You have posted an article that does nothing to prove that Britain or Churchill used chemical weapons. Instead, the article you posted points out the terrible consequences of the failure of the League of Nations to take decisive action against a state using chemical weapons against civilians.
By extension, you have just argued that the correct course of action for the today's League of Nations (the UN) is to take decisive action against a state using chemical weapons against civilians.
So congratulations - you have just successfully argued in support of an international military strike against Syria!
Although somehow I doubt that was your intent... which makes your achievement all the more impressive!
