Talk:Chemical weapons and the United Kingdom

Rename needed
I dislike the present title Churchill's 1944 'Plans' to Use Poison Gas and Anthrax. First thing is that Caps Are Not needed per WP:MOS. But what really troubles me is the word "Plans". I'd like to ask: what is the intended topic of this article? The Churchill's "plans"? Or, simply, Churchill's plans? Or, maybe, Churchill's consideration? Or, maybe, Churchill's order of anthrax bombs? Or the post-war debate regarding Churchill? Debate about whether this was an actual plan or simply a consideration of plan? Debate about Churchill's morality? Or the post-war speculation about "what would happen if" (this topic would be unworthy including in encyclopedia, let's leave it in books/articles)? I don't really know, and this article does not specify this. It seems to be a bit about everything that and more. --Kubanczyk (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

REPLY: The points you raise are both valid and thought-provoking. Other possible titles are: 'Churchill's 1944 proposals to use poison gas and, possibly, anthrax', 'Churchill, poison gas and anthrax' or: 'Churchill's 1944 poison gas memorandum and anthrax'. I feel that the original title is more accurate and clearer than these - but I'm not precious about the title. However, I do think it essential that wikipedia has an entry for this subject. The entry is supposed to be a short introduction to the basic facts of the issue and the resulting debate. (It could be added to the WW2 carpet bombing entry but unfortunately it doesn't quite fit there).

The facts of the 1944 memorandum and the various responses at the time are, of course, more important than the more recent debates. But the fact that there was such a debate is surely worthy of a mention in wikipedia (note 1 now lists some of that debate across different media). Moreover the debate makes an important contribution to our understanding of how and why belligerent states can descend into mass killing. The debate also adds greatly both to our understanding of Churchill and World War Two and to our understanding of the Cold War and deterrence.

Of course, wikipedia cannot have an entry on every 'what would happen if?' in military history. But, as the debate, and other references to the issue in various books, show, it is probably impossible to raise this whole terrifying subject without asking: 'What if the circumstances had been a little different?'. (Indeed it could be said that the whole subject of deterrence is often about 'what would happen if?'.) In the wake of much of the debate, Robert Harris's measured assessment of the issues (in his book) combined with Julian Lewis's later conclusions may not be the last words on the subject but they are the most considered and wikipedia readers deserve to be introduced to them.805samuel (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is just an encyclopedia. I'm not here to intellectually provoke, just to state the most obvious, the most known, the most balanced version of actual events. Let the reader research further, I they wish, let them read books, let them ask their own questions. For me, the most striking impression is: this article puts two words together in a sentence, and the words are "Churchill" and "anthrax". When it comes to the title, can we agree to leave "poison gas" out to simplify matters? --Kubanczyk (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just read the sources provided. Firsts things first - if there is no article "X" in Wikipedia because topic is not notable enough, we do not need "Debate about X" here. Sourced facts about anthrax: empty bombs have been ordered but not produced, anthrax for the bombs have not been ordered, there were visions (not operational plans) of destroying six german cities, not known if these visions were of the first strike or of retaliatory attack only. Therefore, Churchill anthrax bombs allegation - should not be included in Wikipedia, if you ask me. Sourced facts about gas: gas was actually produced; Churchill pressed on using gas against civilians/cities; this was not approved; he also pressed for planning the first strike; such operational plans were not prepared. Therefore, Churchill's advocacy of chemical strike against German cities. This is my proposition for the title of the article. --Kubanczyk (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. --Kubanczyk (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The Churchill Anthrax debate
I'm keen to introduce people to the Churchill anthrax debate rather than continue it. So, in the spirit of compromise, I accept most of your changes. These were to change the title and to replace version 1) with version 2):

VERSION 1)
 * The Vice Chiefs of Staff told the JPS that Churchill also wanted 'any other method of warfare which we have hitherto refrained from using' included in their review. Consequently the JPS considered the use of anthrax weapons. They then ruled this out - but solely on the grounds that the half a million anthrax bombs, which Churchill had earlier ordered from the US, were not yet available.[4]  ...


 * Debate


 * Robert Harris has suggested that if the anthrax bombs had been ready in time, they might have been used in 1944. He also says that if things had got 'worse' - for example if the Western front had deadlocked into trench warfare as Churchill feared - then the Allies might have used either gas or anthrax later in the war.[5] Julian Lewis, however, argues that, whatever his views on gas, Churchill had no intention to use anthrax bombs except as a deterrent.[6] It is also clear that the American leadership were reluctant to use gas or anthrax at this time.[7]


 * Nevertheless, these arguments do not appear to contradict Harris's substantive point that the Allies might have changed their approach. Harris concludes his argument by pointing out that when 'a weapon comparable to biological warfare - the atomic bomb - was actually in existence, and offered a chance to shorten the war, the Americans used it. Why, from an ethical or political point of view, should germ warfare have been regarded any differently?'[8]


 * Notes


 * 4. Paxman and Harris, p131-5, 100-6.
 * 5. Paxman and Harris, p135-6.
 * 6. R.V. Jones and J.M. Lewis, Churchill's Anthrax Bombs - a debate
 * 7. Paxman and Harris, p116-8. Despite Roosevelt's reluctance to use gas, the US military did make plans to saturate Japan with phosgene gas in the expectation that this 'might easily kill five million people'. Kim Coleman, A History of Chemical Warfare, p74.
 * 8. Paxman and Harris, p136-7, 103-15.

VERSION 2)
 * At the same time, the JPS examined the case of using anthrax bioweapons against six large German cities, but ruled this out. A large batch of empty aerial bombs to be later filled with anthrax have been ordered, but not produced. There were no attempts made to prepare any large scale production of anthrax.


 * Robert Harris argues that as soon as another weapon of mass destruction - the atomic bomb - became available, and offered a chance to shorten the war, the Americans used it. 'Why, from an ethical or political point of view, should germ warfare have been regarded any differently?

However would it not be more accurate to say the following:


 * At the same time, the JPS examined the case of using anthrax bioweapons against six large German cities, but ruled this out on the grounds that the anthrax bombs were not yet available. Half a million bombs were ordered from the US, but by the time the factory was ready to produce them, they were deemed unnecessary as the war in Europe was almost over.


 * Robert Harris argues that as soon as another weapon of mass destruction - the atomic bomb - was available to help shorten the war against Japan, the Allies used it. 'Why, from an ethical or political point of view, should germ warfare have been regarded any differently?

I suggest this change because it seems to be agreed by all that:

1) Churchill did order 1\2 million filled anthrax bombs from the US, not just empty cases. Indeed in May 1944 Churchill wrote: "Great progress has been made in bacteriological warfare and we have ordered a half a million bombs from America" (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol.4 no.4 p42; Paxman & Harris p101).

2) It's not clear exactly how many bombs were produced. However the largest anthrax factory, in Indiana, was built at the cost of $8 million and was ready to produce over 1/2 million bombs per month by early in 1945. (Paxman p103; BAS, p43) (Of course, by then Germany's defeat was certain so there was no need to produce any more anthrax bombs. However things were very different in the summer of 1944, when Churchill understandably feared a repeat of years of trench warfare in France, and so was seriously contemplating doing '"anything"' to break the deadlock.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel-two (talk • contribs) 11:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could we continue this as described in WP:BRD? Step by step. --Kubanczyk (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Penultimate paragraph has been altered to this:

At the same time, the JPS examined the case of using anthrax bioweapons against six large German cities but ruled this out on the grounds that the anthrax bombs were not yet available.[4] A large batch of aerial bombs were ordered but by the time the US factory was ready to produce them, they were deemed unnecessary as the war in Europe was almost over. [5] [6] This is now more accurate and hopefully uncontroversial. thanks! Samson--too (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * --Kubanczyk (talk) 07:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Article on Churchill and Chemical Weapons in WWII renamed
The article has been renamed to Chemical weapons and the United Kingdom with the addition of the section from United Kingdom and weapons of mass destruction; possibly this section of the article could be reduced to an outline Hugo999 (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Paris green
I see that Paris green is mentioned as a possible chemical weapon. If so, this is the first time I have seen it. We now consider it very toxic, but in the 1940s, it was used in large amounts to kill mosquitos. I would not want to take a bath in it, but I suspect it would not be deadly enough to use against troops.Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chemical weapons and the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060806075839/http://www.bpears.org.uk/Misc/War_NE/w_section_05.html to http://www.bpears.org.uk/Misc/War_NE/w_section_05.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)