WW1 Research Paper - The Actual Impact of Chemical Warfare in World War I

        Two days later, the Germans staged a similar gas attack against the Canadian troops, and continued to do so until the battle ended in a German victory in late May.  Chemical warfare was beginning to show its potential to both change how the war was fought and impact outcomes to a certain degree, as the Germans were able to go on the attack and have some success with the use of chlorine gas.  

The Germans had demonstrated the ability to restore the traditional balance the offense and the defense, but as soon as their troops overreached the protection of the gas, the enemy’s fire brought them to a halt and re-exerted the dominance of the defender.

The Allies viewed the use of poison gas as an inhumane and unfair tactic employed by Germany.  They initially criticized the Axis for using chemical weapons but soon resorted to these measures as well because they believed that the legal constraints in the Hague gas-projectile declaration were no longer valid due to “military necessity”.  This declaration specifically forbid the use of poison or poisoned weapons while in war and the Allies viewed the Germans use of chemical warfare in 1915 as a violation of the laws and customs of war.   

        The Allies changing their view of the use of chemical warfare now impacted how the rest of World War I would be fought on both sides.  Since chemical warfare had never been used before, there was no knowledge of what to expect or how to defend against these attacks.  There was also no prior knowledge of the significant effects these gases had on humans, so both the Allies and Axis had to learn how to understand and cope with these attacks on the fly.   One Canadian historian commenting on the increased degree of incalculability in warfare that gas caused stated that,

Missiles followed a consistent and predicable trajectory, whereas gas was a weapon of variable speed, intensity, and range.  Furthermore, when a soldier perceived the arrival of a missile he could escape its danger by seeking the cover of the trench.  Gas, however, followed him down into the previously safe hollows and attacked by striking at a basic physiological imperative: breathing.

At this point of the war, it was evident that the use of chemical warfare would change the way the war was being fought as it changed the way the Allies viewed this inhumane fighting tactic.  This can be seen in a British soldier’s comment that “The most stupendous change in warfare since gunpowder was invented had come, and come to stay.  Let us not forget that.”  The Allies realized that they had to show their ability to attack and they also recognized the success that the Germans could have had if they had been adequately prepared for their first attack using poison gas at Ypres.  

        After Ypres, the British were anxious to seek revenge for the German attacks and they took action by establishing special gas companies under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Charles Foulkes.  Although the British had a strong desire to get revenge, General Douglas Haig, Commander-in-Chief of the British Expeditionary Forces, had a desire to deliver a comparable psychological blow on the Germans.  Historian Albert Pallazzo attests to this as he said, “Haig did not plan a lengthy battle for fire supremacy as a prelude to the launching of the decisive blow that would lead to victory.  Instead, gas would strike at the enemy’s morale and create panic within their ranks.”  On September 24, 1915, Lieutenant Colonel Charles Foulkes’ men placed over 5,000 cylinders of chlorine gas along a 25-mile span of land around Loos, a town in Belgium.  Early the following morning, the British soldiers released the chlorine gas over the German infantry in order to set themselves up for an infantry attack.  But the plan was foiled when the wind changed directions and begun to blow the toxic gas back in the face of the attacking British infantrymen.  As a result, the British inflicted more casualties to their own men then they did on the Germans.  Despite the failure of the first Allied attempt at employing chemical warfare, they continued to improve their tactics and were driven to be successful using this new way of fighting.  

        In December 1915, the Germans brought a new type of poison gas into the war.  This gas was called phosgene and it was even more potent than the previously used chlorine gas.  This was a gas that had been used in the dye industry and the Germans believed that its toxicity would make it very effective in the war.  The phosgene gas had a similar smell to that of newly mown hay and soldiers were able to identify when this type of gas attack was occurring pretty quickly.  Although the soldiers were able to recognize these attacks, this gas caused lung damage very quickly to anyone who inhaled it before they were able to put on their gas masks.  The French decided to try and retaliate with an attack using phosgene gas in February 1916.  And by 1916, both sides relied on heavy artillery to deliver specialized chemical shells.

        Once both sides had learned how to effectively use chemical weapons, protective measures were developed which diminished the effects of future attacks.  The result, according to Sohail H. Hashmi, was that “Once the British acquired the ability to retaliate and both sides acquired protective equipment, gas was relegated to a supporting role while at the same time its use expanded.”  This shows that chemical warfare was not playing a very influential role in the ultimate outcome of the war, but it was taking a great amount of energy and effort from both the Allies and the Axis to try and outperform the other in their use of chemical weapons.  The most effective gas of the war was mustard gas, which was introduced after much of the protective gear and chemical defenses had been implemented.  The book Nuclear Weapons by Eric Croddy describes the impact of mustard gas in the following terms:  “Sulfur and nitrogen mustards are toxic via a number of routes, including the skin, eyes, and upper respiratory tract.  Mustard, an oily liquid, is also more persistent than other true ‘gases’ that were used in the beginning of World War I”.  Mustard gas was first used by Germany in 1917 and its use resulted in an increase in the amount of deaths due to chemical warfare.  

        Due to the persistency of mustard gas, opposing forces were required to wear protective masks as well as complete protective clothing if they wanted to ensure that they were safe.  The brutality of this gas is seen in the book called War of Nerves, as Jonathan Tucker refers to mustard gas by saying, “Not only was it highly persistent, clinging to clothing and equipment and contaminating the battlefield for days or even weeks, but its ability to penetrate the skin forced troops to augment their respirators with cumbersome oilskin capes, goggles, and leather or rubber garments”.  And not only was chemical gas stronger and more consistent than others, but it was also hard to detect its damage due to the fact that it did not have immediate impacts on the soldiers.  The unlucky Allie soldiers who were unable to avoid the mustard gas were faced with an itchy and painful irritation of the skin, which sometimes resulted in very large blisters that appeared up to a day after the gas attack.  It ended up being the most effective gas as mustard specifically attacks the vital organs of the soldier’s bodies.   

        Both the Allies and Axis realized the dramatic effects chemical warfare could have -- particularly that panic was one of the main reactions of soldiers when a gas attack occurred.  In order to address this issue, the British published a document from their general headquarters, which stressed the fact that gas attacks were only effective when the defenders panicked.  And as long as the soldiers followed their adequate training and used the protective gear, it would diminish the success of the any gas attack.  Another memorandum to the British soldiers stated that if the men followed recommendations regarding anti-gas drill, respirations, and wind measurements, they would not be affected psychologically by the threat of gas and they would not have to retreat and give up ground either.  Not only does this show that these gas attacks were playing a significant psychological role in the war, but it is also evident that both sides had developed what they believed to be effective measures in countering the attacks.  

        This is important because there was no way soldiers could outrun these attacks, as evidenced by Albert’s comment in his book Seeking Victory on the Western Front: The British Army and Chemical Warfare.  He said, “The natural inclination on meeting poison gas is to run away from it; to do so is fatal.  The gas travels as fast as a man can run, and he remains in the cloud instead of it passing over him.  Moreover, when running the man finds he cannot breath through the pad and so removes it, with fatal results.”  This shows how vital it was for both sides to develop appropriate defensive measures to ensure that their soldiers were protected from these gas attacks.  The main issue and area of concentration was trying to train the soldiers on both sides to trust the techniques and defensive measures that were being taught to protect them from the gas.  Palazzo attests to this as he stresses how it was the officer’s responsibility to ensure that his men were confident in their ability to handle and resist gas attacks because if the men could understand a gas cloud from a distance and guarantee that they were safe, it would make the morale effect of gas become very minimal.   It was also important to get the soldiers on both sides to understand the actual effectiveness of chemical agents and that this new type of warfare greatly decreased their chances of dying.  This is attested to by the historian Eric Croddy when he says, “In reality, though, chemical weapons had caused relatively few deaths and injuries compared to conventional weapons.”

         By the end of World War I, the war had consumed over 124,000 metric tons of 21 different toxic agents, which were mostly delivered by 66 million artillery shells.  Despite the massive amount of chemical weapons that were employed, these weapons only accounted for approximately one million total casualties.  About 90,000 casualties were fatal (9%) while 910,000 were injured (91%). The Russian forces that were stationed on the Eastern Front sustained about 425,000 casualties, 56,000 of which were fatal (13%) and 369,000 were injured (87%).  This was the greatest amount of chemical casualties for a single country in the war because the Russian soldiers did not have adequate training and equipment.  The second most affected group was The American Expeditionary Force, as chemical weapons were responsible for 26.8 percent of the roughly 272,000 deaths and injuries among U.S. Armed Forces.  But only 2 percent of the chemical casualties among U.S. troops were fatal.  The other 98% were injured but survived.   These numbers show that chemical weapons did not have a significant effect in terms of the number of deaths sustained, as only a small percentage of soldiers died from their effects.  In fact, the overall death rate that resulted from chemical weapons during World War I was about 3%.  The most significant impacts of these weapons were their psychological effects and the amount of injuries they caused.  

        Both the Allies and Axis used chemical warfare to attempt to end the continuous stalemate that had occurred from trench warfare and bring about decisive victories in World War I.  But it is evident that it did not play a crucial role in determining the outcome of World War I, as many of the attempts using chemical warfare resulted in no substantial impact and it brought about no decisive victories for either side.  However, this new war tactic did have a major impact on how the war was fought.  Since this was a fighting tactic that had never been utilized in war before, it took some time and effort to understand what type of gas was being used in certain attacks and to develop effective equipment to protect soldiers from the gas.  The use of chemical warfare also caused both the Allies and Axis to focus on developing different gases and brainstorming ways that would be the most effective in employing them against their enemy.  Although this new fighting tactic changed the way the war was fought, chemical warfare’s main impact was the psychological toll it played on soldiers both on and off the battlefield throughout World War I.

Bibliography

Croddy, Eric, and James J. Wirtz. Nuclear Weapons. Santa Barbara, Calif. [u.a.: ABC-CLIO, 2005.         Print.

Garrett, Benjamin C., and John Hart. The A to Z of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Warfare.         Lanham, MD: Scarecrow, 2009. Print.

Haber, L. F. The Poisonous Cloud: Chemical Warfare in the First World War. Oxford [Oxfordshire:         Clarendon, 1986. Print.

Hashmi, Sohail H., and Steven Lee. Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Religious and         Secular Perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2004. Print.

Henretta, James A. America: A Concise History, Combined Volume 5th Ed. + Student's Guide         to History, 12th Ed. A Concise History. N.p.: Bedford/st Martins, 2013. Print.

Jones, Simon, and Richard Hook. World War I Gas Warfare Tactics and Equipment. Oxford, UK:         Osprey, 2007. Print.

Palazzo, Albert. Seeking Victory on the Western Front: The British Army and Chemical Warfare in         World War I. Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska, 2000. Print.

Spencer, Tucker, and Priscilla Mary. Roberts. World War I: Student Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara,

        CA: ABC-CLIO, 2006. Print.

Tucker, Jonathan B. War of Nerves: Chemical Warfare from World War I to Al-Qaeda. New York:         Pantheon, 2006. Print.

Tuorinsky, Shirley D. Medical Aspects of Chemical Warfare. Falls Church, VA: Office of the         Surgeon General, U.S. Army, 2008. Print.

---