« Havana Chinatown | Main | An Iranian History of the Russian Revolution »

May 30, 2019



It's actually worse.

Some of the cases involved non consensual sex - ie. rape.

"Wolf also backed up her assertions about executions using claims made by an author who has been labeled as a hoaxer by critics. Sweet also pointed out during Thursday’s interview that while Wolf assumed the use of “sodomy” in legal records was synonymous with homosexuality, at least once she had misinterpreted the term, mistaking child abuse for a consensual relationship."

“All the others that I followed up—I can’t find any evidence that any of the relationships you describe were consensual,” Sweet said."


John Coffin

It would be nice to have a link to Ray Douglas.

As I recall, Churchill proposed using tear gas on recalcitrant tribes in Iraq, rather than leafleting and nuisance bombing, which were the policies then. With no real indications of whether the suggestion was even considered, let alone carried out.

Mick H

According to Douglas, as Aaronovitch says, Churchill had strongly advocated that chemical weapons should be used, especially in their non-lethal form - ie tear-gas - but was overruled by his cabinet colleagues. Such weapons were in the process of being outlawed, and they didn't want Britain associated with using munitions that were soon to be made illegal.

There's a relevant Telegraph link here - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/6399645/Britain-did-not-use-chemical-weapons-in-Iraq-90-years-ago.html

Recruiting Animal

I didn't know that Naomi was so kooky. I can see, though, that there might be a lot more to her book besides the most sensational part that has been debunked.

Thanks to the other commenters for the info about Churchill and Iraq.

Stephen K

The "Churchill gassed rebels" meme is well established. I recall Jeremy Clarkson claiming it in the Greatest Britons TV show http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/11_november/25/greatbritons_final.shtml
and Mo Mowlam, who was Churchill's advocate, instead of correcting him, merely nodded at it.
On the wider point - fake history in service of contemporary agendas is an ancient trick (already ancient when the Romans did it). But the pomo assault on objectivity helps it along. Michael Bellesiles is another good example.

The comments to this entry are closed.