Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Dum-dum Churchill:
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by RyanO (U8918008) on Sunday, 12th October 2008
The power of the new Lee Metford rifle with the new Dum Dum bullet . . . . is tremendous. The soldiers who have used it have the utmost confidence in their weapon . . . . Of the bullet it may be said, that its stopping power is all that could be desired. The Dum Dum bullet, though not explosive, is expansive . . . . The result is a wonderful and, from its technical point of view, a beautiful machine. On striking the bone, this causes the bullet to "set up" or spread out, and it then tears and splinters everything before it, causing wounds which in the body must be generally mortal and in any limbs necessitate amputation . From The Story of the Malakand Field Force, by Winston L. Spencer Churchill (1916 edition).
Interestingly, all the above philosophising is expurgated from the 1963 Eyre and Spottiswoode reprint. -
Message 2
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Sunday, 12th October 2008
Fairly consistent with the real W.S, Churchill, I would have thought.
The popular image of Churchill, the portly old speech-maker, with a taste for cigars, is only a fraction of the man. He saw active service, was brave, and like any warrior, was interested in novel ways of gaining ascendance over his enemy. -
Message 3
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Sunday, 12th October 2008
To me the important bit is the date of the re print. 1963. Your not supposed to be enjoying wars in the sixties. In the sixties war is a dreadful thing that kills people and little fluffy kittens. Your not supposed to be reveling in it the way Winston was prone to.
-
Message 4
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Monday, 13th October 2008
This man was voted Number 1 in a recent Top 100 Best Britains poll. Disgusting.
-
Message 5
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Monday, 13th October 2008
"...Disgusting..."
Disgusting yourself.
He knew what he was doing, and he was a fighter.
Can someone tell me which part of the quote in post one glorifies anything ?
He was describing it the way it was and accepting it as a useful way to dispose of the enemy. Given the horrors of WW1, where poison gas, machine guns and air attack were all used, it seems quite mild. Just because you have taken exception to a weapon system, it does not mean that your thoughts are well considered or just. What would you rather be hit by ? A dum dum or a 500lb bomb. Not much difference really I suppose, but the latter is still legal. -
Message 6
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Tuesday, 14th October 2008
Can someone tell me which part of the quote in post one glorifies anything?Β
This part ...
The result is a wonderful and, from its technical point of view, a beautiful machine.Β
What is wonderful? What is beautiful? The destruction wrought on the human body! The result being either death or amputation of a limb.
How would British troops react to being the victims of this weapon? Two wrongs don't make a right, ever.
It's still disgusting. -
Message 7
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 14th October 2008
Hi Mick-Mac
The Dum dum came about after the introduction of the .303 cartridge This fired a bullet at a lot higher velocity than previous cartridges and as a result had to be given a harder metal jacket to grip the rifling in the bore. This speed and jacket combined to make it less lethal than the previous weapon. there are reports of people being shot through the muscle of the heart and surviving.
For some reason these effects were magnified on the Pathans on the Northwest frontier of india there are many reports of them killing british soldiers who had shot them in hand to hand and then dieing. To overset this the jackety of the bullet was cut back to expose the softer lead core to give the effects Churchill commented on.
To an extent it should be read as a comment on the introduction of the new bullet.
In practice the wounds caused were so terrible that it was banned under the first geneva convention for use on people although you could say its the ancestor of every hunting cartridge used for game.
Most military bullets are now designed to be unstable after hitting a target, to start tumbling end over end. This gives the same sort of effect as a dum dum while meeting the geneva convention.
Churchill seemed to thrive on war and had a life long fascination with weapons and the details of military equipment. He was a child of his times and shouldnt really be condemed for it. -
Message 8
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 14th October 2008
"...What is wonderful? What is beautiful..."
This just shows that you fail to understand either his mentality or his language. Winston Churchill was referring to the usefulness of the design versus its desired objective. He is, quite explicitly, talking of its technical performance. As a soldier, he wants to kill the enemy. The dum dum does that very efficiently. That is his meaning.
"...How would British troops react to being the victims of this weapon? Two wrongs don't make a right, ever..."
Since when does an enemy ask what their opponent thinks of a weapon ? How do British soldiers feel about being hit by a 500lb bomb ? Soldiers hit by bombs can die after having limbs wrenched off. Is that different to a dum dum ?
What happens in war is always enough to sicken the civilised. In the 1991 Gulf war the US killed probably several hundred Iraqis by burying them alive in their trenches. A nasty way to go, I imagine. Would you ban bulldozers ?
It is all really just hypocrisy. If you are a pacifist, you should object to all weapons. If you are not, you should let soldiers do their job. -
Message 9
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Tuesday, 14th October 2008
I am a pacifist, except when attacked. I mean no harm to anyone but usually retaliate when deliberately provoked.
How do British soldiers feel about being hit by a 500lb bomb ? Soldiers hit by bombs can die after having limbs wrenched off. Is that different to a dum dum?Β
Of course it isn't! This thread is about the glorification of war and its elevation into the realms of wonder and beauty. You are using the two-wrongs-make-a-right argument. All war is wrong and should be avoided, not provoked or sought after.
What happens in war is always enough to sicken the civilisedΒ
Not Churchill, apparently. To judge by the opening post he positively revelled in it.
It is all really just hypocrisy.Β
On Churchill's part, yes; on my part, no. -
Message 10
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 14th October 2008
"...To judge by the opening post he positively revelled in it..."
Only if you consistently mis-understand his use of English.
"...On Churchill's part..."
Where so ? Churchill is describing the methodology of war. Even if he were glorifying it (we will have to differ on that point), where is the hypocrisy ? -
Message 11
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Tuesday, 14th October 2008
Churchill certainly seems to have revelled in war; somewhere I'm sure he described it as man's natural state (or was it occupation?). He was indisputably brave - even reckless. His insistence on close proximity to the armed siege at Sidney Street in 1911, when he was Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Secretary, drew sharp criticism from many politicians (including former PM Arthur Balfour) for putting himself and others in danger.
I remember reading a disgruntled report by a WWI soldier who had the misfortune to have Churchill posted to his sector (following his fall from grace over Gallipoli). According to this chap, Churchill bowled up on what was a quiet sector, immediately stirred up trouble by insisting on aggressive trench mortar attacks against the Germans, then promptly disappeared once things got heated, having lost interest and pulled strings in high places to get himself moved. -
Message 12
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Tuesday, 14th October 2008
I'm beginning to regret getting into this.
Hypocricy can be defined as professing morals, standards or beliefs that are contrary to one's real character; i.e. pretending to be what one actually is not.
Churchill was good at what he did because he was the supreme hypocrite. On the one hand, he prortrayed himself publically as civilised, moral and upstanding. On the other, he was duplicitous, scheming and dishonest. A small example are his references to Eire after WWII. Of course, this makes for a good politician and war leader.
It is also hypocritical to profess belief in certain values or ideals but be selective in their application in life or allow oneself to set them aside for pragmatic reasons.
These are all the qualities that are unilaterally considered to make a good leader. It is a form of hypocricy that permits the sufferer to ignore the beam in one's own eye while pointing out the speck in the others; in other words, an inability to empathise with others. It might make a good soldier but that's all. -
Message 13
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 14th October 2008
So, Mick Mac, you have moved from a specific criticism of Churchill and his statements on dum dums to a general attack on his over all character. All without giving any specific instance.
Churchill was most certainly not being hypocritical in welcoming the dum dum as a specific weapon of war.
You obviously have a pre-existing politically based gripe with Churchill. That is up to you, but you have yet to prove your case. -
Message 14
Posted by Scarboro (U2806863) on Tuesday, 14th October 2008
I am personally a fan of Churchill, and of his character. I would not describe him as a hypocrite, inasmuch as he did not ask others to do things he would not do himself. He was fully prepared to take personal risks throughout his life.
I do understand Mick Mac's point of view, as did many of Churchill's contemporaries. My reading of history suggests that Churchill was distrusted by many British voters after WW1 and WW2 because of the enthusiasm with which he prosecuted the wars. They had a sense that "he enjoyed war too much".
A peace-loving society may well follow a war leader during war-times, and respect him for military prowess, and then send the leader to the sidelines after the war ends, as Britain did with Churchill.
That in my opinion is the chief difference between a functioning democracy and a military autocracy where the wartime saviour proceeds to be elevated to "Supreme Leader For Life". -
Message 15
Posted by peteratwar (U10629558) on Tuesday, 14th October 2008
If you are going to kill an opponent you do it as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Given that, Churchill's idea of beauty is that there is a terrible beauty in weapons of war. He is not talking about beauty in respect of people's looks.
I also remember Churchill's dictum
'Jaw, Jaw is better that War war' -
Message 16
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 15th October 2008
In any event, Churchill didnt get voted onto the list for a bit of war porn he turned out in his twenties. He got it for the war. In particular his leadership after the fall of france.
Theres a lot to dislike about the man. there is about most great men. they dont get to be great by being nice.
he got it and rightly so in my opinion for standing up at a time when the enemy was at the gates and the only thing between us and them is a broken army and an airforce that hasnt really been put to the test yet. When half of the politicians in the parlieament are standing in front of the bathroom mirror with a tin of boot polish seeing what they look like with a tooth brush 'tash. When common sense says it might be a good idea to see what the germans will settle for and he stood up and said we will fight on.
For that quality of leadership he can say waht he wants, I dont care. He can finish his speech and sit down to a meal of fresh boiled baby and as far as i am concerned he deserved every mouthful. -
Message 17
Posted by Mick Mac (U5651045) on Wednesday, 15th October 2008
I think a lot of people have a totally misguided opinion of Churchill, now and in the past.
He won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1953. In terms of literature the Swedish Academy raised him into the company of such literary giants as Pinter, T.S. Elliot, Jean-Paul Sartre, Naipaul, Golding, etc.. Which of Churchill's literary works are studied by students of literature today? What literary value have any of his published works, some of which, being ghost-written, were not even penned by himself?
Moreover, many people consider him an historian of note yet he has no creditable standing as such today. -
Message 18
Posted by peteratwar (U10629558) on Wednesday, 15th October 2008
Largely envy I suggest, added to everyone in sight trying to discredit him
-
Message 19
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 15th October 2008
And who actually understands Sartre anyway ?
I am sure that Churchill got his Nobel prize for his reputation rather than his writing, but at least he was readable. -
Message 20
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 15th October 2008
Re: Message 19.
Tim,
"at least he was readable"
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 21
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 16th October 2008
TimTrack,
I am sure that Churchill got his Nobel prize for his reputation rather than his writing, but at least he was readable.Β
Indeed, he was
, though I believe the Nobel Committee desperately wanted to give WLSC some kind of recognition. Giving the Peace Prize to a war leader would have been most unseemly, even though his fighting that particular war did more for peace than just about* all recipients before or since. Then someone remembered he was a published author.
* - I said "just about."
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.