Robert Harris said on Newsnight 01 May 1981 that Churchill intended to (and I quote) “drench the Ruhr with anthrax”. He was referring to the order Churchill gave in July 1944 to the Chief of Staffs that the case for dropping Anthrax and mustard gas on Germany be “comprehensively examined” (which there is record of). The plan was shelved because the Chief of Staffs resisted but the order was given.

You’ve made a mug of yourself because Steph is comprehensively right.

Suppose that depends on whether you want to suspend democratic rule in the UK and France and just hand it over to a militaristic autocrat?

It doesn’t blow shreds in my argument that he avoided combat because it wasn’t combat, and I haven’t actually accused him of cowardice. I said he had a reputation for it. Cowardice isn’t something that can be proved or disproved because it’s a subjective and speculative, but you could make a far more compelling case against Churchill’s reputation for cowardice by pointing out that he was an intrepid front line war reporter and I certainly don’t think it was cowardice to avoid the Somme; I think it would have been better if the entire British army had done a Churchill and gone home before the Battle of Somme.

It does blow to shreds your assertion that Churchill was a coward who avoided combat though. It’s an indication of his character and supports the arguments put to you by others. If you can’t see the relevance it’s because you don’t want to. You’ve got motion picture film of Churchill being shot at when he could have been sat in a cosy office in Whitehall, and you’re still jabbering. It’s what is known as “Alligator Management’ : Up to your eyes in water and still got your mouth open.

I also think you’re confusing modern ‘embedded journalists’ and nineteenth century ‘war correspondants’.

If you want to discuss draft dodging shyster cowards, let’s talk about Bill Clinton.

As far as not being a front line soldier if you are only doing reconnaissance

I never said that. What I said was

Churchill was a reporter in Malakand and in keeping with this role was assigned to reconnaissance, he was not as far as I’m aware ordered to engage the enemy.

And if I didn’t respond to you’re point about Sidney Street Siege, it is because it’s not remotely relevant. Churchill was the Home Secretary at the time and it was a police operation, which he took charge of and was criticised by the Prime Minister for doing so.

Lets find some common ground on Omdurman. We both agree, that Churchill was secondment to the 21st Lancers, and that they charged the Dervish line, and it was the last meaningful charge in British military history, etc., etc.

But let me ask you a couple of questions, how many months was our roving reporter Churchill embedded with the 21st Lancers and how long was he in the Sudan?

I think this is pretty important because you argue that

the ridiculous distinction between Churchill, an officer who wrote in his [sic]spae time for the London Press, and the other officers of the Expeditionary Force did not exist.

Other officers didn’t come and go as they pleased, they didn’t choose their assignments, they didn’t write the approved history of the Sudanese Campaign and they spent more than a few months in a post before moving on to the next assignment. So there was a very clear distinction between Churchill and other officers in the Expeditionary Force.

He went to the Sudan as a reporter for the Morning Post, on secondment to the 21st Lancers at his own request and against the wishes of his CO ( Kitchener didn’t want him). He returned to London a month after Omdurman to write his two volume book, “The River War”, (1899) whilst still a serving officer.

And as far as I’m aware, Kitchener didn’t give the order to the 21st Lancers to charge, they saw what they thought were 400 Dervishes and charged them before they realised there were 2.500 of them, not that it matters. Churchill wasn’t seconded to the 21st Lancers in a military capacity – he wasn’t wanted or there long enough – he was seconded as a journalist and propagandist.

I’m also pretty sure we both agree that embedded war correspondents aren’t soldiers and that was what he was: a journalist with a commission, and Churchill must have been one of the most successful British war correspondents of the 1890s – he made £10,000 out of writing and lectures by 1901.

I going to leave it there.

Steph,

Your “view” is an opinion.

Orders, written or otherwise, “to attack” are not the sole arbiter of what constitutes ‘being in action.’

So: You and your grand-daddy are not fans of WSC. Neither am I for that matter but I fear that your dislike is bordering on obsessional and irrational.

The hole is deep enough, time to stop digging.

Oh and citing FDR as a character reference is a bit rich given that both WSC and FDR were as flawed as each other, albeit it different ways.