The View from The Scientific Monthly

The Scientific Monthly

The Myth of Poison Gas

by Morris Goran

Seventy-eight thousand soldiers died from the effects of poison gas in the World War; one million more were counted as casualties from this weapon. On the other hand, approximately eight and one half million men were killed, and twenty-one million men were wounded through other means. Thus the poison gas toll is less than one per cent. of the total, with the great majority of casualties occurring during the early years of the war, when gas masks had not been developed.

These facts have not impeded a constant attack against poison gas; people shocked by modern warfare point to it as a symbol of horror. But whether or not worthy of the reputation, every new war weapon has been similarly received. When fire-arms were first used during the Middle Ages, there was a like vilification against the introduction of barbarian practices.

According to the most recent treatise on chemical warfare (by Lieutenant Colonel A.M. Prentiss, of the United States Chemical Warfare Service), the French were actually the first to use poison gas. Ethylbromacetate, a lachrimator or tear gas was used in French rifle grenades as early as August, 1914. Due to the shortage of bromine, a chlorine compound was substituted in November, 1914. The chloracetone used was a toxic lung injurant.

Whatever amount of tear gas was used in the French rifle grenades and German artillery shell, real gas warfare began with the German gas-cloud attack at Ypres, Belgium, on April 22, 1915. Nearly six thousand large and small cylinders containing chlorine were installed by the Germans in their frontline trenches. After this attack, the poison gas weapon was adopted by the Allies and by every army division on both sides.

The credit for the German gas attacks has been given to Fritz Haber, chemist, patriot, soldier and statesman, who died in exile from the ungrateful Nazi government. Although having engineered the first and other successful gas attacks, he may have been merely the scapegoat to receive abuse in the event of world-wide protest. The real instigator may have been Professor Walter Nernst, professor of chemistry at the University of Berlin. Shortly after the use of gas had been started, Nernst was decorated by the Kaiser for his "notable services," while Fritz Haber gained only the title of captain in the army and abuse in scientific circles outside Germany.

Such a possible intrigue is not new in history nor in the history of poison gas. During the Crimean War in 1855, the English Admiral Lord Dundonald, having years before noted the suffocating character of the fumes near the sulfur mines in Sicily, proposed to conquer Sebastapol through the use of sulfur fumes. The English government disapproved the measure. But the prime minister, Lord Palmerston, discussing the matter in a personal letter to Lord Panmure, wrote: "If it succeeds, it will, as you say, save a great number of English and French lives; if it fails in his hands, we shall be exempt from blame, and if we come in for a small share of ridicule, we can bear it, and the greater part will fall on him."

The idea of poison gas warfare, however, did not originates with the English during the last century. In the war between the Spartans and Athenians (431-404 B.C.), the Spartans saturated wood with pitch and sulfur, and burned it under the walls of cities, asphyxiating gases being liberated. More famous is "Greek fire." Its composition as far as ascertained (for its secret has been lost) ()ows not only readily inflammable substances as pitch, resin and petroleum but also sand and quicklime. If such were the constituents, the quicklime by being quenched in water generated enough heat to ignite the petroleum, which in burning developed sufficient heat to ignite other combustibles. The light hydrocarbons evaporating from the petroleum formed an explosive mixture with air, and in exploding developed enormous quantities of smoke and soot. Also sulfur caught fire, and in its combustion formed the asphyxiating gas, sulfur dioxide. The invention of "Greek fire" is believed to have occurred at about 600 A.D., and there is evidence of its use during the Crusades.

Twenty-six nations at the first Hague Peace Conference in 1899 pledged themselves not to use projectiles giving out suffocating or poisonous gases in warfare. Captain Mahan, the United States delegate, refused to sign, arguing that such pledges were meaningless when heavy arms and explosives were used without scruple. At the second Hague Peace Conference, in 1907, the United States delegate still refused to sign the document.

Although Germany violated this agreement with a large-scale attack, the use of poison gas by Germany should not have surprised the Allies. A deserter at Ypres, captured by the French, warned the French Divisional Commander of the impending attack, showed a primitive gas mask in support of his claims. General Ferry, believing the story, warned officers in the neighboring sectors and his superior officers. The latter ridiculed Ferry for believing the story and laughed at his suggestions that the German trenches be shelled in order to destroy the cylinders, and that the number of men in the front-line trenches exposed to the danger be reduced.

Besides the deserter's story the Allies had sufficient basis on which to expect a gas attack. Trench warfare and the power of modern impact weapons had brought a deadlock on the Western front. Gas had to be used in order to restore movement in battle, permit tactical maneuvers and open the way to victory for one side or the other. And gas was the weapon most available to Germany. Preceding the war, its chemical industry had been developing to an amazing extent. In 1913, there were nearly fifteen thousand chemical factories in Germany, many of which were in the dye industry. In 1913, Germany produced three fourths of the total world output of dyes and at the same time more than 85 per cent. of the dye-intermediates. A few simple chemical operations changed many dyes and dye-intermediates into poison gas chemicals. Hence the military importance of the dye industry. Also its mobilization for war purposes in Germany was simplified by the corporate structure. The major portion of the industry was controlled by a holding company, the Interessen Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie, and manufacturing activities were directed from a central office in Berlin.

With such tremendous resources for poison gas, Germany lost the war. The possibility of victory through its use was lost when Germany failed to produce greater and more frequent gas attacks when the Allies were unprepared, when defense measures were negligible. After the introduction of masks, gas became a very weak weapon.

Only very few chemicals are suitable for use in poison gas warfare. In the World War, over three thousand chemical compounds were selected and investigated from the approximately four hundred thousand known. About thirty met requirements for actual use and only six were extensively employed by Allied and Central Powers.

Today the list is probably not larger, because a chemical to be used in gas warfare must meet other requirements besides being poisonous. It must be cheap, easy to manufacture, chemically stable and capable of vaporization. Very few compounds vaporize under ordinary conditions, or conditions on the battlefield. All the light molecules which vaporize are already known, and there is ample protection against the poisonous ones. Whatever the possibility (known to be very small) for the discovery of heavier, vaporizing molecules to be used as poison gas, protection is at hand. Charcoal can absorb such regardless of the composition.

As a poison, a gas is usually classified as either one of five: Lachrimator or tear tear gas, sternutator or sneeze-producer, lung injurant, vesicant or blister-producer, and nerve poison. When it is capable of being in many classes, the chemical gains favor for use. Both multiple effectiveness (in more than one class) and toxicity is found in phosgene, which accounted for 80 per cent. of the gas fatalities in the World War. Mustard gas, also deadly and multiply effective, was used during the last stages of the war. It was discovered after gas masks had been introduced, when German chemists sought either a lung injurant which would penetrate the mask or an entirely new type of gas which would attack other parts of the body. The result was mustard gas and diphenylchlorarsine. These were mainly vesicants as are more recent discoveries: Lewisite, methyldichlorarsine and dibromethyl sulfide. Protection for the entire body must be had to guard against vesicants, and every modern army has such protection.

The same can not be said for civilians. Outfitted with masks, they are immune to all gases save vesicants. For this reason, such gas attacks would seem to have a chance for use in the present conflict. But neither of the belligerents will care to initiate the weapon as long as the posdsibility of reprisal exists.

If and when Germany can severely incapacitate Britain's chemical industry, or vice versa, a mustard gas attack would be "safe" for the winning side. The fear of a retaliation would then be absent. That the chemical and not the aircraft industry can be put out of action is because Britain's chemical industry is concentrated in the Midlands, while Germany's is mainly in the Rhine valley. Bunched targets make for easier bombing.

The manner of dispersing the gas must then be solved. In the last war, gases were released with shell and grenade fire and through cylinders encased in dugouts. To repeat this procedure, Britain must invade the continent or Germany go over to England.

The release of gas through airplanes was tried by the Italians in their conquest of Ethiopia, against unprotected combatants. The same lack of wind and general climate conditions which the Italians found does not prevail in the European theater of war. New methods of airplane dispersal must therefore be found. Also air mastery must be gained. And with the latter, the necessity of a vesicant attack almost vanishes.

Should either side have control of the air, with the other refusing to surrender, vesicant attacks still seem unlikely. Britain will want to rely more upon arousing the conquered peoples of Europe. Besides alienating world opinion, gas attacks will not serve this end. Germany, too, will want to avoid the indignation of non-belligerents and not give her subjected nations more cause for discomfort. If a victory can be had through continued bombing, through invasion, through propaganda, through a war of nerves, why should gas be employed?