Discussion:
Churchill wanted to use gas on enemies
(too old to reply)
Protagonist
2008-01-12 06:42:05 UTC
Permalink
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.html

"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised
tribes" where it could "spread a lively terror", he added.

The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be able to use gas on
less sophisticated enemies who would have no idea from where the danger
they faced came. The use of gas was banned by the 1925 Geneva protocol.



Churchill wanted to use gas on enemies

By Ben Fenton

WINSTON Churchill championed the use of chemical weapons against what he
called "uncivilised tribes", according to papers released yesterday at
the Public Record Office.

Despite the horrors of the First World War, he called opposition to the
use of gas "squeamishness". Churchill was Secretary of State for the
Royal Air Force in 1919 when his staff were advocating that gas should
be retained as a potential weapon and that Britain should oppose any
international ban on its use.

In a report drawn up in late 1919 as part of Britain's contribution to
discussions about the establishment of the League of Nations, an Air
Ministry official wrote: "Chemical warfare cannot now be ruled out of
war. Had the war continued, gas would have been almost our most
formidable weapon. One shell in every four would have been a gas shell
and tanks would have been using it freely."

The air staff talked of gas shells as if the substances they contained
would cause only temporary disability rather than the choking death
suffered by thousands of servicemen of both nations on the Western
Front. The official wrote that if gas were to be banned on humanitarian
grounds, so too should conventional explosives because they were ''far
more terrible weapons which remove limbs, shatter bones, produce
'nerves' and cause madness'".

He added: "The elimination of this very powerful weapon from the future
of war without the most careful consideration is to be deprecated." A
memo by Churchill, written about the same time and signed "WSC", said:
"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas.

"It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment
of a bursting shell and then to boggle at making his eyes water by means
of a lachrymatory gas. "I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas
against uncivilised tribes" where it could "spread a lively terror", he
added.

The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be able to use gas on
less sophisticated enemies who would have no idea from where the danger
they faced came. The use of gas was banned by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Its all a bit strange
2008-01-12 07:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Protagonist
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.html
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against
uncivilised tribes" where it could "spread a lively
terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be able
to use gas on less sophisticated enemies who would have no
idea from where the danger they faced came. The use of gas
was banned by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Churchill wanted to use gas on enemies
By Ben Fenton
WINSTON Churchill championed the use of chemical weapons
against what he called "uncivilised tribes", according to
papers released yesterday at the Public Record Office.
Despite the horrors of the First World War, he called
opposition to the use of gas "squeamishness". Churchill was
Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force in 1919 when his
staff were advocating that gas should be retained as a
potential weapon and that Britain should oppose any
international ban on its use.
In a report drawn up in late 1919 as part of Britain's
contribution to discussions about the establishment of the
"Chemical warfare cannot now be ruled out of war. Had the
war continued, gas would have been almost our most
formidable weapon. One shell in every four would have been
a gas shell and tanks would have been using it freely."
The air staff talked of gas shells as if the substances
they contained would cause only temporary disability rather
than the choking death suffered by thousands of servicemen
that if gas were to be banned on humanitarian grounds, so
too should conventional explosives because they were ''far
more terrible weapons which remove limbs, shatter bones,
produce 'nerves' and cause madness'".
He added: "The elimination of this very powerful weapon
from the future of war without the most careful
consideration is to be deprecated." A memo by Churchill,
written about the same time and signed "WSC", said: "I do
not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas.
"It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the
poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and then to boggle
at making his eyes water by means of a lachrymatory gas. "I
am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against
uncivilised tribes" where it could "spread a lively
terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be able
to use gas on less sophisticated enemies who would have no
idea from where the danger they faced came. The use of gas
was banned by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Oh szaki, you left out that he was so concerned that the
germans would make sea based landings on England that he had
large pipes capable of pumping poison gas strategically
placed at likely landing spots.

Don't you study history?
--
Like Minded Mates
Reading from Mein Kampf
Snuggling by the fire
He shares his deepest thoughts
Holding him close
My Aryan warrior
A warm bath
Then the lights go out

Ben Cramer
Copyright ©2007 Ben Cramer
Protagonist
2008-01-12 07:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.html
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against
uncivilised tribes" where it could "spread a lively
terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be able
to use gas on less sophisticated enemies who would have no
idea from where the danger they faced came. The use of gas
was banned by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Churchill wanted to use gas on enemies
By Ben Fenton
WINSTON Churchill championed the use of chemical weapons
against what he called "uncivilised tribes", according to
papers released yesterday at the Public Record Office.
Despite the horrors of the First World War, he called
opposition to the use of gas "squeamishness". Churchill was
Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force in 1919 when his
staff were advocating that gas should be retained as a
potential weapon and that Britain should oppose any
international ban on its use.
In a report drawn up in late 1919 as part of Britain's
contribution to discussions about the establishment of the
"Chemical warfare cannot now be ruled out of war. Had the
war continued, gas would have been almost our most
formidable weapon. One shell in every four would have been
a gas shell and tanks would have been using it freely."
The air staff talked of gas shells as if the substances
they contained would cause only temporary disability rather
than the choking death suffered by thousands of servicemen
that if gas were to be banned on humanitarian grounds, so
too should conventional explosives because they were ''far
more terrible weapons which remove limbs, shatter bones,
produce 'nerves' and cause madness'".
He added: "The elimination of this very powerful weapon
from the future of war without the most careful
consideration is to be deprecated." A memo by Churchill,
written about the same time and signed "WSC", said: "I do
not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas.
"It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the
poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and then to boggle
at making his eyes water by means of a lachrymatory gas. "I
am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against
uncivilised tribes" where it could "spread a lively
terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be able
to use gas on less sophisticated enemies who would have no
idea from where the danger they faced came. The use of gas
was banned by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Oh szaki, you left out that he was so concerned that the
germans would make sea based landings on England that he had
large pipes capable of pumping poison gas strategically
placed at likely landing spots.
Don't you study history?
Your statement is ridicules.
As history proved it, Germans didn't pump any gas against Allies at
Normandy, not even against the Russians, all though Germans were losing
the war!
Churchill's statements meant gas against the Kurds and Arabs in Iraq,
that's why the use of the word "less sophisticated enemy"!
JS
turan*@shaw.ca
2008-01-12 08:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Protagonist
As history proved it, Germans didn't pump any gas against Allies at
Normandy, not even against the Russians, all though Germans were losing
the war!
actually history proved that the nazis did "pump gas against"
civilians
Post by Protagonist
Churchill's statements meant gas against the Kurds and Arabs in Iraq,
that's why the use of the word "less sophisticated enemy"!
well, he ended up having machine gunned their camps from low flying
airplanes

as i already mentioned he was an arsehole too

what's your point?
Protagonist
2008-01-12 08:34:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by turan*@shaw.ca
Post by Protagonist
As history proved it, Germans didn't pump any gas against Allies at
Normandy, not even against the Russians, all though Germans were losing
the war!
actually history proved that the nazis did "pump gas against"
civilians
In WW2?
When and where?
JS
Post by turan*@shaw.ca
Post by Protagonist
Churchill's statements meant gas against the Kurds and Arabs in Iraq,
that's why the use of the word "less sophisticated enemy"!
well, he ended up having machine gunned their camps from low flying
airplanes
as i already mentioned he was an arsehole too
what's your point?
Its all a bit strange
2008-01-12 09:20:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.html
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against
uncivilised tribes" where it could "spread a lively
terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be
able to use gas on less sophisticated enemies who would
have no idea from where the danger they faced came. The
use of gas was banned by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Churchill wanted to use gas on enemies
By Ben Fenton
WINSTON Churchill championed the use of chemical weapons
against what he called "uncivilised tribes", according to
papers released yesterday at the Public Record Office.
Despite the horrors of the First World War, he called
opposition to the use of gas "squeamishness". Churchill
was Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force in 1919
when his staff were advocating that gas should be
retained as a potential weapon and that Britain should
oppose any international ban on its use.
In a report drawn up in late 1919 as part of Britain's
contribution to discussions about the establishment of
"Chemical warfare cannot now be ruled out of war. Had the
war continued, gas would have been almost our most
formidable weapon. One shell in every four would have
been a gas shell and tanks would have been using it
freely."
The air staff talked of gas shells as if the substances
they contained would cause only temporary disability
rather than the choking death suffered by thousands of
servicemen of both nations on the Western Front. The
official wrote that if gas were to be banned on
humanitarian grounds, so too should conventional
explosives because they were ''far more terrible weapons
which remove limbs, shatter bones, produce 'nerves' and
cause madness'".
He added: "The elimination of this very powerful weapon
from the future of war without the most careful
consideration is to be deprecated." A memo by Churchill,
written about the same time and signed "WSC", said: "I do
not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas.
"It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the
poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and then to boggle
at making his eyes water by means of a lachrymatory gas.
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against
uncivilised tribes" where it could "spread a lively
terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be
able to use gas on less sophisticated enemies who would
have no idea from where the danger they faced came. The
use of gas was banned by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Oh szaki, you left out that he was so concerned that the
germans would make sea based landings on England that he
had large pipes capable of pumping poison gas
strategically placed at likely landing spots.
Don't you study history?
Your statement is ridicules.
As history proved it, Germans didn't pump any gas against
Allies at Normandy, not even against the Russians, all
though Germans were losing the war!
Churchill's statements meant gas against the Kurds and
Arabs in Iraq, that's why the use of the word "less
sophisticated enemy"! JS
Oh please kurt, can't you read? Where did I talk about
Normandy? Where did I talk about Germans using gas?
--
Like Minded Mates
Reading from Mein Kampf
Snuggling by the fire
He shares his deepest thoughts
Holding him close
My Aryan warrior
A warm bath
Then the lights go out

Ben Cramer
Copyright ©2007 Ben Cramer
Protagonist
2008-01-12 18:46:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.html
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against
uncivilised tribes" where it could "spread a lively
terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be
able to use gas on less sophisticated enemies who would
have no idea from where the danger they faced came. The
use of gas was banned by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Churchill wanted to use gas on enemies
By Ben Fenton
WINSTON Churchill championed the use of chemical weapons
against what he called "uncivilised tribes", according to
papers released yesterday at the Public Record Office.
Despite the horrors of the First World War, he called
opposition to the use of gas "squeamishness". Churchill
was Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force in 1919
when his staff were advocating that gas should be
retained as a potential weapon and that Britain should
oppose any international ban on its use.
In a report drawn up in late 1919 as part of Britain's
contribution to discussions about the establishment of
"Chemical warfare cannot now be ruled out of war. Had the
war continued, gas would have been almost our most
formidable weapon. One shell in every four would have
been a gas shell and tanks would have been using it
freely."
The air staff talked of gas shells as if the substances
they contained would cause only temporary disability
rather than the choking death suffered by thousands of
servicemen of both nations on the Western Front. The
official wrote that if gas were to be banned on
humanitarian grounds, so too should conventional
explosives because they were ''far more terrible weapons
which remove limbs, shatter bones, produce 'nerves' and
cause madness'".
He added: "The elimination of this very powerful weapon
from the future of war without the most careful
consideration is to be deprecated." A memo by Churchill,
written about the same time and signed "WSC", said: "I do
not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas.
"It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the
poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and then to boggle
at making his eyes water by means of a lachrymatory gas.
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against
uncivilised tribes" where it could "spread a lively
terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be
able to use gas on less sophisticated enemies who would
have no idea from where the danger they faced came. The
use of gas was banned by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Oh szaki, you left out that he was so concerned that the
germans would make sea based landings on England that he
had large pipes capable of pumping poison gas
strategically placed at likely landing spots.
Don't you study history?
Your statement is ridicules.
As history proved it, Germans didn't pump any gas against
Allies at Normandy, not even against the Russians, all
though Germans were losing the war!
Churchill's statements meant gas against the Kurds and
Arabs in Iraq, that's why the use of the word "less
sophisticated enemy"! JS
Oh please kurt, can't you read? Where did I talk about
Normandy? Where did I talk about Germans using gas?
I'm not Kurt, idiot!
Second, Germans scraped any landing to England a long time.
Churchill was talking about using gas against the Kurds or the Iraqis,
less sophisticated tribes, using his words.
JS
Richard Warren
2008-01-12 19:33:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Protagonist
Post by Protagonist
Post by Protagonist
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.html
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against
uncivilised tribes" where it could "spread a lively
terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be
able to use gas on less sophisticated enemies who would
have no idea from where the danger they faced came. The
use of gas was banned by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Churchill wanted to use gas on enemies
By Ben Fenton
WINSTON Churchill championed the use of chemical weapons
against what he called "uncivilised tribes", according to
papers released yesterday at the Public Record Office.
Despite the horrors of the First World War, he called
opposition to the use of gas "squeamishness". Churchill
was Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force in 1919
when his staff were advocating that gas should be
retained as a potential weapon and that Britain should
oppose any international ban on its use.
In a report drawn up in late 1919 as part of Britain's
contribution to discussions about the establishment of
"Chemical warfare cannot now be ruled out of war. Had the
war continued, gas would have been almost our most formidable weapon.
One shell in every four would have
been a gas shell and tanks would have been using it
freely."
The air staff talked of gas shells as if the substances
they contained would cause only temporary disability
rather than the choking death suffered by thousands of
servicemen of both nations on the Western Front. The
official wrote that if gas were to be banned on
humanitarian grounds, so too should conventional
explosives because they were ''far more terrible weapons
which remove limbs, shatter bones, produce 'nerves' and
cause madness'".
He added: "The elimination of this very powerful weapon
from the future of war without the most careful
consideration is to be deprecated." A memo by Churchill,
written about the same time and signed "WSC", said: "I do
not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas.
"It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the
poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and then to boggle
at making his eyes water by means of a lachrymatory gas.
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against
uncivilised tribes" where it could "spread a lively
terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be
able to use gas on less sophisticated enemies who would
have no idea from where the danger they faced came. The
use of gas was banned by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Oh szaki, you left out that he was so concerned that the germans would
make sea based landings on England that he
had large pipes capable of pumping poison gas
strategically placed at likely landing spots.
Don't you study history?
Your statement is ridicules.
As history proved it, Germans didn't pump any gas against
Allies at Normandy, not even against the Russians, all
though Germans were losing the war!
Churchill's statements meant gas against the Kurds and
Arabs in Iraq, that's why the use of the word "less
sophisticated enemy"! JS
Oh please kurt, can't you read? Where did I talk about Normandy? Where
did I talk about Germans using gas?
I'm not Kurt, idiot!
The man made an understandable mistake. After all, you're about as
intelligent as Kurt.
Post by Protagonist
Second, Germans scraped any landing to England a long time.
Churchill was talking about using gas against the Kurds or the Iraqis,
less sophisticated tribes, using his words.
JS
Its all a bit strange
2008-01-12 22:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.html
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against
uncivilised tribes" where it could "spread a lively
terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be
able to use gas on less sophisticated enemies who would
have no idea from where the danger they faced came. The
use of gas was banned by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Churchill wanted to use gas on enemies
By Ben Fenton
WINSTON Churchill championed the use of chemical
weapons against what he called "uncivilised tribes",
according to papers released yesterday at the Public
Record Office.
Despite the horrors of the First World War, he called
opposition to the use of gas "squeamishness". Churchill
was Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force in 1919
when his staff were advocating that gas should be
retained as a potential weapon and that Britain should
oppose any international ban on its use.
In a report drawn up in late 1919 as part of Britain's
contribution to discussions about the establishment of
"Chemical warfare cannot now be ruled out of war. Had
the war continued, gas would have been almost our most
formidable weapon. One shell in every four would have
been a gas shell and tanks would have been using it
freely."
The air staff talked of gas shells as if the substances
they contained would cause only temporary disability
rather than the choking death suffered by thousands of
servicemen of both nations on the Western Front. The
official wrote that if gas were to be banned on
humanitarian grounds, so too should conventional
explosives because they were ''far more terrible
weapons which remove limbs, shatter bones, produce
'nerves' and cause madness'".
He added: "The elimination of this very powerful weapon
from the future of war without the most careful
consideration is to be deprecated." A memo by
Churchill, written about the same time and signed
"WSC", said: "I do not understand this squeamishness
about the use of gas.
"It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the
poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and then to
boggle at making his eyes water by means of a
lachrymatory gas. "I am strongly in favour of using
poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes" where it
could "spread a lively terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be
able to use gas on less sophisticated enemies who would
have no idea from where the danger they faced came. The
use of gas was banned by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Oh szaki, you left out that he was so concerned that the
germans would make sea based landings on England that he
had large pipes capable of pumping poison gas
strategically placed at likely landing spots.
Don't you study history?
Your statement is ridicules.
As history proved it, Germans didn't pump any gas against
Allies at Normandy, not even against the Russians, all
though Germans were losing the war!
Churchill's statements meant gas against the Kurds and
Arabs in Iraq, that's why the use of the word "less
sophisticated enemy"! JS
Oh please kurt, can't you read? Where did I talk about
Normandy? Where did I talk about Germans using gas?
I'm not Kurt, idiot!
Second, Germans scraped any landing to England a long time.
Churchill was talking about using gas against the Kurds or
the Iraqis, less sophisticated tribes, using his words.
JS
Moron, if you are going to post as intelligently as kurt, you
will be called kurt.

I don't care that germans scrapped sea lion, that doesn't
change the fact that churchill had gas waiting for them. I
try to educate you and what do you do...you knollish the
whole thing.
--
Like Minded Mates
Reading from Mein Kampf
Snuggling by the fire
He shares his deepest thoughts
Holding him close
My Aryan warrior
A warm bath
Then the lights go out

Ben Cramer
Copyright ©2007 Ben Cramer
Protagonist
2008-01-12 23:07:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.html
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against
uncivilised tribes" where it could "spread a lively
terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be
able to use gas on less sophisticated enemies who would
have no idea from where the danger they faced came. The
use of gas was banned by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Churchill wanted to use gas on enemies
By Ben Fenton
WINSTON Churchill championed the use of chemical
weapons against what he called "uncivilised tribes",
according to papers released yesterday at the Public
Record Office.
Despite the horrors of the First World War, he called
opposition to the use of gas "squeamishness". Churchill
was Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force in 1919
when his staff were advocating that gas should be
retained as a potential weapon and that Britain should
oppose any international ban on its use.
In a report drawn up in late 1919 as part of Britain's
contribution to discussions about the establishment of
"Chemical warfare cannot now be ruled out of war. Had
the war continued, gas would have been almost our most
formidable weapon. One shell in every four would have
been a gas shell and tanks would have been using it
freely."
The air staff talked of gas shells as if the substances
they contained would cause only temporary disability
rather than the choking death suffered by thousands of
servicemen of both nations on the Western Front. The
official wrote that if gas were to be banned on
humanitarian grounds, so too should conventional
explosives because they were ''far more terrible
weapons which remove limbs, shatter bones, produce
'nerves' and cause madness'".
He added: "The elimination of this very powerful weapon
from the future of war without the most careful
consideration is to be deprecated." A memo by
Churchill, written about the same time and signed
"WSC", said: "I do not understand this squeamishness
about the use of gas.
"It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the
poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and then to
boggle at making his eyes water by means of a
lachrymatory gas. "I am strongly in favour of using
poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes" where it
could "spread a lively terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be
able to use gas on less sophisticated enemies who would
have no idea from where the danger they faced came. The
use of gas was banned by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Oh szaki, you left out that he was so concerned that the
germans would make sea based landings on England that he
had large pipes capable of pumping poison gas
strategically placed at likely landing spots.
Don't you study history?
Your statement is ridicules.
As history proved it, Germans didn't pump any gas against
Allies at Normandy, not even against the Russians, all
though Germans were losing the war!
Churchill's statements meant gas against the Kurds and
Arabs in Iraq, that's why the use of the word "less
sophisticated enemy"! JS
Oh please kurt, can't you read? Where did I talk about
Normandy? Where did I talk about Germans using gas?
I'm not Kurt, idiot!
Second, Germans scraped any landing to England a long time.
Churchill was talking about using gas against the Kurds or
the Iraqis, less sophisticated tribes, using his words.
JS
Moron, if you are going to post as intelligently as kurt, you
will be called kurt.
I don't care that germans scrapped sea lion, that doesn't
change the fact that churchill had gas waiting for them.
Your lying words!
Proof?
JS

I
Post by Its all a bit strange
try to educate you and what do you do...you knollish the
whole thing.
Its all a bit strange
2008-01-13 03:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.html
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas
against uncivilised tribes" where it could "spread a
lively terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be
able to use gas on less sophisticated enemies who
would have no idea from where the danger they faced
came. The use of gas was banned by the 1925 Geneva
protocol.
Churchill wanted to use gas on enemies
By Ben Fenton
WINSTON Churchill championed the use of chemical
weapons against what he called "uncivilised tribes",
according to papers released yesterday at the Public
Record Office.
Despite the horrors of the First World War, he called
opposition to the use of gas "squeamishness".
Churchill was Secretary of State for the Royal Air
Force in 1919 when his staff were advocating that gas
should be retained as a potential weapon and that
Britain should oppose any international ban on its
use.
In a report drawn up in late 1919 as part of
Britain's contribution to discussions about the
establishment of the League of Nations, an Air
Ministry official wrote: "Chemical warfare cannot now
be ruled out of war. Had the war continued, gas would
have been almost our most formidable weapon. One
shell in every four would have been a gas shell and
tanks would have been using it freely."
The air staff talked of gas shells as if the
substances they contained would cause only temporary
disability rather than the choking death suffered by
thousands of servicemen of both nations on the
Western Front. The official wrote that if gas were to
be banned on humanitarian grounds, so too should
conventional explosives because they were ''far more
terrible weapons which remove limbs, shatter bones,
produce 'nerves' and cause madness'".
He added: "The elimination of this very powerful
weapon from the future of war without the most
careful consideration is to be deprecated." A memo by
Churchill, written about the same time and signed
"WSC", said: "I do not understand this squeamishness
about the use of gas.
"It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the
poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and then to
boggle at making his eyes water by means of a
lachrymatory gas. "I am strongly in favour of using
poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes" where it
could "spread a lively terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be
able to use gas on less sophisticated enemies who
would have no idea from where the danger they faced
came. The use of gas was banned by the 1925 Geneva
protocol.
Oh szaki, you left out that he was so concerned that
the germans would make sea based landings on England
that he had large pipes capable of pumping poison gas
strategically placed at likely landing spots.
Don't you study history?
Your statement is ridicules.
As history proved it, Germans didn't pump any gas
against Allies at Normandy, not even against the
Russians, all though Germans were losing the war!
Churchill's statements meant gas against the Kurds and
Arabs in Iraq, that's why the use of the word "less
sophisticated enemy"! JS
Oh please kurt, can't you read? Where did I talk about
Normandy? Where did I talk about Germans using gas?
I'm not Kurt, idiot!
Second, Germans scraped any landing to England a long
time. Churchill was talking about using gas against the
Kurds or the Iraqis, less sophisticated tribes, using his
words. JS
Moron, if you are going to post as intelligently as kurt,
you will be called kurt.
I don't care that germans scrapped sea lion, that doesn't
change the fact that churchill had gas waiting for them.
Your lying words!
Proof?
JS
It seems very likely that the British would have used poison gas
against troops on beaches. General Brooke, in an annotation to
his published war diaries, stated that he "...had every
intention of using sprayed mustard gas on the beaches".[95]
Mustard gas was manufactured as well as chlorine, phosgene and
Paris Green. Poison gases were stored at key points for use by
Bomber Command and in smaller quantities at many more airfields
for use against the beaches. Bombers and crop sprayers would
spray landing craft and beaches with mustard gas and Paris
Green.[96][97]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_anti-
invasion_preparations_of_World_War_II


The RAF bombers attacked the German ports and barges. The RAF
was receiving plenty of new aircraft, but the pilots were
exhausted. Then Churchill orders a bomber raid on Berlin. Hitler
responds by diverting the air attacks to London (thus saving the
airfields from total destruction). The code-breakers at
Bletchley were saviours, together with the 120-mile radar.
Goering's attack therefore fails. Operation Sea Lion is
cancelled due to the Luftwaffe not controlling the skies. But
was Sea Lion a huge bluff? The plan was hopelessly flawed, there
was inadequate preparation, there was no combined staff, there
was no craft that could operate over open beaches. And if the
landings were successful, there may have been a counterattack
(planned by Montgomery), and there was the flaming oil and
poison gas installed on the beaches.


http://samilitaryhistory.org/6/d06augne.html



I will expect an appropriately verbose apology.
Post by Protagonist
I
Post by Its all a bit strange
try to educate you and what do you do...you knollish the
whole thing.
--
Like Minded Mates
Reading from Mein Kampf
Snuggling by the fire
He shares his deepest thoughts
Holding him close
My Aryan warrior
A warm bath
Then the lights go out

Ben Cramer
Copyright ©2007 Ben Cramer
Protagonist
2008-01-13 10:05:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.html
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas
against uncivilised tribes" where it could "spread a
lively terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be
able to use gas on less sophisticated enemies who
would have no idea from where the danger they faced
came. The use of gas was banned by the 1925 Geneva
protocol.
Churchill wanted to use gas on enemies
By Ben Fenton
WINSTON Churchill championed the use of chemical
weapons against what he called "uncivilised tribes",
according to papers released yesterday at the Public
Record Office.
Despite the horrors of the First World War, he called
opposition to the use of gas "squeamishness".
Churchill was Secretary of State for the Royal Air
Force in 1919 when his staff were advocating that gas
should be retained as a potential weapon and that
Britain should oppose any international ban on its
use.
In a report drawn up in late 1919 as part of
Britain's contribution to discussions about the
establishment of the League of Nations, an Air
Ministry official wrote: "Chemical warfare cannot now
be ruled out of war. Had the war continued, gas would
have been almost our most formidable weapon. One
shell in every four would have been a gas shell and
tanks would have been using it freely."
The air staff talked of gas shells as if the
substances they contained would cause only temporary
disability rather than the choking death suffered by
thousands of servicemen of both nations on the
Western Front. The official wrote that if gas were to
be banned on humanitarian grounds, so too should
conventional explosives because they were ''far more
terrible weapons which remove limbs, shatter bones,
produce 'nerves' and cause madness'".
He added: "The elimination of this very powerful
weapon from the future of war without the most
careful consideration is to be deprecated." A memo by
Churchill, written about the same time and signed
"WSC", said: "I do not understand this squeamishness
about the use of gas.
"It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the
poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and then to
boggle at making his eyes water by means of a
lachrymatory gas. "I am strongly in favour of using
poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes" where it
could "spread a lively terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be
able to use gas on less sophisticated enemies who
would have no idea from where the danger they faced
came. The use of gas was banned by the 1925 Geneva
protocol.
Oh szaki, you left out that he was so concerned that
the germans would make sea based landings on England
that he had large pipes capable of pumping poison gas
strategically placed at likely landing spots.
Don't you study history?
Your statement is ridicules.
As history proved it, Germans didn't pump any gas
against Allies at Normandy, not even against the
Russians, all though Germans were losing the war!
Churchill's statements meant gas against the Kurds and
Arabs in Iraq, that's why the use of the word "less
sophisticated enemy"! JS
Oh please kurt, can't you read? Where did I talk about
Normandy? Where did I talk about Germans using gas?
I'm not Kurt, idiot!
Second, Germans scraped any landing to England a long
time. Churchill was talking about using gas against the
Kurds or the Iraqis, less sophisticated tribes, using his
words. JS
Moron, if you are going to post as intelligently as kurt,
you will be called kurt.
I don't care that germans scrapped sea lion, that doesn't
change the fact that churchill had gas waiting for them.
Your lying words!
Proof?
JS
It seems very likely that the British would have used poison gas
against troops on beaches. General Brooke, in an annotation to
his published war diaries, stated that he "...had every
intention of using sprayed mustard gas on the beaches".[95]
Mustard gas was manufactured as well as chlorine, phosgene and
Paris Green. Poison gases were stored at key points for use by
Bomber Command and in smaller quantities at many more airfields
for use against the beaches. Bombers and crop sprayers would
spray landing craft and beaches with mustard gas and Paris
Green.[96][97]
Nice dreaming.
To use gas in the battle field or on a beach, wind, weather is very
important, because the gas can be blown to any direction, killing the
messengers also.
How come the Germans didn't use gas against the Allies in Normandy,
killing or disabling every one?
Post by Its all a bit strange
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_anti-
invasion_preparations_of_World_War_II
The RAF bombers attacked the German ports and barges. The RAF
was receiving plenty of new aircraft, but the pilots were
exhausted. Then Churchill orders a bomber raid on Berlin. Hitler
responds by diverting the air attacks to London (thus saving the
airfields from total destruction). The code-breakers at
Bletchley were saviours, together with the 120-mile radar.
Goering's attack therefore fails. Operation Sea Lion is
cancelled due to the Luftwaffe not controlling the skies. But
was Sea Lion a huge bluff? The plan was hopelessly flawed, there
was inadequate preparation, there was no combined staff, there
was no craft that could operate over open beaches. And if the
landings were successful, there may have been a counterattack
(planned by Montgomery), and there was the flaming oil and
poison gas installed on the beaches.
To land some half million Germans troops to England, would need a large
amount of transport ships, which the Germans didn't have.
Second , I think the Germans would've use gliders and parachutes to drop
some 15-20 thousand well trained troops behind the beaches and secure it.
That's what the Allies did on D-day also.
JS
Post by Its all a bit strange
http://samilitaryhistory.org/6/d06augne.html
I will expect an appropriately verbose apology.
Post by Protagonist
I
Post by Its all a bit strange
try to educate you and what do you do...you knollish the
whole thing.
Its all a bit strange
2008-01-13 11:30:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.html
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas
against uncivilised tribes" where it could "spread
a lively terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to
be able to use gas on less sophisticated enemies
who would have no idea from where the danger they
faced came. The use of gas was banned by the 1925
Geneva protocol.
Churchill wanted to use gas on enemies
By Ben Fenton
WINSTON Churchill championed the use of chemical
weapons against what he called "uncivilised
tribes", according to papers released yesterday at
the Public Record Office.
Despite the horrors of the First World War, he
called opposition to the use of gas
"squeamishness". Churchill was Secretary of State
for the Royal Air Force in 1919 when his staff were
advocating that gas should be retained as a
potential weapon and that Britain should oppose any
international ban on its use.
In a report drawn up in late 1919 as part of
Britain's contribution to discussions about the
establishment of the League of Nations, an Air
Ministry official wrote: "Chemical warfare cannot
now be ruled out of war. Had the war continued, gas
would have been almost our most formidable weapon.
One shell in every four would have been a gas shell
and tanks would have been using it freely."
The air staff talked of gas shells as if the
substances they contained would cause only
temporary disability rather than the choking death
suffered by thousands of servicemen of both nations
on the Western Front. The official wrote that if
gas were to be banned on humanitarian grounds, so
too should conventional explosives because they
were ''far more terrible weapons which remove
limbs, shatter bones, produce 'nerves' and cause
madness'".
He added: "The elimination of this very powerful
weapon from the future of war without the most
careful consideration is to be deprecated." A memo
by Churchill, written about the same time and
signed "WSC", said: "I do not understand this
squeamishness about the use of gas.
"It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the
poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and then to
boggle at making his eyes water by means of a
lachrymatory gas. "I am strongly in favour of using
poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes" where it
could "spread a lively terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to
be able to use gas on less sophisticated enemies
who would have no idea from where the danger they
faced came. The use of gas was banned by the 1925
Geneva protocol.
Oh szaki, you left out that he was so concerned that
the germans would make sea based landings on England
that he had large pipes capable of pumping poison
gas strategically placed at likely landing spots.
Don't you study history?
Your statement is ridicules.
As history proved it, Germans didn't pump any gas
against Allies at Normandy, not even against the
Russians, all though Germans were losing the war!
Churchill's statements meant gas against the Kurds
and Arabs in Iraq, that's why the use of the word
"less sophisticated enemy"! JS
Oh please kurt, can't you read? Where did I talk about
Normandy? Where did I talk about Germans using gas?
I'm not Kurt, idiot!
Second, Germans scraped any landing to England a long
time. Churchill was talking about using gas against the
Kurds or the Iraqis, less sophisticated tribes, using
his words. JS
Moron, if you are going to post as intelligently as
kurt, you will be called kurt.
I don't care that germans scrapped sea lion, that
doesn't change the fact that churchill had gas waiting
for them.
Your lying words!
Proof?
JS
It seems very likely that the British would have used
poison gas against troops on beaches. General Brooke, in
an annotation to his published war diaries, stated that he
"...had every intention of using sprayed mustard gas on
the beaches".[95] Mustard gas was manufactured as well as
chlorine, phosgene and Paris Green. Poison gases were
stored at key points for use by Bomber Command and in
smaller quantities at many more airfields for use against
the beaches. Bombers and crop sprayers would spray landing
craft and beaches with mustard gas and Paris
Green.[96][97]
Nice dreaming.
To use gas in the battle field or on a beach, wind, weather
is very important, because the gas can be blown to any
direction, killing the messengers also.
How come the Germans didn't use gas against the Allies in
Normandy, killing or disabling every one?
Post by Its all a bit strange
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_anti-
invasion_preparations_of_World_War_II
The RAF bombers attacked the German ports and barges. The
RAF was receiving plenty of new aircraft, but the pilots
were exhausted. Then Churchill orders a bomber raid on
Berlin. Hitler responds by diverting the air attacks to
London (thus saving the airfields from total destruction).
The code-breakers at Bletchley were saviours, together
with the 120-mile radar. Goering's attack therefore fails.
Operation Sea Lion is cancelled due to the Luftwaffe not
controlling the skies. But was Sea Lion a huge bluff? The
plan was hopelessly flawed, there was inadequate
preparation, there was no combined staff, there was no
craft that could operate over open beaches. And if the
landings were successful, there may have been a
counterattack (planned by Montgomery), and there was the
flaming oil and poison gas installed on the beaches.
To land some half million Germans troops to England, would
need a large amount of transport ships, which the Germans
didn't have. Second , I think the Germans would've use
gliders and parachutes to drop some 15-20 thousand well
trained troops behind the beaches and secure it. That's
what the Allies did on D-day also. JS
Post by Its all a bit strange
http://samilitaryhistory.org/6/d06augne.html
I will expect an appropriately verbose apology.
Post by Protagonist
I
Post by Its all a bit strange
try to educate you and what do you do...you knollish the
whole thing.
Your failure to apologise is noted. I never discussed how
efficacious such use of gas would be or how stupid the germans
were to think they could cross the channel easily, just that the
use was planned and ready to be implemented. That was my claim,
I've posted proof and you like a typical denier are now trying
to weasel out of apologizing.

The Germans didn't use gas on D-Day because the landings at
Normandy were totally unexpected. In addition, the Germans
depended on quite a few horses which would have been near
impossible to protect. The Germans would have suffered far more
than the allies in any gas attack and had the good common sense
to not initiate one...for fear of reprisal. And reprisal there
would have been.
--
Like Minded Mates
Reading from Mein Kampf
Snuggling by the fire
He shares his deepest thoughts
Holding him close
My Aryan warrior
A warm bath
Then the lights go out

Ben Cramer
Copyright ©2007 Ben Cramer
Richard Warren
2008-01-13 20:50:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.html
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas
against uncivilised tribes" where it could "spread
a lively terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to
be able to use gas on less sophisticated enemies
who would have no idea from where the danger they
faced came. The use of gas was banned by the 1925
Geneva protocol.
Churchill wanted to use gas on enemies
By Ben Fenton
WINSTON Churchill championed the use of chemical
weapons against what he called "uncivilised
tribes", according to papers released yesterday at
the Public Record Office.
Despite the horrors of the First World War, he
called opposition to the use of gas
"squeamishness". Churchill was Secretary of State
for the Royal Air Force in 1919 when his staff were
advocating that gas should be retained as a
potential weapon and that Britain should oppose any
international ban on its use.
In a report drawn up in late 1919 as part of
Britain's contribution to discussions about the
establishment of the League of Nations, an Air
Ministry official wrote: "Chemical warfare cannot
now be ruled out of war. Had the war continued, gas
would have been almost our most formidable weapon.
One shell in every four would have been a gas shell
and tanks would have been using it freely."
The air staff talked of gas shells as if the
substances they contained would cause only
temporary disability rather than the choking death
suffered by thousands of servicemen of both nations
on the Western Front. The official wrote that if
gas were to be banned on humanitarian grounds, so
too should conventional explosives because they
were ''far more terrible weapons which remove
limbs, shatter bones, produce 'nerves' and cause
madness'".
He added: "The elimination of this very powerful
weapon from the future of war without the most
careful consideration is to be deprecated." A memo
by Churchill, written about the same time and
signed "WSC", said: "I do not understand this
squeamishness about the use of gas.
"It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the
poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and then to
boggle at making his eyes water by means of a
lachrymatory gas. "I am strongly in favour of using
poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes" where it
could "spread a lively terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to
be able to use gas on less sophisticated enemies
who would have no idea from where the danger they
faced came. The use of gas was banned by the 1925
Geneva protocol.
Oh szaki, you left out that he was so concerned that
the germans would make sea based landings on England
that he had large pipes capable of pumping poison
gas strategically placed at likely landing spots.
Don't you study history?
Your statement is ridicules.
As history proved it, Germans didn't pump any gas
against Allies at Normandy, not even against the
Russians, all though Germans were losing the war!
Churchill's statements meant gas against the Kurds
and Arabs in Iraq, that's why the use of the word
"less sophisticated enemy"! JS
Oh please kurt, can't you read? Where did I talk about
Normandy? Where did I talk about Germans using gas?
I'm not Kurt, idiot!
Second, Germans scraped any landing to England a long
time. Churchill was talking about using gas against the
Kurds or the Iraqis, less sophisticated tribes, using
his words. JS
Moron, if you are going to post as intelligently as
kurt, you will be called kurt.
I don't care that germans scrapped sea lion, that
doesn't change the fact that churchill had gas waiting
for them.
Your lying words!
Proof?
JS
It seems very likely that the British would have used
poison gas against troops on beaches. General Brooke, in
an annotation to his published war diaries, stated that he
"...had every intention of using sprayed mustard gas on
the beaches".[95] Mustard gas was manufactured as well as
chlorine, phosgene and Paris Green. Poison gases were
stored at key points for use by Bomber Command and in
smaller quantities at many more airfields for use against
the beaches. Bombers and crop sprayers would spray landing
craft and beaches with mustard gas and Paris
Green.[96][97]
Nice dreaming.
To use gas in the battle field or on a beach, wind, weather
is very important, because the gas can be blown to any
direction, killing the messengers also.
How come the Germans didn't use gas against the Allies in
Normandy, killing or disabling every one?
Post by Its all a bit strange
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_anti-
invasion_preparations_of_World_War_II
The RAF bombers attacked the German ports and barges. The
RAF was receiving plenty of new aircraft, but the pilots
were exhausted. Then Churchill orders a bomber raid on
Berlin. Hitler responds by diverting the air attacks to
London (thus saving the airfields from total destruction).
The code-breakers at Bletchley were saviours, together
with the 120-mile radar. Goering's attack therefore fails.
Operation Sea Lion is cancelled due to the Luftwaffe not
controlling the skies. But was Sea Lion a huge bluff? The
plan was hopelessly flawed, there was inadequate
preparation, there was no combined staff, there was no
craft that could operate over open beaches. And if the
landings were successful, there may have been a
counterattack (planned by Montgomery), and there was the
flaming oil and poison gas installed on the beaches.
To land some half million Germans troops to England, would
need a large amount of transport ships, which the Germans
didn't have. Second , I think the Germans would've use
gliders and parachutes to drop some 15-20 thousand well
trained troops behind the beaches and secure it. That's
what the Allies did on D-day also. JS
Post by Its all a bit strange
http://samilitaryhistory.org/6/d06augne.html
I will expect an appropriately verbose apology.
Post by Protagonist
I
Post by Its all a bit strange
try to educate you and what do you do...you knollish the
whole thing.
Your failure to apologise is noted. I never discussed how
efficacious such use of gas would be or how stupid the germans
were to think they could cross the channel easily, just that the
use was planned and ready to be implemented. That was my claim,
I've posted proof and you like a typical denier are now trying
to weasel out of apologizing.
The Germans didn't use gas on D-Day because the landings at
Normandy were totally unexpected.
Not to mention that the prevailing winds were from offshore, so they would
have wound up gassing themselves. Not that that would have been a bad
thing.










In addition, the Germans
Post by Its all a bit strange
depended on quite a few horses which would have been near
impossible to protect. The Germans would have suffered far more
than the allies in any gas attack and had the good common sense
to not initiate one...for fear of reprisal. And reprisal there
would have been.
--
Like Minded Mates
Reading from Mein Kampf
Snuggling by the fire
He shares his deepest thoughts
Holding him close
My Aryan warrior
A warm bath
Then the lights go out
Ben Cramer
Copyright ©2007 Ben Cramer
Protagonist
2008-01-13 21:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.html
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas
against uncivilised tribes" where it could "spread
a lively terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to
be able to use gas on less sophisticated enemies
who would have no idea from where the danger they
faced came. The use of gas was banned by the 1925
Geneva protocol.
Churchill wanted to use gas on enemies
By Ben Fenton
WINSTON Churchill championed the use of chemical
weapons against what he called "uncivilised
tribes", according to papers released yesterday at
the Public Record Office.
Despite the horrors of the First World War, he
called opposition to the use of gas
"squeamishness". Churchill was Secretary of State
for the Royal Air Force in 1919 when his staff were
advocating that gas should be retained as a
potential weapon and that Britain should oppose any
international ban on its use.
In a report drawn up in late 1919 as part of
Britain's contribution to discussions about the
establishment of the League of Nations, an Air
Ministry official wrote: "Chemical warfare cannot
now be ruled out of war. Had the war continued, gas
would have been almost our most formidable weapon.
One shell in every four would have been a gas shell
and tanks would have been using it freely."
The air staff talked of gas shells as if the
substances they contained would cause only
temporary disability rather than the choking death
suffered by thousands of servicemen of both nations
on the Western Front. The official wrote that if
gas were to be banned on humanitarian grounds, so
too should conventional explosives because they
were ''far more terrible weapons which remove
limbs, shatter bones, produce 'nerves' and cause
madness'".
He added: "The elimination of this very powerful
weapon from the future of war without the most
careful consideration is to be deprecated." A memo
by Churchill, written about the same time and
signed "WSC", said: "I do not understand this
squeamishness about the use of gas.
"It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the
poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and then to
boggle at making his eyes water by means of a
lachrymatory gas. "I am strongly in favour of using
poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes" where it
could "spread a lively terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to
be able to use gas on less sophisticated enemies
who would have no idea from where the danger they
faced came. The use of gas was banned by the 1925
Geneva protocol.
Oh szaki, you left out that he was so concerned that
the germans would make sea based landings on England
that he had large pipes capable of pumping poison
gas strategically placed at likely landing spots.
Don't you study history?
Your statement is ridicules.
As history proved it, Germans didn't pump any gas
against Allies at Normandy, not even against the
Russians, all though Germans were losing the war!
Churchill's statements meant gas against the Kurds
and Arabs in Iraq, that's why the use of the word
"less sophisticated enemy"! JS
Oh please kurt, can't you read? Where did I talk about
Normandy? Where did I talk about Germans using gas?
I'm not Kurt, idiot!
Second, Germans scraped any landing to England a long
time. Churchill was talking about using gas against the
Kurds or the Iraqis, less sophisticated tribes, using
his words. JS
Moron, if you are going to post as intelligently as
kurt, you will be called kurt.
I don't care that germans scrapped sea lion, that
doesn't change the fact that churchill had gas waiting
for them.
Your lying words!
Proof?
JS
It seems very likely that the British would have used
poison gas against troops on beaches. General Brooke, in
an annotation to his published war diaries, stated that he
"...had every intention of using sprayed mustard gas on
the beaches".[95] Mustard gas was manufactured as well as
chlorine, phosgene and Paris Green. Poison gases were
stored at key points for use by Bomber Command and in
smaller quantities at many more airfields for use against
the beaches. Bombers and crop sprayers would spray landing
craft and beaches with mustard gas and Paris
Green.[96][97]
Nice dreaming.
To use gas in the battle field or on a beach, wind, weather
is very important, because the gas can be blown to any
direction, killing the messengers also.
How come the Germans didn't use gas against the Allies in
Normandy, killing or disabling every one?
Post by Its all a bit strange
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_anti-
invasion_preparations_of_World_War_II
The RAF bombers attacked the German ports and barges. The
RAF was receiving plenty of new aircraft, but the pilots
were exhausted. Then Churchill orders a bomber raid on
Berlin. Hitler responds by diverting the air attacks to
London (thus saving the airfields from total destruction).
The code-breakers at Bletchley were saviours, together
with the 120-mile radar. Goering's attack therefore fails.
Operation Sea Lion is cancelled due to the Luftwaffe not
controlling the skies. But was Sea Lion a huge bluff? The
plan was hopelessly flawed, there was inadequate
preparation, there was no combined staff, there was no
craft that could operate over open beaches. And if the
landings were successful, there may have been a
counterattack (planned by Montgomery), and there was the
flaming oil and poison gas installed on the beaches.
To land some half million Germans troops to England, would
need a large amount of transport ships, which the Germans
didn't have. Second , I think the Germans would've use
gliders and parachutes to drop some 15-20 thousand well
trained troops behind the beaches and secure it. That's
what the Allies did on D-day also. JS
Post by Its all a bit strange
http://samilitaryhistory.org/6/d06augne.html
I will expect an appropriately verbose apology.
Post by Protagonist
I
Post by Its all a bit strange
try to educate you and what do you do...you knollish the
whole thing.
Your failure to apologise is noted. I never discussed how
efficacious such use of gas would be or how stupid the germans
were to think they could cross the channel easily, just that the
use was planned and ready to be implemented. That was my claim,
I've posted proof and you like a typical denier are now trying
to weasel out of apologizing.
The Germans didn't use gas on D-Day because the landings at
Normandy were totally unexpected.
That's what Ally propaganda wants you to believe.
Germans expected an attack any where, except Normandy was less, because
it was too far North. But was still defended.
German strategy was, lets stand back and wait where they attack, than we
push them back to the sea. It didn't work, because Rommal didn't
believed in Hitler any more, war was lost and his attitude was let the
Allis in or Germany and hole Europe will be concord by the Communist
Soviets.
Not by accident, Hitler gave Rommal the poison pill.

In addition, the Germans
Post by Its all a bit strange
depended on quite a few horses which would have been near
impossible to protect. The Germans would have suffered far more
than the allies in any gas attack and had the good common sense
to not initiate one...for fear of reprisal. And reprisal there
would have been.
Gas in the battle field was all ways hard to control.
In a beach environment, where there all ways changing winds is even
harder, it can be blown back to the messengers easy.
Stay stupid ignoramus.
JS
Its all a bit strange
2008-01-13 23:36:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.html
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas
against uncivilised tribes" where it could
"spread a lively terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful
to be able to use gas on less sophisticated
enemies who would have no idea from where the
danger they faced came. The use of gas was banned
by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Churchill wanted to use gas on enemies
By Ben Fenton
WINSTON Churchill championed the use of chemical
weapons against what he called "uncivilised
tribes", according to papers released yesterday
at the Public Record Office.
Despite the horrors of the First World War, he
called opposition to the use of gas
"squeamishness". Churchill was Secretary of State
for the Royal Air Force in 1919 when his staff
were advocating that gas should be retained as a
potential weapon and that Britain should oppose
any international ban on its use.
In a report drawn up in late 1919 as part of
Britain's contribution to discussions about the
establishment of the League of Nations, an Air
Ministry official wrote: "Chemical warfare cannot
now be ruled out of war. Had the war continued,
gas would have been almost our most formidable
weapon. One shell in every four would have been a
gas shell and tanks would have been using it
freely."
The air staff talked of gas shells as if the
substances they contained would cause only
temporary disability rather than the choking
death suffered by thousands of servicemen of both
that if gas were to be banned on humanitarian
grounds, so too should conventional explosives
because they were ''far more terrible weapons
which remove limbs, shatter bones, produce
'nerves' and cause madness'".
He added: "The elimination of this very powerful
weapon from the future of war without the most
careful consideration is to be deprecated." A
memo by Churchill, written about the same time
and signed "WSC", said: "I do not understand this
squeamishness about the use of gas.
"It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with
the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and
then to boggle at making his eyes water by means
of a lachrymatory gas. "I am strongly in favour
of using poisonous gas against uncivilised
tribes" where it could "spread a lively terror",
he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful
to be able to use gas on less sophisticated
enemies who would have no idea from where the
danger they faced came. The use of gas was banned
by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Oh szaki, you left out that he was so concerned
that the germans would make sea based landings on
England that he had large pipes capable of pumping
poison gas strategically placed at likely landing
spots.
Don't you study history?
Your statement is ridicules.
As history proved it, Germans didn't pump any gas
against Allies at Normandy, not even against the
Russians, all though Germans were losing the war!
Churchill's statements meant gas against the Kurds
and Arabs in Iraq, that's why the use of the word
"less sophisticated enemy"! JS
Oh please kurt, can't you read? Where did I talk
about Normandy? Where did I talk about Germans using
gas?
I'm not Kurt, idiot!
Second, Germans scraped any landing to England a long
time. Churchill was talking about using gas against
the Kurds or the Iraqis, less sophisticated tribes,
using his words. JS
Moron, if you are going to post as intelligently as
kurt, you will be called kurt.
I don't care that germans scrapped sea lion, that
doesn't change the fact that churchill had gas waiting
for them.
Your lying words!
Proof?
JS
It seems very likely that the British would have used
poison gas against troops on beaches. General Brooke, in
an annotation to his published war diaries, stated that
he "...had every intention of using sprayed mustard gas
on the beaches".[95] Mustard gas was manufactured as
well as chlorine, phosgene and Paris Green. Poison gases
were stored at key points for use by Bomber Command and
in smaller quantities at many more airfields for use
against the beaches. Bombers and crop sprayers would
spray landing craft and beaches with mustard gas and
Paris Green.[96][97]
Nice dreaming.
To use gas in the battle field or on a beach, wind,
weather is very important, because the gas can be blown
to any direction, killing the messengers also.
How come the Germans didn't use gas against the Allies in
Normandy, killing or disabling every one?
Post by Its all a bit strange
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_anti-
invasion_preparations_of_World_War_II
The RAF bombers attacked the German ports and barges.
The RAF was receiving plenty of new aircraft, but the
pilots were exhausted. Then Churchill orders a bomber
raid on Berlin. Hitler responds by diverting the air
attacks to London (thus saving the airfields from total
destruction). The code-breakers at Bletchley were
saviours, together with the 120-mile radar. Goering's
attack therefore fails. Operation Sea Lion is cancelled
due to the Luftwaffe not controlling the skies. But was
Sea Lion a huge bluff? The plan was hopelessly flawed,
there was inadequate preparation, there was no combined
staff, there was no craft that could operate over open
beaches. And if the landings were successful, there may
have been a counterattack (planned by Montgomery), and
there was the flaming oil and poison gas installed on
the beaches.
To land some half million Germans troops to England,
would need a large amount of transport ships, which the
Germans didn't have. Second , I think the Germans
would've use gliders and parachutes to drop some 15-20
thousand well trained troops behind the beaches and
secure it. That's what the Allies did on D-day also. JS
Post by Its all a bit strange
http://samilitaryhistory.org/6/d06augne.html
I will expect an appropriately verbose apology.
Post by Protagonist
I
Post by Its all a bit strange
try to educate you and what do you do...you knollish
the whole thing.
Your failure to apologise is noted. I never discussed how
efficacious such use of gas would be or how stupid the
germans were to think they could cross the channel easily,
just that the use was planned and ready to be implemented.
That was my claim, I've posted proof and you like a
typical denier are now trying to weasel out of
apologizing.
The Germans didn't use gas on D-Day because the landings
at Normandy were totally unexpected.
That's what Ally propaganda wants you to believe.
Germans expected an attack any where, except Normandy was
less, because it was too far North.
Knollish translation: The attack on Normandy was totally
unexpected.

But was still defended.
Post by Protagonist
German strategy was, lets stand back and wait where they
attack, than we push them back to the sea. It didn't work,
Because everyone was afraid to wake hitler so they could
commit their troops and tanks.

In addition, what choice did they have? Luftwaffe and
Kriegsmarine were virtually destroyed and they had nothing to
stop the invasion PRIOR to the allies landing.

Side note. The allies noting the buildup of german landing
craft prior to operation sea lion did what? They attacked the
landing craft and destroyed almost all of them. The germans
noticing the large buildup of supplies and material that
could only presage a landing in France did what? Nothing.
Post by Protagonist
because Rommal didn't believed in Hitler any more, war was
lost and his attitude was let the Allis in or Germany and
hole Europe will be concord by the Communist Soviets.
That's a lie. Rommel may not have believed in hitler, but he
was a professional soldier and did everything he could to
protect his troops. Otherwise he would have just surrendered.
Post by Protagonist
Not by accident, Hitler gave Rommal the poison pill.
In addition, the Germans
Post by Its all a bit strange
depended on quite a few horses which would have been near
impossible to protect. The Germans would have suffered far
more than the allies in any gas attack and had the good
common sense to not initiate one...for fear of reprisal.
And reprisal there would have been.
Gas in the battle field was all ways hard to control.
In a beach environment, where there all ways changing winds
is even harder, it can be blown back to the messengers
easy. Stay stupid ignoramus.
JS
Doesn't matter. It wasn't my claim about how smart or
effective.


Still having trouble admitting my claim was correct. Just
like a denier.
--
Like Minded Mates
Reading from Mein Kampf
Snuggling by the fire
He shares his deepest thoughts
Holding him close
My Aryan warrior
A warm bath
Then the lights go out

Ben Cramer
Copyright ©2007 Ben Cramer
Protagonist
2008-01-15 09:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.html
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas
against uncivilised tribes" where it could
"spread a lively terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful
to be able to use gas on less sophisticated
enemies who would have no idea from where the
danger they faced came. The use of gas was banned
by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Churchill wanted to use gas on enemies
By Ben Fenton
WINSTON Churchill championed the use of chemical
weapons against what he called "uncivilised
tribes", according to papers released yesterday
at the Public Record Office.
Despite the horrors of the First World War, he
called opposition to the use of gas
"squeamishness". Churchill was Secretary of State
for the Royal Air Force in 1919 when his staff
were advocating that gas should be retained as a
potential weapon and that Britain should oppose
any international ban on its use.
In a report drawn up in late 1919 as part of
Britain's contribution to discussions about the
establishment of the League of Nations, an Air
Ministry official wrote: "Chemical warfare cannot
now be ruled out of war. Had the war continued,
gas would have been almost our most formidable
weapon. One shell in every four would have been a
gas shell and tanks would have been using it
freely."
The air staff talked of gas shells as if the
substances they contained would cause only
temporary disability rather than the choking
death suffered by thousands of servicemen of both
that if gas were to be banned on humanitarian
grounds, so too should conventional explosives
because they were ''far more terrible weapons
which remove limbs, shatter bones, produce
'nerves' and cause madness'".
He added: "The elimination of this very powerful
weapon from the future of war without the most
careful consideration is to be deprecated." A
memo by Churchill, written about the same time
and signed "WSC", said: "I do not understand this
squeamishness about the use of gas.
"It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with
the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and
then to boggle at making his eyes water by means
of a lachrymatory gas. "I am strongly in favour
of using poisonous gas against uncivilised
tribes" where it could "spread a lively terror",
he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful
to be able to use gas on less sophisticated
enemies who would have no idea from where the
danger they faced came. The use of gas was banned
by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Oh szaki, you left out that he was so concerned
that the germans would make sea based landings on
England that he had large pipes capable of pumping
poison gas strategically placed at likely landing
spots.
Don't you study history?
Your statement is ridicules.
As history proved it, Germans didn't pump any gas
against Allies at Normandy, not even against the
Russians, all though Germans were losing the war!
Churchill's statements meant gas against the Kurds
and Arabs in Iraq, that's why the use of the word
"less sophisticated enemy"! JS
Oh please kurt, can't you read? Where did I talk
about Normandy? Where did I talk about Germans using
gas?
I'm not Kurt, idiot!
Second, Germans scraped any landing to England a long
time. Churchill was talking about using gas against
the Kurds or the Iraqis, less sophisticated tribes,
using his words. JS
Moron, if you are going to post as intelligently as
kurt, you will be called kurt.
I don't care that germans scrapped sea lion, that
doesn't change the fact that churchill had gas waiting
for them.
Your lying words!
Proof?
JS
It seems very likely that the British would have used
poison gas against troops on beaches. General Brooke, in
an annotation to his published war diaries, stated that
he "...had every intention of using sprayed mustard gas
on the beaches".[95] Mustard gas was manufactured as
well as chlorine, phosgene and Paris Green. Poison gases
were stored at key points for use by Bomber Command and
in smaller quantities at many more airfields for use
against the beaches. Bombers and crop sprayers would
spray landing craft and beaches with mustard gas and
Paris Green.[96][97]
Nice dreaming.
To use gas in the battle field or on a beach, wind,
weather is very important, because the gas can be blown
to any direction, killing the messengers also.
How come the Germans didn't use gas against the Allies in
Normandy, killing or disabling every one?
Post by Its all a bit strange
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_anti-
invasion_preparations_of_World_War_II
The RAF bombers attacked the German ports and barges.
The RAF was receiving plenty of new aircraft, but the
pilots were exhausted. Then Churchill orders a bomber
raid on Berlin. Hitler responds by diverting the air
attacks to London (thus saving the airfields from total
destruction). The code-breakers at Bletchley were
saviours, together with the 120-mile radar. Goering's
attack therefore fails. Operation Sea Lion is cancelled
due to the Luftwaffe not controlling the skies. But was
Sea Lion a huge bluff? The plan was hopelessly flawed,
there was inadequate preparation, there was no combined
staff, there was no craft that could operate over open
beaches. And if the landings were successful, there may
have been a counterattack (planned by Montgomery), and
there was the flaming oil and poison gas installed on
the beaches.
To land some half million Germans troops to England,
would need a large amount of transport ships, which the
Germans didn't have. Second , I think the Germans
would've use gliders and parachutes to drop some 15-20
thousand well trained troops behind the beaches and
secure it. That's what the Allies did on D-day also. JS
Post by Its all a bit strange
http://samilitaryhistory.org/6/d06augne.html
I will expect an appropriately verbose apology.
Post by Protagonist
I
Post by Its all a bit strange
try to educate you and what do you do...you knollish
the whole thing.
Your failure to apologise is noted. I never discussed how
efficacious such use of gas would be or how stupid the
germans were to think they could cross the channel easily,
just that the use was planned and ready to be implemented.
That was my claim, I've posted proof and you like a
typical denier are now trying to weasel out of
apologizing.
The Germans didn't use gas on D-Day because the landings
at Normandy were totally unexpected.
That's what Ally propaganda wants you to believe.
Germans expected an attack any where, except Normandy was
less, because it was too far North.
Knollish translation: The attack on Normandy was totally
unexpected.
It was expected any where, but the Germans were convinced if any attack
comes, had to be at high tide.
Allies attacked at low tide, early in the morning.
Normandy was defended with 6 divisions, but was useless against 15
divisions of the Allies, supported by air and naval power.
Post by Its all a bit strange
But was still defended.
Post by Protagonist
German strategy was, lets stand back and wait where they
attack, than we push them back to the sea. It didn't work,
Because everyone was afraid to wake hitler so they could
commit their troops and tanks.
Oh, you watching Hollywood war movies!
Post by Its all a bit strange
In addition, what choice did they have? Luftwaffe and
Kriegsmarine were virtually destroyed and they had nothing to
stop the invasion PRIOR to the allies landing.
Side note. The allies noting the buildup of german landing
craft prior to operation sea lion did what? They attacked the
landing craft and destroyed almost all of them. The germans
noticing the large buildup of supplies and material that
could only presage a landing in France did what? Nothing.
Post by Protagonist
because Rommal didn't believed in Hitler any more, war was
lost and his attitude was let the Allis in or Germany and
hole Europe will be concord by the Communist Soviets.
That's a lie. Rommel may not have believed in hitler, but he
was a professional soldier and did everything he could to
protect his troops. Otherwise he would have just surrendered.
That's why Rommel was implicated indirectly in Hitlers assassination
attempt?
Rommel wanted the Allies to come in, other wise Europe would have been
over run by the Soviets.
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Not by accident, Hitler gave Rommal the poison pill.
In addition, the Germans
Post by Its all a bit strange
depended on quite a few horses which would have been near
impossible to protect. The Germans would have suffered far
more than the allies in any gas attack and had the good
common sense to not initiate one...for fear of reprisal.
And reprisal there would have been.
Gas in the battle field was all ways hard to control.
In a beach environment, where there all ways changing winds
is even harder, it can be blown back to the messengers
easy. Stay stupid ignoramus.
JS
Doesn't matter. It wasn't my claim about how smart or
effective.
Still having trouble admitting my claim was correct. Just
like a denier.
Its all a bit strange
2008-01-15 14:39:26 UTC
Permalink
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.htm
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
l
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas
against uncivilised tribes" where it could
"spread a lively terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful
to be able to use gas on less sophisticated
enemies who would have no idea from where the
danger they faced came. The use of gas was
banned by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Churchill wanted to use gas on enemies
By Ben Fenton
WINSTON Churchill championed the use of
chemical weapons against what he called
"uncivilised tribes", according to papers
released yesterday at the Public Record Office.
Despite the horrors of the First World War, he
called opposition to the use of gas
"squeamishness". Churchill was Secretary of
State for the Royal Air Force in 1919 when his
staff were advocating that gas should be
retained as a potential weapon and that Britain
should oppose any international ban on its use.
In a report drawn up in late 1919 as part of
Britain's contribution to discussions about the
establishment of the League of Nations, an Air
Ministry official wrote: "Chemical warfare
cannot now be ruled out of war. Had the war
continued, gas would have been almost our most
formidable weapon. One shell in every four
would have been a gas shell and tanks would
have been using it freely."
The air staff talked of gas shells as if the
substances they contained would cause only
temporary disability rather than the choking
death suffered by thousands of servicemen of
both nations on the Western Front. The official
wrote that if gas were to be banned on
humanitarian grounds, so too should
conventional explosives because they were ''far
more terrible weapons which remove limbs,
shatter bones, produce 'nerves' and cause
madness'".
He added: "The elimination of this very
powerful weapon from the future of war without
the most careful consideration is to be
deprecated." A memo by Churchill, written about
the same time and signed "WSC", said: "I do not
understand this squeamishness about the use of
gas.
"It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with
the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and
then to boggle at making his eyes water by
means of a lachrymatory gas. "I am strongly in
favour of using poisonous gas against
uncivilised tribes" where it could "spread a
lively terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful
to be able to use gas on less sophisticated
enemies who would have no idea from where the
danger they faced came. The use of gas was
banned by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Oh szaki, you left out that he was so concerned
that the germans would make sea based landings
on England that he had large pipes capable of
pumping poison gas strategically placed at
likely landing spots.
Don't you study history?
Your statement is ridicules.
As history proved it, Germans didn't pump any gas
against Allies at Normandy, not even against the
Russians, all though Germans were losing the war!
Churchill's statements meant gas against the
Kurds and Arabs in Iraq, that's why the use of
the word "less sophisticated enemy"! JS
Oh please kurt, can't you read? Where did I talk
about Normandy? Where did I talk about Germans
using gas?
I'm not Kurt, idiot!
Second, Germans scraped any landing to England a
long time. Churchill was talking about using gas
against the Kurds or the Iraqis, less sophisticated
tribes, using his words. JS
Moron, if you are going to post as intelligently as
kurt, you will be called kurt.
I don't care that germans scrapped sea lion, that
doesn't change the fact that churchill had gas
waiting for them.
Your lying words!
Proof?
JS
It seems very likely that the British would have used
poison gas against troops on beaches. General Brooke,
in an annotation to his published war diaries, stated
that he "...had every intention of using sprayed
mustard gas on the beaches".[95] Mustard gas was
manufactured as well as chlorine, phosgene and Paris
Green. Poison gases were stored at key points for use
by Bomber Command and in smaller quantities at many
more airfields for use against the beaches. Bombers
and crop sprayers would spray landing craft and
beaches with mustard gas and Paris Green.[96][97]
Nice dreaming.
To use gas in the battle field or on a beach, wind,
weather is very important, because the gas can be blown
to any direction, killing the messengers also.
How come the Germans didn't use gas against the Allies
in Normandy, killing or disabling every one?
Post by Its all a bit strange
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_anti-
invasion_preparations_of_World_War_II
The RAF bombers attacked the German ports and barges.
The RAF was receiving plenty of new aircraft, but the
pilots were exhausted. Then Churchill orders a bomber
raid on Berlin. Hitler responds by diverting the air
attacks to London (thus saving the airfields from
total destruction). The code-breakers at Bletchley
were saviours, together with the 120-mile radar.
Goering's attack therefore fails. Operation Sea Lion
is cancelled due to the Luftwaffe not controlling the
skies. But was Sea Lion a huge bluff? The plan was
hopelessly flawed, there was inadequate preparation,
there was no combined staff, there was no craft that
could operate over open beaches. And if the landings
were successful, there may have been a counterattack
(planned by Montgomery), and there was the flaming oil
and poison gas installed on the beaches.
To land some half million Germans troops to England,
would need a large amount of transport ships, which the
Germans didn't have. Second , I think the Germans
would've use gliders and parachutes to drop some 15-20
thousand well trained troops behind the beaches and
secure it. That's what the Allies did on D-day also. JS
Post by Its all a bit strange
http://samilitaryhistory.org/6/d06augne.html
I will expect an appropriately verbose apology.
Post by Protagonist
I
Post by Its all a bit strange
try to educate you and what do you do...you knollish
the whole thing.
Your failure to apologise is noted. I never discussed
how efficacious such use of gas would be or how stupid
the germans were to think they could cross the channel
easily, just that the use was planned and ready to be
implemented. That was my claim, I've posted proof and
you like a typical denier are now trying to weasel out
of apologizing.
The Germans didn't use gas on D-Day because the landings
at Normandy were totally unexpected.
That's what Ally propaganda wants you to believe.
Germans expected an attack any where, except Normandy was
less, because it was too far North.
Knollish translation: The attack on Normandy was totally
unexpected.
It was expected any where, but the Germans were convinced
if any attack comes, had to be at high tide.
Allies attacked at low tide, early in the morning.
Normandy was defended with 6 divisions, but was useless
against 15 divisions of the Allies, supported by air and
naval power.
Translation: The attack on Normandy was totally unexpected.
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
But was still defended.
Post by Protagonist
German strategy was, lets stand back and wait where they
attack, than we push them back to the sea. It didn't
work,
Because everyone was afraid to wake hitler so they could
commit their troops and tanks.
Oh, you watching Hollywood war movies!
We've previously established that movies are an acceptable
primary source of information.
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
In addition, what choice did they have? Luftwaffe and
Kriegsmarine were virtually destroyed and they had nothing
to stop the invasion PRIOR to the allies landing.
Side note. The allies noting the buildup of german landing
craft prior to operation sea lion did what? They attacked
the landing craft and destroyed almost all of them. The
germans noticing the large buildup of supplies and
material that could only presage a landing in France did
what? Nothing.
Post by Protagonist
because Rommal didn't believed in Hitler any more, war
was lost and his attitude was let the Allis in or Germany
and hole Europe will be concord by the Communist Soviets.
That's a lie. Rommel may not have believed in hitler, but
he was a professional soldier and did everything he could
to protect his troops. Otherwise he would have just
surrendered.
That's why Rommel was implicated indirectly in Hitlers
assassination attempt?
Rommel wanted the Allies to come in, other wise Europe
would have been over run by the Soviets.
What Rommel wanted would have never interfered with his duty
and honor as an officer. He would never have put his troops
in danger for this. He could just as easily have ordered the
military resources to stand down or have mis-directed them,
but he didn't.


Give up this attempt to impress us with your lack of military
history and knowledge, you fucked in the head, worn out,
tired, mentally dysfunctional old failure
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
Not by accident, Hitler gave Rommal the poison pill.
In addition, the Germans
Post by Its all a bit strange
depended on quite a few horses which would have been
near impossible to protect. The Germans would have
suffered far more than the allies in any gas attack and
had the good common sense to not initiate one...for fear
of reprisal. And reprisal there would have been.
Gas in the battle field was all ways hard to control.
In a beach environment, where there all ways changing
winds is even harder, it can be blown back to the
messengers easy. Stay stupid ignoramus.
JS
Doesn't matter. It wasn't my claim about how smart or
effective.
Still having trouble admitting my claim was correct. Just
like a denier.
--
Like Minded Mates
Reading from Mein Kampf
Snuggling by the fire
He shares his deepest thoughts
Holding him close
My Aryan warrior
A warm bath
Then the lights go out

Ben Cramer
Copyright ©2007 Ben Cramer
turan*@shaw.ca
2008-01-13 19:19:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Protagonist
Second , I think the Germans would've use gliders and parachutes to drop
some 15-20 thousand well trained troops behind the beaches and secure it.
i don't think so

they tried that already at crete, and it did not turn out well

********************************************
"Crete was the scene of the largest German Airborne operation of the
war, and the first time in history that an island had been taken by
airborne assault. Afterwards, Crete was dubbed the graveyard of the
Fallschirmjager (German Parachutists); they suffered nearly 4000
killed and missing in the assault. It was also the first time the
Germans had encountered stiff partisan activity, with women and even
children getting involved in the battle. ....Turning to Student, the
Fuhrer said quietly: "Of course, General you know that after Crete we
shall never do another Airborne operation. The parachute arm is one
that relies entirely on surprise. That surprise factor has now
exhausted itself...the day of the Paratroops is over".

http://www.explorecrete.com/preveli/battle-of-crete.html
Protagonist
2008-01-13 21:38:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by turan*@shaw.ca
Post by Protagonist
Second , I think the Germans would've use gliders and parachutes to drop
some 15-20 thousand well trained troops behind the beaches and secure it.
i don't think so
they tried that already at crete, and it did not turn out well
Crete worked, but with heavy casualties. Out of 10,000 some 3500 dead.
But Crete was a rocky, desert like island, many died or wounded by
crashing into the rocks.
England is a different ball game.
D-day started the same way, heavy bombardment and thousands of
parachutors dropped behind the German lines, securing bridges and
creating chaos .

"The Normandy invasion began with overnight parachute and glider
landings, massive air attacks, naval bombardments, an early morning
amphibious landing and during the evening the remaining elements of the
parachute divisions landed. The "D-Day" forces deployed from bases along
the south coast of England, the most important of these being
Portsmouth.[11]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Normandy
Post by turan*@shaw.ca
********************************************
"Crete was the scene of the largest German Airborne operation of the
war, and the first time in history that an island had been taken by
airborne assault. Afterwards, Crete was dubbed the graveyard of the
Fallschirmjager (German Parachutists); they suffered nearly 4000
killed and missing in the assault. It was also the first time the
Germans had encountered stiff partisan activity, with women and even
children getting involved in the battle. ....Turning to Student, the
Fuhrer said quietly: "Of course, General you know that after Crete we
shall never do another Airborne operation. The parachute arm is one
that relies entirely on surprise. That surprise factor has now
exhausted itself...the day of the Paratroops is over".
http://www.explorecrete.com/preveli/battle-of-crete.html
turan*@shaw.ca
2008-01-13 22:11:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Protagonist
Crete worked, but with heavy casualties. Out of 10,000 some 3500 dead.
remarkable!

you're even a smarter and bigger strategist than your fuhrer was :-)>
Post by Protagonist
...."the
Fuhrer said quietly: "Of course, General you know that after Crete we
shall never do another Airborne operation. The parachute arm is one
that relies entirely on surprise. That surprise factor has now
exhausted itself...the day of the Paratroops is over".
Protagonist
2008-01-13 21:44:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by turan*@shaw.ca
Post by Protagonist
Second , I think the Germans would've use gliders and parachutes to drop
some 15-20 thousand well trained troops behind the beaches and secure it.
i don't think so
they tried that already at crete, and it did not turn out well
********************************************
"Crete was the scene of the largest German Airborne operation of the
war, and the first time in history that an island had been taken by
airborne assault. Afterwards, Crete was dubbed the graveyard of the
Fallschirmjager (German Parachutists); they suffered nearly 4000
killed and missing in the assault. It was also the first time the
Germans had encountered stiff partisan activity, with women and even
children getting involved in the battle. ....Turning to Student, the
Fuhrer said quietly: "Of course, General you know that after Crete we
shall never do another Airborne operation. The parachute arm is one
that relies entirely on surprise. That surprise factor has now
exhausted itself...the day of the Paratroops is over".
http://www.explorecrete.com/preveli/battle-of-crete.html
At Normandy Germans had only 6 divisions, while the Allies landed some
15 divisions in 3 waves.
Way out numbered, but the Germans had the high ground.
JS
turan*@shaw.ca
2008-01-13 22:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Protagonist
Post by turan*@shaw.ca
Post by Protagonist
Second , I think the Germans would've use gliders and parachutes to drop
some 15-20 thousand well trained troops behind the beaches and secure it.
i don't think so
they tried that already at crete, and it did not turn out well
********************************************
"Crete was the scene of the largest German Airborne operation of the
war, and the first time in history that an island had been taken by
airborne assault. Afterwards, Crete was dubbed the graveyard of the
Fallschirmjager (German Parachutists); they suffered nearly 4000
killed and missing in the assault. It was also the first time the
Germans had encountered stiff partisan activity, with women and even
children getting involved in the battle. ....Turning to Student, the
Fuhrer said quietly: "Of course, General you know that after Crete we
shall never do another Airborne operation. The parachute arm is one
that relies entirely on surprise. That surprise factor has now
exhausted itself...the day of the Paratroops is over".
http://www.explorecrete.com/preveli/battle-of-crete.html
At Normandy Germans had only 6 divisions, while the Allies landed some
15 divisions in 3 waves.
Way out numbered, but the Germans had the high ground.
JS
we are talking about operation sea lion

the allied paratroop operation even on d-day was also failure
and they would have been wiped out totally if it wasn't
for the landing of those "15 divisions in 3 waves"

obviously the nazis couldn't even dream about landing such force
during operation sea lion, so what's your point?
Its all a bit strange
2008-01-13 23:37:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:44:09 -0800, Protagonist
Post by Protagonist
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:05:59 -0800, Protagonist
Post by Protagonist
Second , I think the Germans would've use gliders and
parachutes to drop some 15-20 thousand well trained
troops behind the beaches and secure it.
i don't think so
they tried that already at crete, and it did not turn out
well
********************************************
"Crete was the scene of the largest German Airborne
operation of the war, and the first time in history that
an island had been taken by airborne assault. Afterwards,
Crete was dubbed the graveyard of the Fallschirmjager
(German Parachutists); they suffered nearly 4000 killed
and missing in the assault. It was also the first time
the Germans had encountered stiff partisan activity, with
women and even children getting involved in the battle.
....Turning to Student, the Fuhrer said quietly: "Of
course, General you know that after Crete we shall never
do another Airborne operation. The parachute arm is one
that relies entirely on surprise. That surprise factor
has now exhausted itself...the day of the Paratroops is
over".
http://www.explorecrete.com/preveli/battle-of-crete.html
At Normandy Germans had only 6 divisions, while the Allies
landed some 15 divisions in 3 waves.
Way out numbered, but the Germans had the high ground.
JS
we are talking about operation sea lion
the allied paratroop operation even on d-day was also
failure and they would have been wiped out totally if it
wasn't for the landing of those "15 divisions in 3 waves"
obviously the nazis couldn't even dream about landing such
force during operation sea lion, so what's your point?
His point is to ignore the fact that I've proved my point and
he owes me an apology. Unfortunately deniers don't do
apologies.
--
Like Minded Mates
Reading from Mein Kampf
Snuggling by the fire
He shares his deepest thoughts
Holding him close
My Aryan warrior
A warm bath
Then the lights go out

Ben Cramer
Copyright ©2007 Ben Cramer
Protagonist
2008-01-15 10:07:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Its all a bit strange
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:44:09 -0800, Protagonist
Post by Protagonist
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:05:59 -0800, Protagonist
Post by Protagonist
Second , I think the Germans would've use gliders and
parachutes to drop some 15-20 thousand well trained
troops behind the beaches and secure it.
i don't think so
they tried that already at crete, and it did not turn out
well
********************************************
"Crete was the scene of the largest German Airborne
operation of the war, and the first time in history that
an island had been taken by airborne assault. Afterwards,
Crete was dubbed the graveyard of the Fallschirmjager
(German Parachutists); they suffered nearly 4000 killed
and missing in the assault. It was also the first time
the Germans had encountered stiff partisan activity, with
women and even children getting involved in the battle.
....Turning to Student, the Fuhrer said quietly: "Of
course, General you know that after Crete we shall never
do another Airborne operation. The parachute arm is one
that relies entirely on surprise. That surprise factor
has now exhausted itself...the day of the Paratroops is
over".
http://www.explorecrete.com/preveli/battle-of-crete.html
At Normandy Germans had only 6 divisions, while the Allies
landed some 15 divisions in 3 waves.
Way out numbered, but the Germans had the high ground.
JS
we are talking about operation sea lion
the allied paratroop operation even on d-day was also
failure and they would have been wiped out totally if it
wasn't for the landing of those "15 divisions in 3 waves"
obviously the nazis couldn't even dream about landing such
force during operation sea lion, so what's your point?
His point is to ignore the fact that I've proved my point and
he owes me an apology. Unfortunately deniers don't do
apologies.
Please, don't play the stock market, because you all ways want to be right!
Self centered, idiot!
JS
Its all a bit strange
2008-01-15 14:33:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:44:09 -0800, Protagonist
Post by Protagonist
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:05:59 -0800, Protagonist
Post by Protagonist
Second , I think the Germans would've use gliders and
parachutes to drop some 15-20 thousand well trained
troops behind the beaches and secure it.
i don't think so
they tried that already at crete, and it did not turn
out well
********************************************
"Crete was the scene of the largest German Airborne
operation of the war, and the first time in history
that an island had been taken by airborne assault.
Afterwards, Crete was dubbed the graveyard of the
Fallschirmjager (German Parachutists); they suffered
nearly 4000 killed and missing in the assault. It was
also the first time the Germans had encountered stiff
partisan activity, with women and even children getting
involved in the battle. ....Turning to Student, the
Fuhrer said quietly: "Of course, General you know that
after Crete we shall never do another Airborne
operation. The parachute arm is one that relies
entirely on surprise. That surprise factor has now
exhausted itself...the day of the Paratroops is over".
http://www.explorecrete.com/preveli/battle-of-
crete.html
Post by Protagonist
Post by Its all a bit strange
Post by Protagonist
At Normandy Germans had only 6 divisions, while the
Allies landed some 15 divisions in 3 waves.
Way out numbered, but the Germans had the high ground.
JS
we are talking about operation sea lion
the allied paratroop operation even on d-day was also
failure and they would have been wiped out totally if it
wasn't for the landing of those "15 divisions in 3 waves"
obviously the nazis couldn't even dream about landing
such force during operation sea lion, so what's your
point?
His point is to ignore the fact that I've proved my point
and he owes me an apology. Unfortunately deniers don't do
apologies.
Please, don't play the stock market, because you all ways
want to be right! Self centered, idiot!
JS
Whereas you would play the stock market to lose? Typical
denier behaviour.

But what has that got to do with your failure to acknowledge
you were wrong you fucked in the head, worn out, tired,
mentally dysfunctional old failure?
--
Like Minded Mates
Reading from Mein Kampf
Snuggling by the fire
He shares his deepest thoughts
Holding him close
My Aryan warrior
A warm bath
Then the lights go out

Ben Cramer
Copyright ©2007 Ben Cramer
Protagonist
2008-01-15 10:06:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by turan*@shaw.ca
Post by Protagonist
Post by turan*@shaw.ca
Post by Protagonist
Second , I think the Germans would've use gliders and parachutes to drop
some 15-20 thousand well trained troops behind the beaches and secure it.
i don't think so
they tried that already at crete, and it did not turn out well
********************************************
"Crete was the scene of the largest German Airborne operation of the
war, and the first time in history that an island had been taken by
airborne assault. Afterwards, Crete was dubbed the graveyard of the
Fallschirmjager (German Parachutists); they suffered nearly 4000
killed and missing in the assault. It was also the first time the
Germans had encountered stiff partisan activity, with women and even
children getting involved in the battle. ....Turning to Student, the
Fuhrer said quietly: "Of course, General you know that after Crete we
shall never do another Airborne operation. The parachute arm is one
that relies entirely on surprise. That surprise factor has now
exhausted itself...the day of the Paratroops is over".
http://www.explorecrete.com/preveli/battle-of-crete.html
At Normandy Germans had only 6 divisions, while the Allies landed some
15 divisions in 3 waves.
Way out numbered, but the Germans had the high ground.
JS
we are talking about operation sea lion
the allied paratroop operation even on d-day was also failure
and they would have been wiped out totally if it wasn't
for the landing of those "15 divisions in 3 waves"
obviously the nazis couldn't even dream about landing such force
during operation sea lion, so what's your point?
That was just a plan, other plans had to succeed before Sea lion to
work, like beating the royal air and naval force.
JS
Its all a bit strange
2008-01-15 14:32:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Protagonist
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:44:09 -0800, Protagonist
Post by Protagonist
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:05:59 -0800, Protagonist
Post by Protagonist
Second , I think the Germans would've use gliders and
parachutes to drop some 15-20 thousand well trained
troops behind the beaches and secure it.
i don't think so
they tried that already at crete, and it did not turn
out well
********************************************
"Crete was the scene of the largest German Airborne
operation of the war, and the first time in history that
an island had been taken by airborne assault.
Afterwards, Crete was dubbed the graveyard of the
Fallschirmjager (German Parachutists); they suffered
nearly 4000 killed and missing in the assault. It was
also the first time the Germans had encountered stiff
partisan activity, with women and even children getting
involved in the battle. ....Turning to Student, the
Fuhrer said quietly: "Of course, General you know that
after Crete we shall never do another Airborne
operation. The parachute arm is one that relies entirely
on surprise. That surprise factor has now exhausted
itself...the day of the Paratroops is over".
http://www.explorecrete.com/preveli/battle-of-crete.html
At Normandy Germans had only 6 divisions, while the
Allies landed some 15 divisions in 3 waves.
Way out numbered, but the Germans had the high ground.
JS
we are talking about operation sea lion
the allied paratroop operation even on d-day was also
failure and they would have been wiped out totally if it
wasn't for the landing of those "15 divisions in 3 waves"
obviously the nazis couldn't even dream about landing such
force during operation sea lion, so what's your point?
That was just a plan, other plans had to succeed before Sea
lion to work, like beating the royal air and naval force.
JS
yes captain obvious. but what has that got to do with the
fact that churchill was ready and willing to use gas on
english beaches if germans landed?
--
Like Minded Mates
Reading from Mein Kampf
Snuggling by the fire
He shares his deepest thoughts
Holding him close
My Aryan warrior
A warm bath
Then the lights go out

Ben Cramer
Copyright ©2007 Ben Cramer
turan*@shaw.ca
2008-01-15 17:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Protagonist
other plans had to succeed before Sea lion to
work, like beating the royal air and naval force.
:-)>
Arthur Rosendahl
2008-01-12 15:49:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Protagonist
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.html
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised
tribes" where it could "spread a lively terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be able to use gas on
less sophisticated enemies who would have no idea from where the danger
they faced came. The use of gas was banned by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Churchill wanted to use gas on enemies
When you see the fact that the Germans used gas against Jews, gypsies and
civilians even after the end of ww2. why should the Allied not use gas
against the GermŽs. The fact that they abstained from using this on
civilians just show the degree of civilised behaviour from the allied
forces.
Protagonist
2008-01-12 18:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Rosendahl
Post by Protagonist
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.html
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised
tribes" where it could "spread a lively terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be able to use gas on
less sophisticated enemies who would have no idea from where the danger
they faced came. The use of gas was banned by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Churchill wanted to use gas on enemies
When you see the fact that the Germans used gas against Jews, gypsies and
civilians even after the end of ww2.
Where did the Germans use gas against civilians against the above
mentioned tribes, even after WW2, idiot?
Put your money where your mouth is!

why should the Allied not use gas
Post by Arthur Rosendahl
against the Germ´s. The fact that they abstained from using this on
civilians just show the degree of civilised behaviour from the allied
forces.
Uhh! Like dropping 2 Nukes on two undefended cities?
Very civilized!
JS
Its all a bit strange
2008-01-12 22:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Protagonist
Post by Arthur Rosendahl
Post by Protagonist
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.html
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against
uncivilised tribes" where it could "spread a lively
terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be
able to use gas on less sophisticated enemies who would
have no idea from where the danger they faced came. The
use of gas was banned by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Churchill wanted to use gas on enemies
When you see the fact that the Germans used gas against
Jews, gypsies and civilians even after the end of ww2.
Where did the Germans use gas against civilians against the
above mentioned tribes, even after WW2, idiot?
Put your money where your mouth is!
This from szaki who never posts proof? LOL, you must be getting
desperate for attention.
Post by Protagonist
why should the Allied not use gas
Post by Arthur Rosendahl
against the GermŽs. The fact that they abstained from
using this on civilians just show the degree of civilised
behaviour from the allied forces.
Uhh! Like dropping 2 Nukes on two undefended cities?
Asshat, undefended cities would be the ones germans bombed,
Guernica, Warsaw and Rotterdam.

Nagasaki was the Imperial Army Military Headquarters, it was
hardly undefended. No major city in Japan was undefended.
Post by Protagonist
Very civilized!
JS
--
Like Minded Mates
Reading from Mein Kampf
Snuggling by the fire
He shares his deepest thoughts
Holding him close
My Aryan warrior
A warm bath
Then the lights go out

Ben Cramer
Copyright ©2007 Ben Cramer
B'inyamin C'r'amer
2008-01-12 23:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Rosendahl
Post by Protagonist
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.html
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised
tribes" where it could "spread a lively terror", he added.
The Air Ministry agreed that it was most useful to be able to use gas on
less sophisticated enemies who would have no idea from where the danger
they faced came. The use of gas was banned by the 1925 Geneva protocol.
Churchill wanted to use gas on enemies
When you see the fact that the Germans used gas against Jews, gypsies and
civilians even after the end of ww2.
Did they? Care to provide a little more information?
turan*@shaw.ca
2008-01-14 01:18:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:43:32 +1000, "B'inyamin C'r'amer"
Post by B'inyamin C'r'amer
Post by Arthur Rosendahl
When you see the fact that the Germans used gas against Jews, gypsies and
civilians even after the end of ww2.
Did they? Care to provide a little more information?
information is widely available

why don't you educate yourself a tiny bit?

"On 15 May 1943 representatives of the Italian Fascist party visited
Minsk. The general commissioner for Byelorussia, whose name was Kube,
showed them a church that was being used as a warehouse. A diplomat
named von Thadden, who held the rank of legation counselor, first
class, and was then stationed at the Foreign Office in Berlin, heard
about this visit from another legation counselor, von Rademacher, and
made the following note in his diary on 15 May 1943: "The Italians
asked about the little packages and suitcases that were piled up in
the church. Kube explained that that was all that was left of the Jews
who had been deported from Minsk. Then he showed them a gas chamber in
which he said Jews had been gassed. The Fascists were severely
shaken."

(Archiv des Auswäetigen Amtes, ref. K-206919/Archives of the Foreign
Office of the Federal Republic of Germany)

http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/documents/et.html
Protagonist
2008-01-15 10:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by turan*@shaw.ca
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:43:32 +1000, "B'inyamin C'r'amer"
Post by B'inyamin C'r'amer
Post by Arthur Rosendahl
When you see the fact that the Germans used gas against Jews, gypsies and
civilians even after the end of ww2.
Did they? Care to provide a little more information?
information is widely available
why don't you educate yourself a tiny bit?
"On 15 May 1943 representatives of the Italian Fascist party visited
Minsk. The general commissioner for Byelorussia, whose name was Kube,
showed them a church that was being used as a warehouse. A diplomat
named von Thadden, who held the rank of legation counselor, first
class, and was then stationed at the Foreign Office in Berlin, heard
about this visit from another legation counselor, von Rademacher, and
made the following note in his diary on 15 May 1943: "The Italians
asked about the little packages and suitcases that were piled up in
the church. Kube explained that that was all that was left of the Jews
who had been deported from Minsk. Then he showed them a gas chamber in
which he said Jews had been gassed. The Fascists were severely
shaken."
(Archiv des Auswäetigen Amtes, ref. K-206919/Archives of the Foreign
Office of the Federal Republic of Germany)
http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/documents/et.html
Jewish Holohoax website, idiot Turuszki!
Must be true!
JS
turan*@shaw.ca
2008-01-15 17:20:38 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 02:11:18 -0800, Protagonist <***@comcast.net>
wrote:

(...)
Post by Protagonist
Post by turan*@shaw.ca
(Archiv des Auswäetigen Amtes, ref. K-206919/Archives of the Foreign
Office of the Federal Republic of Germany)
http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/documents/et.html
Jewish Holohoax website, idiot Turuszki!
Must be true!
yeah, you're right snarly pants :-)>

the german government must be jewish too

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...