Travels Through the Twentieth Century, by Geert Mak, which I'm currently reading. One quote from a letter by Adolf Hitler during World War 1 provides a striking glimpse of the character within: "I love this war. I know it's smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment, and yet I enjoy every moment of it."
To love the diabolic orgy of death and despair of that war speaks volumes of the nature of the sociopath, cut off from the world of emotions and suffering, and who if he should attain positions of wordly power prefigures gross danger for wider humanity. Except wait, it's not by dear Adolf, it's instead the greatest Briton of them all, Winston Churchill, writing to Violet Asquith, the prime minister's daughter.

As a counter-point, to offer an idea of the eclectic range of the book the following amusing cultural snapshot of Helsinki: 'She reads to me form Stockmann's(more than just the Harrod's of Finland) spring catalogue. "'Dress like the rest; after all, don't you have better things to do." Where else could you sell clothes with a slogan like that?''

To go off on a tanget unrelated to Mak's book, some more on Churchill, the Kurds and Iraq. In 1917, following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the British occupied Iraq and established a colonial government. The Arab and Kurdish people of Iraq resisted the British occupation, and by 1920 this had developed into a full scale national revolt. As the Iraqi resistance gained strength, the British resorted to increasingly repressive measures, including the use of posion gas.
Winston Churchill, as colonial secretary, was keen to exploit the potential of modern technology. "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... I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes."

Henry Wilson shared Churchills enthusiasm for gas as an instrument of colonial control but the British cabinet was reluctant to sanction the use of a weapon that had caused such misery and revulsion in the First World War. Churchill himself was keen to argue that gas, fired from ground-based guns or dropped from aircraft, would cause *only discomfort or illness, but not death* to dissident tribespeople; but his optimistic view of the effects of gas were mistaken. It was likely that the suggested gas would permanently damage eyesight and *kill children and sickly persons, more especially as the people against whom we intend to use it have no medical knowledge with which to supply antidotes.* Churchill remained unimpressed by such considerations, arguing that the use of gas, a *scientific expedient,* should not be prevented *by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly*. In the event, gas was used against the Iraqi rebels "with excellent moral effect"*.

Wing-Commander Sir Arthur Harris (later Bomber Harris, head of wartime Bomber Command) was happy to emphasise that "The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within forty-five minutes a full-size village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured." It was an easy matter to bomb and machine-gun the tribespeople, because they had no means of defence or retalitation. Iraq and Kurdistan were also useful laboratories for new weapons; devices specifically developed by the Air Ministry for use against tribal villages.
Phosphorus bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet [to maim livestock] man-killing shrapnel, liquid fire, delay-action bombs. Many of these weapons were first used in Kurdistan.

Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. *Iraq: From Sumer to Saddam*.
London: St. Martins Press, 1994.

Back to the past for Iraq and surrounds.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

not to be wholly unfair to Hitler, during WW1 millions on both sides greeted the war very entusiastically and signed up in their droves, and they continued fighting until the end or their death. I am sure Hitler was not alone in expressing those sentiments.

Andrew said...

You didn't read that very carefully, or responded without continuing to read the rest of the piece. The words were from Churchill, & love of that war in the midst of it could only have been an idea in the mind of a very strange man. Churchill being one who sent vast numbers to their futile deaths in Gallipoli, for instance, byut reassuring to know he didn't let mass slaughter impair his clear thinking with regard to the legitimate use of poison gas on the defenceless.

Anonymous said...

yes, I hadn't read it right through. Churchill was a freemason, member of the studholme lodge. His sending thousands to be slaughtered at Gallipoli was deliberately planned, as was his extension of WW2 by forcing the "allies" to go through Italy rather than going straight for Germany immediately after USA entered the war. Churchill repeatedly ignored the best advice from his military advisors, as it wasn't his plan to win the war quickly, WW2 served a major purpose for the elites who control the world.

Freemasonic Churchill was working with his high-level freemasonic brothers Hitler and Stalin, and Roosevelt right through the war. The allies were deliberately permitted to escape at Dunkirk, anyone with their eyes open could see it was no "miracle evacuation", Hitler merely permitted them to escape as he was instructed to do. His "battle of britain" was merely for show and not a real determined effort to win against Britain. Also Hitlers abandonment of the 6th army in the snows of russia was planned long before WW2 begun, it was almost exactly the same as freemasonic Napoloens abandonment of his patriotic french grand armee in the snows of russia, it was plotted in advance that those men would perish.

Churchill was as evil as the rest of them, but he has a great image because History is written by the victors.
After WW2 ended 3 million Germans died as a result of their treatment by the allies. When you realise that WW1 and particularly WW2 was really an extension of the Inquisitions you can begin to understand the bigger picture more clearly. The German Nation was being "ethnically-cleansed", and by the end of it all the country became predominatly Roman Catholic for the first time since before Lutheranism. Hitler and his poilicies and the results of WW1 and WW2 was a complete reverse of how protestant Bismarck had managed the country.

Or how about this story of how Britain was accused of mistreating holocaust survivors just 2 years after the war, forcibly sending them back to concentration camps in Germany (were they any better than the Nazis??? The truth is they were working with the high-level controllers of the nazis all along, as were the CIA, look in Dulles for more regarding the CIA and the Nazis).
There is also the story of the British military testing mustard gas on Indian soldiers who were put into gas chambers during WW2

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200709011041.htm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/britains-holocaust-shame-the-voyage-of-the-exodus-821187.html

there is also the story of a "friendly-fire" incident involving british guns killing a staggering 7,000 survivors of a Nazi camp (would you believe it was an accident? RAF records of the murder is sealed until 2045)

You would find a huge list of allied acts of sheer murder and barbarism, rape etc, all instructed from the top, and it will give you the clear picture that the allied leaders were no better than the nazis, (in reality they were all the same, with the ordinary people and soldiers on both sides being used as pawns by the overlords)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2006/05/17/wexile17.xml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/nov/12/topstories3.secondworldwar

if you want a clearer picture of what a monster Churchill was (if Gallipoli wasn't enough) then it is worth reading up on Operation Keelhaul, which deliberatly sent up to 2 million people to their deaths. If you are wondering why Churchill would do such a thing, he was following orders, and remember WW2 was a contiuation of the Inquisitions, which is controlled by the Roman Catholic Church. Those who perished in Keelhaul were "heretical" orthodox peoples, they were also people who would have actively resisted Stalins tyranny in Eastern Europe, so Churchill gifted Stalin his potential enemies. They were all working together, before and after WW2, and right through the phoney "Cold War" that they created.