  Copyright laws are changing all over the world, be sure to check the copyright laws for your country before posting these files!! Please take a look at the important information in this header. We encourage you to keep this file on your own disk, keeping an electronic path open for the next readers. Do not remove this. **Etexts Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971** *These Etexts Prepared By Hundreds of Volunteers and Donations* The Riddle of the Rhine: by Victor LeFebure by J. Walker McSpadden April, 1998 [Etext #1272] Scanned by Charles Keller with OmniPage Professional OCR software We are now trying to release all our books one month in advance of the official release dates, for time for better editing. We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work. The fifty hours is one conservative estimate for how long it we take to get any etext selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc. This projected audience is one hundred million readers. If our value per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2 million dollars per hour this year as we release thirty-two text files per month, or 384 more Etexts in 1998 for a total of 1500+ If these reach just 10% of the computerized population, then the total should reach over 150 billion Etexts given away. We need your donations more than ever! For these and other matters, please mail to: When all other email fails try our Executive Director: We would prefer to send you this information by email ftp uiarchive.cso.uiuc.edu login: anonymous password: your@login cd etext/etext90 through /etext96 or cd etext/articles [get suggest gut for more information] dir [to see files] get or mget [to get files. . .set bin for zip files] GET INDEX?00.GUT for a list of books and GET NEW GUT for general information and MGET GUT* for newsletters. ***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS**START*** Why is this "Small Print!" statement here? You know: lawyers. They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with your copy of this etext, even if you got it for free from someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement disclaims most of our liability to you. It also tells you how you can distribute copies of this etext if you want to. To create these etexts, the Project expends considerable efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain works. Despite these efforts, the Project's etexts and any medium they may be on may contain "Defects". Among other things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other etext medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. If you discover a Defect in this etext within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that time to the person you received it from. If you received it on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement copy. If you received it electronically, such person may choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to receive it electronically. THIS ETEXT IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS TO THE ETEXT OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.INDEMNITY You will indemnify and hold the Project, its directors, officers, members and agents harmless from all liability, cost and expense, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following that you do or cause: [1] distribution of this etext, [2] alteration, modification, or addition to the etext, or [3] any Defect. [1] Only give exact copies of it. Among other things, this requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the etext or this "small print!" statement. You may however, if you wish, distribute this etext in machine readable binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form, including any form resulting from conversion by word pro- cessing or hypertext software, but only so long as *EITHER*: [*] The etext, when displayed, is clearly readable, and does *not* contain characters other than those intended by the author of the work, although tilde (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may be used to convey punctuation intended by the author, and additional characters may be used to indicate hypertext links; OR [*] The etext may be readily converted by the reader at no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent form by the program that displays the etext (as is the case, for instance, with most word processors); OR [*] You provide, or agree to also provide on request at no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the etext in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC or other equivalent proprietary form). [2] Honor the etext refund and replacement provisions of this "Small Print!" statement. *END*THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS*Ver.04.29.93*END* "Emphasis" italics have a * mark. [#] footnotes moved to EOParagraphs but not renumbered. German spelling of words need to checked particularly! Scanned by Charles Keller with OmniPage Professional OCR software THE RIDDLE OF THE RHINE CHEMICAL STRATEGY IN PEACE AND WARAn account of the critical struggle for power and for the decisive war initiative. The campaign fostered by the great Rhine factories, and the pressing problems which they represent. A matter of pre-eminent public interest concerning the sincerity of disarmament, the future of warfare, and the stability of peace. BYVICTOR LEFEBURE WITH A PREFACE BY MARSHAL FOCHAND AN INTRODUCTION BY THE CHEMICAL FOUNDATION, INC. 81 FULTON STREET NEW YORK CITYPublished, 1923, Printed in the United States of America PREFACEMy motives in writing this book are sufficiently explained in the first chapter. The silence surrounding the true facts of the chemical campaign, the tardy realisation of the real forces behind it in Germany, and our failure to grasp the significance of the matter in the Treaty, all pointed to the need for an early statement. More recently, this need has been emphasised by inaccurate public utterances on the matter, and by its vital importance for the full and fair treatment of certain legislative measures before Allied countries. A unique experience of chemical warfare in all its aspects, first with a combatant gas unit on the British front in France, then as Liaison Officer with France and other Allies on all Chemical Warfare and allied questions, has afforded me an exceptionally complete survey of the subject. Later post-armistice experience in Paris, and the occupied territories, assisting Lord Moulton on various chemical questions in connection with the Treaty, and surveying the great chemical munition factories of the Rhine, has provided a central view of the whole matter which can have been the privilege and opportunity of very few. Further, my association with the dye industry, since commencing this book, leaves me with a deep conviction of the critical importance for disarmament, of a world redistribution of organic chemical production. It is inevitable that such a step should benefit the growing organic chemical industries of countries other than Germany, but this issue need not be shirked. The importance of the matter is so vital that it eclipses all reproach that the disarmament argument for the maintenance of the dye industry is used on selfish grounds. Such reproach cannot, in fairness, be heard unless it destroys the case which we have established. We are faced with the following alternatives. Safety demands strong organic chemical industries or cumbersome and burdensome chemical warfare establishments. The stability of future peace depends upon the former, and the extent to which we must establish, or can abandon, the latter depends entirely on the activity and success of those whose special duty it is to organise against war. A recent visit to America revealed the considerable publicity and public interest surrounding chemical warfare, strengthening my conviction that the facts, now noised abroad, should be presented in their proper setting. They are supremely significant at the present time and for the future, hence the chapters which follow. V. LEFEBURE. HAMPSTEAD, October 12, 1920. PREFACE BY FIELD MARSHAL FOCHIn 1918, chemical warfare had developed considerably in our army. Before 1914 Germany possessed chemical factories which permitted her to manufacture in great quantities chemicals used at the front, and to develop on a large scale this new form of fighting. The Allies, to retaliate, had to experiment and organise important centres for production. Only in this way, though starting late, were they able to put themselves in a position to supply the growing necessities of their armies. To-day, the ability for aviation to carry increasing weight furnishes a new method for abundantly spreading poison gases with the aid of stronger and stronger bombs, and to reach armies, the centres of population in the rear, or to render regions uninhabitable. Chemical warfare is therefore in a condition to produce more formidable results over more extended areas. It is incontestable on the other hand that this growth will find an easy realisation in one country, Germany, addicted in times of peace, to wholesale manufacture of chemical products, which a simple modification in reactions can transform into war products. This country, deprived, partially at least, of its former methods of fighting, and its numerous forces of specially trained soldiers, regularly organised and strongly armed, will be more drawn toward the new systems of attack— that of chemical warfare. Chemical warfare must therefore enter into our future provisions and preparations, if we do not wish to experience some terrible surprises. The work of Major Lefebure gives an exact idea of the possibilities he finds to-day in Germany, and through them the dangers with which she threatens us. In this form it constitutes a warning; and information of the highest order, for the minds who remain anxious for the fate of their country confronted by the inefficience of the old fighting methods which the progress of industry out of date renders daily. By sounding the alarm in both our countries, I find myself in company with my faithful friend Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson. This is an old habit, contracted by both of us, many years ago, which we still maintain at the present time to insure for ourselves once again, peace in the future. Together, we say, read this work of Major Lefebure. F. FOCH. CONTENTS PAGE CHAPTER I-EXPLANATORY The Riddle of the Rhine-A Critical Point in Disarmament-Need for a Balanced View of Chemical Warfare-Some Preliminary Explanation—"Poison Gas" a Misleading Term-The French Physiological Classification-Asphyxiating Substances-Toxic Substances-Lachrymators-Vesicant or Blistering Compounds-Sneezing or Sternutatory Substances-The Tactical Classification-Persistent Substances-Non-persistent Substances-Penetrants-Special Gas Weapons and Appliances-Gas Shell. 17 CHAPTER II-THE GERMAN SURPRISE The First Cloud Gas Attack-The Element of Surprise -Lord Kitchener's Protest-German Preparations— Research-Production-Field Preparations-German Opinion of Results-Germany Prompted by Production Monopoly-Standard Uses for Gas-Gas Shell-Further German Cloud Attacks-Hill 60-Origin of German Gas Shell-Early German Gas Shell-A Successful Experiment-Lachrymators at Loos, 1915-The Flammenwerfer-German Phosgene Clouds-Gas and the Eastern Theatre-Conclusion. 31CHAPTER III-THE ALLIED REACTION The Need of Retaliation-First Signs-The Loos Attack, September, 1915-The Somme Battle, 1916—Reasons for British Cloud Gas Success-Our Casualties-Exhausting Preparations for Cloud Attack-The Livens Projector-British Gas Shell-German Gas Shell Development, 1916-Main Features of the Period. 48CHAPTER IV-INTENSIVE CHEMICAL WARFARE The Mustard Gas Surprise-Blue Cross-German Emphasis on Gas Shell-The German Projector-German Projector Improvements-Dyes in Gas Shell—German Flame Projectors-Their Origin-Further Flame Development-The 1918 Offensive-Ludendorff's Testimony-Preparations for Assault-Gas Defensive Flank at Armentieres-Fixed Gas Barrage at Kemmel-Percentage of Chemical Shell-Gas Re-ContentsPAGE treat Tactics-General Hartley's Analysis-Percentage of German Gas Shell in Enemy Dumps-Forced Exhaustion of Stocks-Yperite, French Mustard Gas-Effect on German Gas Discipline-Allied Gas Statistics-Critical Importance of Rapid German Production. 66 CHAPTER V-CHEMICAL WARFARE ORGANISATIONS German Research-Leverkusen-Hochst-Ludwigshaven-Early Formulation of Policy-Movements of Personnel-German Simplicity of Organisation-German Organisation at the Front-The Gas Regiment—Early German Gas School-New Gas Regiments-Gas Shell Experts-Inspection of Protective Masks and Method-British Field Organisation— "Breach" Organisations-Central Laboratory-New Type of Casualty~Directorate of Gas Services-British Home Organisations-The Royal Society-Royal Society Chemical Sub-Committee-The Trench Warfare Department-Scientific Advisory Committee -Commercial Advisory Committee-Split Between Research and Supply-Munitions Inventions Department-Imperial College of Science-The Chemical Warfare Department-The Anti-Gas Department -Designs Committee French Organisation-Italian Developments-Supply Organisations-British Supply Organisation-Allied Handicaps-The German Solution—Departmental Difficulties— Allied Success Against Odds-Allied Lack of Vision in Production-British Lag in Organisation-French and American Characteristics-Inter-Allied Chemical Warfare Liaison-Inter-Allied Supply-Nature of Chemical Warfare Research-Discovery of New Substances-Technical Method of Preparation-Filling Problem-Protection-Half Scale Investigation-Two Classes of Research-Conclusion-The "Outer and Inner Lines." 85CHAPTER VI-THE STRUGGLE FOR THE INITIATIVE Meaning of the Chemical Initiative-Controlling Factors—Rapid Manufacture Rapid Identification Essential-Propaganda and Morale-Peculiar Peace-time Danger-War Fluctuations of Initiative-The Tense Protective Struggle-The German Mask-Enforced German Modifications-Shortage of Rubber-Gas Discipline-Summary-New German Attempts-Yellow and Blue Cross-Yellow Cross-Blue Cross-"Particulate" Clouds-Potential Production and Peace. litContents PAGE CHAPTER VII-REVIEW OF PRODUCTION Critical Importance of Production-Significance of the German Dye Industry—The Interessen Gemeinschaft-War Production by the I.G.-Allied Difficulties-Conclusion. 143 CHAPTER VIII-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENTS Special Attention justified-Special Value of American Opinion-Early American Activities-Field Activities -Special Difficulties-Edgewood Arsenal-Research—Production-Post-Armistice Developments-Views of General Fries-The Gas Cloud Inescapable-Importance of Smoke-Casualty Percent ages-Short Range Projectors-Vast Expansion in Personnel. 173CHAPTER IX-GERMAN CHEMICAL POLICY Origin of German Chemical Monopolies-German Chemical Commercial Policy-Evidence of the U. S. A. Alien Property Custodian-Pre-war American Situation—German Price Cutting—Salicylic Acid— Full Line Forcing—Bribery and Corruption—German Patent Policy—Propaganda and Information—Espionage-Activities of the Dye Agencies-Manoeuvring Raw Materials-Chemical Exchange Association -Doctor Albert's Letter-Dye Agency Information System-Dr. Albert on Chemical Warfare-The Moral Aspect-Report of the New York World-German Policy Regarding Dye Supplies to the U. S. A.—Professor Stieglitz's Evidence Ehrlich's Discovery—Drugs and Medicinal Products-The German Monopoly-National Health Insurance Commission-The Royal Society—Novocain—Beta-Eucaine—Photographic Chemicals-War Activities of the I.G.-The Rhine Factories and the Armistice-War Mentality of the I.G.-German Attitude towards Inspection-The Rhine and Chaulny Contrast-German Revolution and the Industrial Leaders-The German Peace Delegation -Recent Signs of Government Interest-Nitrogen Fixation-The German Nitrogen Syndicate-Haber Process Prominent-The New German Dye Combine -Aggressive Nationalist Policy. 186CHAPTER X-LINES OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT The Element of Speculation-Chemical Tactics and Strategy-New War Chemicals—"Camouflage" Chemicals-Functions Hitherto Immune-Chemical Constitution and Physiological Action-Unsolved Prob-Contents PAGE lems of Mustard Gas-A New Type of Obstacle— CHAPTER XI-HUMANE OR INHUMANE? Nature of Gas Casualties-Sargent's Picture-Need for Safeguards. 238CHAPTER XII-CHEMICAL WARFARE AND DISARMAMENT The Treaty of Versailles-German Information-Limitation of Armament-Report of the Hartley Mission -New Conceptions in Chemical Disarmament-Limitation Mechanical and Chemical-Tank Disarmament -Chemical Limitation-Research-Production-Mechanical and Chemical Preparations for War-Recent Disarmament Proposals-The Covenant of the League Need for Guarantees-Viscount Grey, "Germany must disarm first'~— Suggested Methods—"Vested Interests"—"Handing Over" Inventions-Neglect of Chemical Disarmament in the Treaty. 242CONCLUSION-THE TREATY OF THE FUTURE. 264ILLUSTRATIONSTHE LIVENS PROJECTOR-I. Frontispiece A completed battery of projectors in the foreground, with a battery on the left rear, half dug in. Suitably camouflaged with brush, the batteries are not observable by aircraft, and, being in "No-Man's-Land," neither party can detect them by day. FACING PAGE TYPICAL GAS SHELL BURSTING. 30THE LIVENS PROJECTOR-II 61A working party fitting electric leads and adjusting bombs prior to discharge. This work occurs at night. THE LIVENS PROJECTOR-III. 133 Explosion of Livens bombs on the objective. SMOKE BARRAGE. 181Note the sharp curtain which is formed, behind which the infantry advance. INTRODUCTIONNo one who has the welfare of the country at heart can fail to share Major Lefebure's anxiety that a clear, accurate, and unbiased account of chemical warfare should be presented to the public, so that the many erroneous ideas now prevalent in regard to poison gas and its uses may be dispelled. The whole subject of chemical warfare is at present sub judice, and there is great danger that the future safety of this country may be jeopardised by the almost universal ignorance of the peculiarities and potentialities of this class of warfare. Recent publications in the Press have shown a tendency to deal with the subject on purely sentimental grounds, and attempts have been made to declare this form of warfare illegitimate without full and careful consideration of all the facts and their significance for the future. Major Lefebure has therefore attempted in his book to make it quite clear that no convention, guarantee, or disarmament safeguard will prevent an unscrupulous enemy from employing poison gas, especially if that enemy has discovered some new powerful agent, or possesses, as Germany does in her well-organised and strong chemical industry, a ready means for producing such chemicals in bulk at practically a moment's notice; further, that the safety of this country makes it imperative that the study and investigation of the subject should be continued and that our chemical and dye industry should be developed, so that when an emergency arises we may have the necessary facilities for supply ready to hand. It is not for me to express any opinion here either as to the desirability of using gas as a weapon or as to the possibility of preventing an enemy from using it. But I am convinced that a decision come to without full knowledge of the facts may involve grave danger and heavy preventable loss of life. I am further convinced that Major Lefebure, by his special knowledge and long experience as chemical liaison officer during the war, is well qualified to speak, and that his opinion is entitled to full consideration. For these reasons I think that his book will do a much needed public service. I wish it every success, and the greatest possible number of readers. HENRY WILSON, F.M. CHAPTER 1EXPLANATORYThe Riddle of the Rhine.—The Great War challenged our very existence. But with the tension released, and the Allies victorious, the check to the German menace appears crushing and complete. Few realise that one formidable challenge has not been answered. Silently menacing, the chemical threat remains unrecognised. How, asks the reader, can this be? Are we not aware of the poison gas campaign? Indeed, we have not yet grasped the simple technical facts of the case, and these are merely the outward signs of a deep-rooted menace whose nature, activities, and potentialities are doubly important because so utterly unsuspected by those whom they most threaten. How many of us, for example, realise that the Germans relied mainly on gas for success in the great March assault of 1918, which threatened to influence the destinies of the world. Yet Ludendorff goes out of his way to tell us how much he counted upon it. How many understand that the 1918 hostilities were no longer a war of explosives. German guns were firing more than fifty per cent. of gas and war chemical. But a deep study of such war facts reveals a much more significant matter. All are aware of the enormous national enterprises built to fulfil our explosives programme. With mushroom-like growth chemical establishments of a magnitude hitherto unknown in England arose to meet our crying needs. What was the German equivalent, and where were the huge reservoirs of gas and war chemical which filled those countless shells? Krupp, of Essen, loomed large in the mind of every Allied citizen and soldier. There lay the sinews of war in the making. But the guns were useless without their message. Who provided it? A satisfactory answer to this question demands an examination of the great German I.G., the Interessen Gemeinschaft, the world power in organic chemical enterprise, whose monopoly existence threatened to turn the tide of war against us. This organisation emerges from the war with renewed and greater strength. Our splendid but improvised factories drained the vital forces of the nation, and now lie idle, while German war chemical production fed new life blood and grafted new tissue to the great pre-war factories of the I.G., which, if she will, she can use against us in the future. I do not claim that this German combine has at present any direct economic or military policy against world peace. In any case, the facts must speak for themselves. But the following pages will prove that the mere existence of the complete German monopoly, represented by the forces of the I.G., however free from suspicion might be the mentality and morals of those directing its activities, constitutes, in itself, a serious menace. It is, if you will, a monster camouflaged floating mine in the troubled sea of world peace, which the forces of reconstruction have left unswept. The existence of this giant monopoly raises vital military and economic questions, which are, indeed, "The Riddle of the Rhine." Impersonal Examination of Fact.—In a sound examination of the subject it becomes necessary to examine the activities of our former enemies very closely. Even adopting a mild view of the case, their reputation has not been unattacked, and is not left untarnished. We, however, have no desire to renew such attacks, but we wish our statement to be coldly reliable. National and international issues are at stake which require a background unprejudiced by war emotion. Placed in a similar predicament, in reporting to his Government of the methods of German economic aggression in the United States of America, Mr. Mitchell Palmer, the Alien Property Custodian, expressed himself as follows: "I do not advocate any trade boycott out of spirit of revenge or in retaliation for injuries done to the United States. I do not want to continue the war after the war. I am for peace. I believe that the great overshadowing result which has come from this war is the assurance of peace almost everlasting amongst the peoples of the earth. I would help to make that an absolute certainty by refusing to permit Germany to prosecute a war after the war. The military arm of her war machine has been palsied by the tremendous hammering of the allied powers. But her territory was not invaded, and if she can get out of the war with her home territory intact, rebuild a stable government, and still have her foreign markets subject to her exploitation, by means no less foul and unfair than those which she has employed on the field of battle, we shall not be safe from future onslaughts different in methods, but with the same purpose that moved her on that fateful day in July when she set out to conquer the world." Ours is a fair standpoint. Let us know the facts of the chemical war into which Germany impelled us. Let us examine its mainsprings, in conception and action, see how far they can be explained in terms of pre-war Germany, and how far they remain ready to function in the much desired peace which they threaten. If the result be unpleasant, let us not hide our heads in the sand, but exercise a wise vigilance, choose what precautions are available and consistent with our plans for world peace. A Critical Point in Disarmament.—Probably never before in the history of man has Disarmament figured as such a vitally urgent national and international measure. Discussions and official utterances reveal a very disquieting tendency. When compared with the methods, armament and materials of the war in 1914, those of 1918 reveal basic changes which a hundred years of former peace could not have brought about. These developments are not merely of fact, but they represent the opening of new fields, visions of possibilities previously undreamed of by the practical soldier. By the concentrated application of electricity, chemistry, and other sciences to war two dominating factors have emerged, whose importance to war, and danger for world peace, can only gain momentum with time. The scientific or technical initiative, the invention of a deadly new chemical, wireless-directed aeroplane, or other war appliance and their incidence on war through large scale production in the convertible industries of peace constitute a challenge which, if unanswered by practical schemes for world disarmament, will render the latter worse than useless, by aggravating the danger of sudden decisive attack in an otherwise disarmed world. There is a tendency to ignore this aspect of disarmament. We appear to be thinking in terms of a world still organised for war on 1914 lines. The disbanding of the German army and semi-military organisations, and the reduction of her artillery and small arms seem to occupy all our attention. Such, it might be urged, is the immediate need; we can leave the future to find answers to the other problems. This answer is dangerous, for it ignores the disarmament aspect of what is perhaps the most important development in the modern offensive campaign. We refer to poison gas or chemical warfare. This, the crux of all disarmament, is dealt with at some length in the chapters which follow. A curiously illogical attitude of mind has arisen in certain quarters. There is a tendency among strong adherents to the ideal of world peace to regard themselves as its sole possessors. Every thinking civilian and soldier must adhere to such an ideal; the only point at issue is the method of approaching it. The mere fact that a League of Nations is called into being to attain world peace implies recognition of the fact that a definite mechanism and definite measures are required for the purpose; this is self-evident. There are those who, having established their League of Nations, feel that they can attain chemical peace by merely prohibiting chemical war, in other words, they expect their mechanism to achieve its object without functioning, to attain peace by its mere existence. Just as special measures are required to control disarmament in the older branches of warfare, in the same way special measures, but not the same measures, are required to control the chemical peace. Chemical peace guaranteed by a mere signature is no peace at all. In a recent Press utterance we find an appeal to prohibit chemical warfare and to "trust the general sentiment of the civilised world to say that the lesson has been learnt in that sense." "There is the League of Nations to furnish that sentiment with a mouthpiece and a sanction." We agree, but to stop there is dangerous, the most important thing which it must furnish is a mechanism of control, a check, or guarantee. This question is one of the most important which confronts us for world peace. It merits the most careful consideration. Even responsible and relevant officials who admit that their League must do more than issue edicts, that their mechanism must function, are ignoring the specific technical aspect of the war methods whose use we wish to limit. This matter will receive later attention. The following pages, therefore, are an attempt to represent the salient points in the development of chemical warfare, its causes, results, and future. Such an attempt cannot limit itself to merely British developments, and this is not a final detailed memoir of British chemical warfare. Further, in considering the future, we examine another aspect of chemical warfare. Facts lead us to believe that it was purely the most open and obvious activity in a whole campaign of chemical aggression which had effective unity of conception and direction long before the war started. Need for a Balanced View of Chemical Warfare.—The facts of chemical warfare have probably been less ventilated than those of any other important war development. Yet no subject has aroused more general and intense feeling. Tanks, aircraft, the different campaigns, enemy memoirs, and a variety of war subjects, have received a considerable measure of publicity, some more than full measure. Grave questions are pending in which the chemical aspect of national defence is a prominent factor. However willing the individual concerned, he cannot make a sound judgment on the brief technical or popular garbled versions which have appeared. One searches in vain for balanced and detailed statements on the question. This may be due in no way to lack of intention, but to lack of opportunity. Therefore, no excuse is needed for this contribution, but rather an apology for the obscurity which has so far surrounded the subject. What is the cause of this emotional or almost hysterical background from which a clear definition of the matter is only now beginning to emerge? Circumstances are to blame; the first open act of chemical warfare decided the matter. This event, the first German cloud gas attack at Ypres, arriving at the peak of allied indignation against a series of German abuses, in particular with regard to the treatment of prisoners, left the world aghast at the new atrocity. Further, its use against entirely unprotected troops was particularly revolting. The fact that such a cloud of chlorine would have passed the 1918 armies untouched behind their modern respirators, could not be known to, nor appreciated by the relatives of the 1915 casualties. But the emotion and indignation called forth by the first use of gas has survived a period of years, at the end of which the technical facts would no longer, of themselves, justify such feeling. We would hesitate to do anything which might dispel this emotional momentum were we not convinced that, unaccompanied by knowledge, it becomes a very grave danger. If we felt that the announcement of an edict was sufficient to suppress chemical warfare we would gladly stimulate any public emotion to create such an edict. But therein lies the danger. Owing to certain technical peculiarities, which can be clearly revealed by examination of the facts, it is impossible to suppress chemical warfare in this way. As well try to suppress disease by forbidding its recurrence. But we can take precaution against disease, and the following examination will show clearly that we can take similar precautions against the otherwise permanent menace of chemical war. Further, backed by such precautions, a powerful international edict has value. It is, therefore, our intention to present a reasoned account of the development of poison gas, or chemical warfare, during the recent war. But to leave the matter there would be misleading and culpable, for, however interesting the simple facts of the chemical campaign, they owed their being to a combination of forces, whose nature and significance for the future are infinitely more important. The chief cause of the chemical war was an unsound and dangerous world distribution of industrial organic chemical forces. Unless some readjustment occurs, this will remain the "point faible" in world disarmament. We, therefore, propose to examine the relationships between chemical industry, war, and disarmament. Some Preliminary Explanation.—The chemistry of war, developed under the stress of the poison gas campaign, is of absorbing chemical and technical interest, but it has none the less a general appeal. When its apparently disconnected and formidable facts are revealed as an essential part of a tense struggle in which move and counter-move followed swiftly one upon the other, its appeal becomes much wider. Therefore, in order not to confuse the main issue in the following chapters by entering upon tiresome definitions, it is proposed to conclude the present chapter by explaining, simply, a number of chemical warfare conceptions with which the expert is probably well acquainted. "Poison Gas" a Misleading Term—Poison gas is a misleading term, and. our subject is much better described as "chemical, warfare." Let us substantiate this by examining briefly the types of chemicals which were used. In the first place they were not all gases; the tendency during the war was towards the use of liquids and solids. Even the chemicals which appeared as gases on the field of battle were transported and projected as liquids, produced by compression. As the poison war developed, a large number of different chemicals became available for use by the opposing armies. These can he classified, either according to their tactical use, or according to their physiological effects on man. The British, French, American, and German armies all tended to the final adoption of a tactical classification, but the French emphasised the physiological side. Let us use their classification as a basis for a review of the chief chemicals concerned. The French Physiological Classification;—Asphyxiating Substances;— Toxic Substances;—Chemicals or poison gases were either asphyxiating, toxic, lachrymatory, vesicant, or sternutatory. It is perfectly true that the asphyxiating and toxic substances, used during the war, produced a higher percentage of deaths than the other three classes, but the latter were responsible for many more casualties. The so-called asphyxiating gases produced their effect by producing lesions and congestion in the pulmonary system, causing death by suffocation. The best known substances of this type was chlorine, employed in the liquid state in cylinders on the occasion of the first German gas attack, but the most formidable were phosgene (an important substance required in the manufacture of dyes), diphosgene, chlor-picrin, made from bleaching powder and picric acid, brom-acetone, which was also a powerful lachrymator, and diphenylchlorarsine, known as sneezing gas, the first sternutatory or sneezing compound to appear on the front in large quantities. The toxic compounds were so called because of their specific effect upon particular parts of the organism such as, for example, the nervous system. The chief example, with regard to the military value of which there has been much dispute, was prussic, or hydrocyanic, acid. The French had definite evidence of the mortal effect of this compound upon German gunners, but it was doubted by other Allies whether French gas shell produced a sufficient concentration of gas to be of military value. It was a kill or cure compound, for recovery was rapid from any concentration which did not produce death. A prominent Cambridge physiologist, in the heat of the controversy on this matter, made a very brave and self-sacrificing experiment. He entered a chamber of prussic acid which was sufficiently concentrated to cause the death of other animals which were present. They were removed in time, and he escaped because the concentration was not a mortal one for man. This was, in a sense, an experimentum crucis and, although it did not disprove the extreme danger of prussic acid, if employed in high concentrations, it showed, on the other hand, that it was difficult to gauge the military value by field experiments; battle results were necessary. The Germans' disappointment with the use of arsenic compounds confirms this need for battle evidence. Lachrymators.—There is hardly need to dwell on the next class, the lachrymator. These compounds were employed on a large scale to produce temporary blindness by lachrymation, or weeping. We give later some interesting examples of their use on the front. It is an arresting thought that even as early as 1887 Professor Baeyer, the renowned organic chemist of Munich, in his lectures to advanced students, included a reference to the military value of these compounds. Vesicant or Blistering Compounds.—It was the introduction of the fourth, the vesicant class, which revealed, more than any other enemy move, the great possibilities inherent in chemical warfare. These compounds, the chief of which was mustard gas, produced vesicant, or skin burning, effects, which, although rarely mortal, were sufficient to put a man out of action for a number of months. Mustard gas resulted from pure scientific investigation as early as 1860. Victor Meyer, the famous German chemist, described the substance in 1884, indicating its skin-blistering effects. There is evidence of further investigation in German laboratories a year before the outbreak of war, and whatever the motive for this work, we know that mustard gas must have received the early attention of the German War Office, for it was approved and in production early in 1917. Although the Medecin aide-major Chevalier of the French services drew attention to its importance in 1916, the French had no serious thought of using mustard gas, and did not realise its possibilities until the German battle experiment of July, 1917. It is not generally known, however, that other vesicant compounds were employed, notably some of the arsenic compounds, and the Germans were researching on substances of this nature which gave great promise of success. Mustard gas provides a striking example of the organic way in which chemical warfare is bound up with the dye industry. The compounds required for its manufacture were those which had been made on a large scale by the I.G. for the production of indigo. World indigo monopoly meant possession of a potential mustard gas surprise on the outbreak of war. Sneezing or Sternutatory Substances.—The last class, the sternutatory substances, produced the familiar sneezing effect which was accompanied by intense pain and irritation of the nose, throat, and respiratory channels. They were mostly arsenic compounds and were not only sternutatory but also toxic, producing the after effects of arsenic poisoning. The Tactical Classification.—From the point of view of our account of chemical warfare, however, the physiological classification of these substances is not so important as the tactical and, indeed, once this grouping of the substances is understood, a profound knowledge of their chemical nature is not necessary. Persistent Substances.—Two main classes exist from the tactical Point of view. There are those "persistent" substances which remain for a long time on the soil or on the object on which they are sprayed by shell, while retaining their dangerous effect. Mustard gas was the chief example, but some of the lachrymators were just as persistent. By their use it is possible to render ground uninhabitable or ineffective for military movement. The combination of the vesicant and persistent properties of mustard gas rendered it a powerful military factor. Non-Persistent Substances.—On the other hand, there are the relatively volatile substances, such as phosgene, which can be used immediately before an attack. The chief sternutatory compound, diphenylchlorarsine, although not volatile, could also be used in this way, for, being a solid and in a very finely pulverised state, its presence on the ground was not a distinct danger, and it invited chemical decomposition. Penetrants.—The Germans introduced an additional tactical group. This comprised pulverised substances able to penetrate the mask on account of their existence as minute particles. The Germans expressed these tactical conceptions by their shell markings. The familiar Green Cross represented the slightly persistent, volatile, lethal compounds, such as phosgene and diphosgene. The German gunner had no need to know the content of his gas shell so long as he could identify the cross. Yellow Cross, representing mustard gas, was the most highly persistent type. It is interesting to speculate whether a new persistent compound, whose military value was due to some other property than the blistering, would have been grouped under Yellow Cross. Logically, this should have been done. Blue Cross covered the arsenic group of compounds, which were non-persistent and were expected to penetrate the mask. So strong was this tactical conception that the Allies were on the verge of adopting a uniform shell marking based on this principle throughout their armies. Special Gas Weapons and Appliances.—It is a popular misconception that gas was only discharged from cylinders in huge clouds, or used as artillery shell. A number of special weapons developed, which were particularly adapted for gas. Thus, the Livens projector, which was a great Allied advance, produced a gas cloud a long distance from the point of discharge, while the Stokes and other short range guns were used for rapid fire of large numbers of gas shell. The primary conceptions with regard to protection have been brought home to so many, through the fact that the mask was a part of the equipment of every soldier, that we need not dwell on them here. It is not generally realised, however, that every modification introduced by either side was a vital and direct counter to some enemy move planned to render the protection of the opponent ineffective. Gas Shell.—A word is necessary to define the use of gas shell. The point which must be realised is that gas, and in particular gas shell, fulfilled a special purpose in warfare, from which it was much more suitable than explosives. The use for neutralising batteries, cross roads, and rendering whole areas uninhabitable, is developed fully in our reference to the great German attacks in 1918. With this brief sketch to clear the ground, we can embark more freely upon the account of chemical warfare which follows. CHAPTER II THE GERMAN SURPRISEYpres, April, 1915, to the Somme, August, 1916. The First Cloud Gas Attack.—The critical factor of surprise in war was never nearer decisive success than on April 22nd, 1915. Of this, the occasion of the first German gas attack at Ypres, Field-Marshal Sir J. D. P. French Stated: "Following a heavy bombardment, the enemy attacked the French Division at about 5 p.m., using asphyxiating gases for the first time. Aircraft reported that at about 5 p.m. thick yellow smoke had been seen issuing from the German trenches between Langemarck and Bixschoote. What follows almost defies description. The effect of these poisonous gases was so virulent as to render the whole of the line held by the French Division mentioned above practically incapable of any action at all. It was at first impossible for any one to realise what had actually happened. The smoke and fumes hid everything from sight, and hundreds of men were thrown into a comatose or dying condition, and within an hour the whole position had to be abandoned, together with about fifty guns. I wish particularly to repudiate any idea of attaching the least blame to the French Division for this unfortunate incident." The Element of Surprise.—The enemy just missed colossal success rendered possible by the use of an entirely new war method; one contrary to engagements entered into by them at the Hague Convention. There were elements in this first gas attack which were absent even from the situation created by our first use of tanks. Unfamiliarity amongst the troops, or the staff, for that matter, created an atmosphere of unparalleled confusion. Men attempted to protect themselves by burying their mouths and nostrils in the loose earth. Those chemists, on the spot, not immediately struck down, made frantic efforts to bring up supplies of any suitable and available chemical or material which might assist resistance and movement in the affected zone. Paying every homage to the heroic sacrifices and brave actions which characterised the Allied resistance, we cannot ignore the fact that morale must have been very severely shaken locally, and that a general disquiet and uneasiness must have permeated the whole front until measures were known to be effectively in progress, not only for protection, but for retaliation. The enemy had but to exploit the attack fully to break through to the channel ports, but failed to do so. The master mind behind this new and deadly attack was not, let us remember, that of a soldier. It was very strongly rumoured that this monstrous conception and its execution were due to one or, at the most, two renowned German Professors. The first hammer blow in the enemy chemical campaign was a two-party conspiracy, led by world-famous scientists and the powerful I.G. with the German army unconvinced but expectant, little more than a willing dupe. Lord Kitchener's Protest.—In his spirited protest in the House of Lords, Lord Kitchener stated: "The Germans have, in the last week, introduced a method of placing their opponents hors de combat by the use of asphyxiating and deleterious gases, and they employ these poisonous methods to prevail when their attack, according to the rules of war, might have otherwise failed. On this subject I would remind your Lordships that Germany was a signatory to the following article in the Hague Convention: " `The Contracting Powers agree to abstain from the use of projectiles the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases.' " This protest circulated amongst neutrals prompted numerous attempts at vindication in the German Press. In several cases we find important newspapers arguing that the German attack was not contrary to the Hague Convention, while others admitted the breach, but claimed that the Germans merely followed Allied example. The main technical excuse was that the effect of the German gas was merely stupefying (Colniche Zeitung, June, 1915). It is incredible that the German nation was, or could allow itself to be, so hoodwinked. Scientific Germany was certainly aware of the true nature of the gases used. Even scientific neutrals in Berlin at the outbreak of war, and during the ensuing winter, were aware of the German poison gas work, which commenced, in an organised way, almost as soon as war broke out. The Germans have argued that they only entertained the idea of gas after Allied use. The facts revealed below are a sufficient answer. Whatever legal arguments may be involved, there is no doubt as to German intention. We do not wish to enter into a comprehensive examination of the legal aspect of the first use of cloud and shell gas by Germany. Whatever complicated arguments may turn upon the strict reading of a phrase in the records of the Hague Convention, we have no doubt whatever as to the desires and intentions of the Assembly, and we regard Germany (and the Allies) as morally engaged not to venture upon the series of chemical enterprises which she openly commenced with the Ypres cloud attack. The Versailles Treaty also renders fruitless any such discussion. Article 171, accepted by Germany, is deliberately based on her breach of International Convention. German Preparations.—A significant phrase occurs in the Field-Marshal's despatch. "The brain power and thought which has evidently been at work before this unworthy method of making war reached the pitch of efficiency which has been demonstrated in its practice shows that the Germans must have harboured these designs for a long time." This is a most important point. It was argued by many generous and fairminded people in April, 1915, that the German use of gas was the result of a sudden decision, only arrived at in a desperate effort to terminate the war. This point of view would give us maximum hope for the future. But the actual truth? What do we know about German preparations, and how far back do they date? Any preparations which occurred must have covered research on the compounds to be employed and on the protection required for the German troops, their training for the cloud attack, and the design and production of the special appliances to be used. Finally, the production of the chemicals themselves had to be faced. Research.—We have obtained an insight into the German research preparations, which leaves no doubt as to their intention. There is evidence that the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and the physico-chemical institute near by were employed for this purpose as early as August, 1914. Reliable authority exists for the statement that soon after this date they were working with cacodyl oxide and phosgene, both well known before the war for their very poisonous nature, for use, it was believed, in hand grenades. Our quotations are from a statement by a neutral then working at the Institute. "We could hear the tests that Professor Haber was carrying out at the back of the Institute, with the military authorities, who in their steel-grey cars came to Haber's Institute every morning." "The work was pushed day and night, and many times I saw activity in the building at eleven o'clock in the evening. It was common knowledge that Haber was pushing these men as hard as he could." Sachur was Professor Haber's assistant. "One morning there was a violent explosion in the room in which most of this war work was carried out. The room was instantly filled with dense clouds of arsenic oxide." "The janitors began to clear the room by a hose and discovered Professor Sachur." He was very badly hurt and died soon after. "After that accident I believe the work on cacodyl oxide and phosgene was suspended and I believe that work was carried out on chlorine or chlorine compounds." "There were seven or eight men working in the Institute on these problems, but we heard nothing more until Haber went to the Battle of Ypres." Rumours to this effect circulated in 1915. Production.—Preparations, for production can easily be imagined. The Germans first used chlorine for cloud gas, and certain lachrymators for shell. The chlorine was readily available. At about this time British liquid chlorine capacity had a maximum daily output of about one ton, while along the Rhine alone the production was more than forty times greater. The question of German chlorine production was, therefore, already solved. The lachrymators were mainly raw materials and intermediates of the dye industry submitted to a process, the technique of which the German dye factories readily mastered. Here, again, production presented no real difficulties. Cylinders were also probably available from the industry. Field Preparations.—There remains the last question of gas attack technique and personnel. Those of us who remember the difficulties involved in creating our own organisation in the summer of 1915 have no illusions on the question of German preparation. Giving the Germans every credit for their technical and military efficiency, some months must have been occupied in establishing and training the special companies required, and in arriving at a satisfactory design for the discharge appliances. Schwarte's book, Die Technik Im Weltkriege,[1] tells us "specially organised and trained troops" were required for the purpose. Prisoners taken later revealed the German methods. Gas officers and N.C.O.'s, after making a careful survey of the front line trench, organised the digging of deep narrow trenches at suitable places below the surface of the main trench, just underneath the parapet. The heavy gas cylinders, weighing as much as ninety pounds, were carried to the front line by the unfortunate infantry. The discharge valves were carefully protected by domes which screwed on to the cylinder. The latter were introduced into the holes, tops flush with the trench bottom, and covered by a board on which reposed the "Salzdecke," a kind of long bag stuffed with some such material as peat moss and soaked in potash solution to absorb any slight gas leakages. Three layers of sandbags were built above the salzdecke to protect the cylinder from shell fragments and to form a firestep for the infantry. This concealed the cylinders so efficiently that, in our own trenches, I have often found the new occupants of a sector ignorant of the presence of gas cylinders under their own firesteps. On the favourable night the dome was removed and a lead pipe was connected to the cylinder and directed over the parapet into No Man's Land, with the nozzle weighed down by a sandbag. The pioneers stood by the batteries of twenty cylinders each and let off the gas a fixed few minutes after a rocket signal, at which the infantry retired to leave the front line free for the pioneers, who not only ran the risk of gassing from defective appliances but were subjected to almost immediate violent bombardment from the opposing artillery. When surprise was complete artillery retaliation was very late in developing. This gives a faint idea of the elaborate preparations required. They must have been doubly arduous and lengthy on the very first occasion of cloud gas attack. [1] Die Technik Im Weltkriegre. Publisher: Mittler, Berlin, 1920. German Opinion of Results.—We can now regard the chlorine attack of April 22, 1915, as the first and successful result of a huge German experiment on a new method of war, the pioneer work of which actually began at (if not before) the outbreak of war. Quoting again from Schwarte: "G.H.Q. considered the attack near Ypres to he a successful experiment. The impression created was colossal and the result not inconsiderable, although it was not fully utilised from the tactical point of view. It was obvious that we had gained a great advantage; the enemy was not sufficiently prepared with defensive measures against gas." Indeed, we were absolutely unprepared, so much so, that after the German attack nearly every household in England contributed to our first inefficient and improvised mask. Is not this suggestion of our preparation a deliberate attempt to deceive the German public? They seem to have been as easily hoodwinked on gas questions as on many others. Germany Prompted by Production Monopoly.—An important point arises. The Germans failed to exploit their initial success. This is not very surprising. Whatever the opinion of the chemists behind the movement, the German General Staff must have retained the elements of precaution in its opinion. It could not have taken for granted the formidable success which the chemists proved justified in prophesying. This being so, we can fairly assume that had there been very serious difficulties in carrying out this huge war experiment it might never have materialised. Such difficulties might have been found in production. But as we have seen, the question of production was the most easily forged link in the chain of events which led to the use of poison gas by Germany. In other words, this monopoly in ease of production was an inducement to the Germans to proceed with their experiment. The earliest German cloud gas attacks established beyond a doubt the enormous value of gas against unprotected troops, in other words, its value as a complete surprise. These conditions were again approached in the first German use of mustard gas. The most telling examples will probably be found in the future, unless the correct precautions are taken. The whole history of chemical warfare during the war was a struggle for this initiative, a struggle between gas protection and aggression. Standard Uses for Gas;—Gas Shell.—But gas found an important use besides that of strategic surprise. It became a standard weapon for certain clear and definite tactical purposes. (For some of these, indeed, the factor of local surprise was important.) We refer to the specific use of gas shell for the neutralisation of batteries, roads, and areas, and to the use of cloud gas, prior to offensives for the production of casualties, and wearing down of reserves. The Ypres attack had not by any means established the use of gas for such purposes. There is no doubt that, from this point of view, the experimental period carried on for many months. Naturally, in some respects, there was always an experimental element in the use of gas. Further German Cloud Attacks.—Two days after the first cloud gas attack the Germans launched a second against the Canadians, with similar results. Quoting from official despatches: "On the early morning of the 24th a violent outburst of gas against nearly the whole front was varied by heavy shell fire, and a most determined attack was delivered against our position east of Ypres. The real attack commenced at 2.45 a.m. A large proportion of the men were asleep, and the attack was too sudden to give them time to put on their respirators." These latter were hurriedly improvised after the first Ypres attack. Hill 60.—Four more attacks occurred in May, notably in the region of Hill 60. "On May 1st another attempt to recapture Hill 60 was supported by great volumes of asphyxiating gas which caused nearly all the men along a front of about 400 yards to be immediately struck down by its fumes." "A second and more severe gas attack under much more favourable weather conditions enabled the enemy to recapture this position on May 5th. The enemy owes his success in this last attack entirely to the use of asphyxiating gas." "It was only a few days later that the means which have since proved so effective of counteracting these methods of making war were put into practice." (Official despatches, 1915.) The despatch further described how violent bombardments, the confusion and demoralisation from the first great gas surprise, and subsequent almost daily gas attacks, prevented the proper reorganisation of the line in question. Origin of German Gas Shell.—After May a long period elapsed during which the Germans confined their war chemical activities on the front to the use of gas shell. Schwarte's book describes their origin as follows:—"The main idea which influenced the FIRST construction of a German projectile containing chemicals (October, 1914) was that of adding to the charge an irritant substance, which would be pulverised by the explosion of the projectile, and would overwhelm the enemy with a cloud of dust. This cloud would hover in the air and have such an effect upon the mucous membranes that, for the time being, the enemy would be unable to fight in such an atmosphere. By altering the construction of the 10.5 c.m. universal shell for light field howitzers, the `N.i' projectile was created in the form of 10.5 c.m. shrapnel, the bullets of which were embedded in a sternutatory powder (double salts of dianisidine) well stamped down, instead of an explosive. By means of the propelling charge and the grinding effect of the bullets, this powder was pulverised on explosion. The irritation caused was not very intense, lasted only a short, time and affected only a limited area and therefore it was of no importance in the field, but the initial step had been taken. Liquid irritants soon came to the front—xylyl bromide and xylylene dibromide—a mixture used later under the name of T. stuff, bromo-acetone and brominated methyl ethyl ketone, later introduced under the name of B. stuff and Bn. stuff." During experiments they gave such improved results in intensity, in power of lasting and of affecting an increased area, that practical results in the field were ensured. The use of these liquids in projectiles, however, was contrary to the accepted idea with regard to artillery, according to which liquid materials should not be used for ballistic reasons. Specially arranged shoots were required to prove that the projectiles in use in the German Army could also be used from the ballistic point of view when filled with liquids. In this way the first effective German gas projectile, the T. shell for heavy field howitzers, was evolved (January, 1915). Early German Gas Shell.—The first important use of German gas in shell was that of brominated and chlorinated organic compounds, T. and K. stuffs. Schwarte's book tells us "the use of these projectiles was continually hampered by lack of understanding on the part of the troops which it was difficult to overcome. In the summer of 1915 it was practically in the Argonne alone that any considerable results were attained by the new projectiles." And he describes how the first elements of the new gas tactics were developed there. A Successful Experiment.—The development of the gas shell, the use of which, generally speaking, is independent of, but co-ordinated with, wind direction, may have received stimulus from the fact that the prevailing wind, so important for cloud gas, favoured the Allies. It is clear that this period was an experimental one, but we know that by August, 1915, German military opinion had crystallised out to the extent of formulating certain rules, issued as Falkenhayn's orders for the employment of gas shell. These early orders defined two types of shell, one persistent, for harassing purposes, and the other non-persistent, to be used immediately before an attack. They specified the number of shell to be used for a given task. But in this they were unsound and it is clear that the Germans had an exaggerated opinion of what could be achieved with a small number of shell. They adhered too closely to high explosive practice. Various documents reveal the fact that the Germans were much more satisfied with their gas tactics than they would have been had they possessed information with regard to our losses from their shell. They attached insufficient importance to the value of surprise and highly concentrated shoots, and had a mistaken idea of the actual specific aggressive value of their early types. Lachrymators at Loos, 1915.—Germany commenced the manufacture of lachrymators, crude brominated xylene or brominated ketones, early in, or perhaps before 1915. These substances caused great inconvenience through temporary blindness by lachrymation, but were not highly toxic. In June, 1915, however, they began to produce lethal gas for shell. Falkenhayn's orders for the use of gas shell, mentioned above, although they represent by no means the best final practice, were definite evidence that gas had come to stay with the Germans. The writer has vivid recollections of their use of lachrymators in the Loos Battle. Batteries in the open, under the crest near the Lens road, were in position so that the wind direction practically enfiladed them, sweeping along from the direction of Le Rutoire farm. Gas from German shell, borne on the wind, was continually enveloping the line of batteries, but they remained in action. It was on this occasion while watching the bursting gas shells from the outskirts of the mining village of Philosophe that Major-General Wing was killed outright by a high explosive shell. These gas shells certainly did not achieve the results which the Germans expected, although they were not without effect. Demolished villages, the only shelter for troops in a desolate area, have been rendered uninhabitable for days by a concentrated lachrymator enemy shoot of less than one hour. Again, walking into gas "pockets" up a trench one has been stopped as by a fierce blow across the eyes, the lachrymatory effect was so piercing and sudden. The great inconvenience which was occasioned to parties engaged in the routine of trench warfare, on ration or engineering duties, and the effect on movement in the rear after an assault, taken cumulatively, represented a big military factor. |
|