January 02, 2002

There was an op-ed in

There was an op-ed in yesterday's Washington Post on the World War II V-2 terror bombings, Churchill, and us, and it's worth reading. Faced with the demoralizing power of the silent rockets, Churchill considered using poison gas against the Germans, saying "I do not see why we should have all the disadvantages of being gentlemen while they have the advantages of being the cad."

As his rage grew, Churchill even considered biological warfare; specifically, dropping anthrax bombs on Germany. Ultimately (and fortunately), it was Churchill's good judgment that prevailed.

Here again, history's message is relevant for us today. The response to the V-2 terror attacks was not retribution, nor was it a definitive single stroke. The Allies, it was determined, would apply progressively growing pressure designed to first mitigate the threat and then eliminate it. The missile assembly sites were targeted for continuing bomber attack, as were the launch sites in Holland. This, of course, pulled strategic assets from other purposes and cost hundreds of aircraft and thousands of air crew lives. On the ground, the progress of Allied troops across the Low Countries was directed, in part, to capturing launch sites and ultimately to pushing the missiles back to a point where Britain was beyond their range.


True enough. But we shouldn't forget this history's other "relevant message." The Allies insisted on Germany's unconditional surrender, and refused to negotiate with Nazi leaders who sought to lead a future, post-Hitler Nazi state. And they pursued this aim to its end with tremendous determination and, indeed, considerable ruthlessness. But then, that was before the Powell Doctrine. (via Charles Johnson.)

Posted by Dr. Frank at January 2, 2002 02:07 AM | TrackBack