The History Book Club discussion
THE FIRST WORLD WAR
>
WORLD WAR I AND ITS TECHNOLOGY
In all my time in uniform, the two kinds of weapons that scared me most were gas and flame weapons (and I think you could also make a case that things like flamethrowers, napalm, and white phosphorus are chemical weapons that should fall under that part of the 1925 Geneva Protocol.) Wilfred Owen captured it with his poem 'Dulce et Decorum Est', describing the horror of gas weapons:
Dulce et Decorum Est
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.
8 October 1917 - March, 1918
DULCE ET DECORUM EST - A Latin saying, taken from an ode by Horace: "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori - it is sweet and right to die for your country."
I think it's beyond irony that after introducing poison gas and aerial bombing of civilian populations, the thing the Germans got most indignant about was the use of shotguns in trench fighting by American troops.
Mod
I do agree with you James regarding the shotgun, maybe the Germans wanted to feel that they had some moral high ground (hard to see where that might be) with what they were associated with in both wars.
I did it ,yes.Congo is only one example of the colonial policy of European nations.
Mod
James wrote: "In all my time in uniform, the two kinds of weapons that scared me most were gas and flame weapons (and I think you could also make a case that things like flamethrowers, napalm, and white phosphor..."James, I think the poem you cite says it very well. I get a sense of helplessness and hopelessness from being under attack from an inhuman source. The gas is relentless and continues its effect beyond when the soldier has been taken out of the fight. Perhaps analogous to shooting a prisoner or a wounded soldier who is out of the fight
Bentley wrote: "I guess I find difficulties with the Germans using chemical warfare; they were the aggressors in all of this - not the French or poor Belgium or even the Russians for that matter. If you are defen..."I guess I wasn't thinking about the Germans being the aggressors. That does make a difference. I was mostly comparing how careful we are today with considering the consequences of new technology versus 100 years ago. Today it seems every new technology that comes out we carefully consider every angle before implementing. But in the first half of the 20th century, I think people weren't used to a need for that. Actually, I think the reason we are so careful today about new technology is because of things like gas and atom bombs and nuclear accidents, etc.
I agree to an extent, Elizabeth, but a terrible exception comes to mind. Some of the projectiles we and over a dozen other countries use in several kinds of weapons, ranging from tank main guns to smart bombs to heavy machine guns on aircraft and ground vehicles, are made of depleted uranium (DU). It's used because it makes the best kinetic energy penetrators - they're giant darts, basically - it's almost twice as dense as lead and much harder, and because of that it extends the lethal range of the weapons from which it's fired. Because it's so hard and dense, we also use it in the armor we put on tanks.
It's also used because it's cheap. We have an overabundance in the form of used fuel from nuclear reactors and it's sometimes even provided free to the companies that make the ammunition.
In the civilian realm, it's used in the construction of commercial jetliners wherever they need some weight to have the center of gravity where it should be and need it to take up as little space as possible.
When a DU projectile hits a target, the DU and the metal it hits vaporize into an easily inhaled mist, and any DU not vaporized burns like a magnesium road flare at a temperature hot enough to also ignite the metal it has hit (and, of course, whatever or whoever is on the other side of that armor.) The result is that the air, soil, and any exposed water nearby are contaminated with fine particles of DU, which is both mildly radioactive and a toxic metal aside from the radiation (its half-life is 4.5 billion years, i.e. 45,000 times as long as human beings have existed on Earth, and about the amount of time the scientists believe remains before this planet is destroyed by the sun expanding into a red giant near the end of its lifespan).
Kuwait, Iraq, and the places we fought in the former Yugoslavia are heavily contaminated with that dust. The experts estimate that between the 1991 war and the current one, our weapons have deposited about 325 tons of DU in the soil of Iraq.
There is a lot of controversy that appears political rather than scientific about the effects; the various agencies of the countries that use DU munitions insist that it's not a health hazard, while the countries where it's been used, other NATO countries like Italy whose troops served in those places, and individual service members who've been exposed cite some nasty medical consequences. It appears to be a factor in Gulf War Syndrome, a devastating phenomenon seen in U.S. troops who fought in the 1991 Gulf War; like the effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam veterans, the government staunchly denied it existed for years, but has had to yield to a mass of evidence (it's hard for me to grasp how the government could tell people that their children's birth defects weren't real, but they insisted it was imaginary or all those problems were coincidental for years.)
The reported effects of DU exposure include leukemia and other cancers, damage to the brain and nervous system, and (I think worst of all) birth defects in the children of those who have been exposed. Similar effects have been reported (and denied by the responsible authorities) in people exposed to plane crashes of jets built with DU and in workers in industrial plants where it's made into those projectiles and aircraft parts.
I bow to greater knowledge of current events. :)It sounds like we can still agree that such issues are considered much more often than they were 100 years ago. And even when responsible authorities refuse to ignore them today, there are still agencies and people like you who remind us all and keep it in people's minds. I think such agencies and well-informed people have come about over the years because of such situations. Back then I think people were just starting to realize that long-term consequences even existed.
Elizabeth S wrote: "I bow to greater knowledge of current events. :)It sounds like we can still agree that such issues are considered much more often than they were 100 years ago. And even when responsible authori..."
We live in a totally different world than they did. Modern medicine and sanitation has put an end to a lot of deaths that people use to just accept as "part of life".
Yes, Elizabeth and Patrick, definitely - the average life expectancies for Americans in 1914 were 52.0 years for men and 56.8 for women, and people just considered death by illness or accident at any point in life a lot more routine than we do now. I think people were still coming to terms with the explosion of new science and technology and grappling for mastery of it, and just took it for granted that people got caught in the gears literally and figuratively much more often - I think of not only the war and the effects of the new technology there, but of stories like The Jungle, the killer smogs in London, the complete absence of any kind of safety equipment in cars and bikes, the conditions in the slums in big cities, the lack of sanitation in medicine, etc. A tough time to live. By 1918 those life expectancies for Americans had actually dropped to 36.6 and 42.2 respectively; that drop just about has to be because the flu pandemic that started in 1918. Not enough American men had died in the war to have that kind of impact, unlike the situations of the European powers. 36.6 years - my son is closer to that age than I am by quite a bit.
Don't remember where, but I read once that the mortality from WWI actually reduced the height of the average adult man in France by several inches, since the most robust were more likely to end up in uniform. Britain, too, lost more men in World War I than in World War II, even though the latter war was two years longer and populations were larger.
Mod
I am not sure if you were alluding to Sinclair's novel or not but I have included it: (it is a great novel even if you were not)
James Joyce
James wrote: "...Don't remember where, but I read once that the mortality from WWI actually reduced the height of the average adult man in France by several inches, since the most robust were more likely to end up in uniform. Britain, too, lost more men in World War I than in World War II, even though the latter war was two years longer and populations were larger. "Wow, that is interesting stuff. (Wouldn't it be fun to have a job to think of interesting things like this to extract from given data?) If you ever run across that source again, please post it. I'd bet there are other interesting things there.
It's probably in a book I read a long time ago - I tend to re-read books I find interesting every few years, and if I come across that factoid I'll note the source and pass it on. I tried to find it with Google but had no luck.
James wrote: "It's probably in a book I read a long time ago - I tend to re-read books I find interesting every few years, and if I come across that factoid I'll note the source and pass it on. I tried to find i..."Thanks for looking. Sometimes I think it is frustrating not having an annotated memory. :)
Yes - it's like my mom used to say, it'll bubble up out of the tar pit sooner or later.
In my current book I'm reading, "Vimy", I came across this description of the effects of gas:"The dying and the wounded lay out in No Man's Land, waiting for help that never came. Phosgene is an insidious gas, eighteen times as powerful chlorine. Its effects build slowly: breathing becomes shallow, the victim begins to retch, the pulse rises to 120, the features turn ashen grey; over the next forty-eight hours the victim drowns slowly as the lungs discharge pints of yellow fluid. As the day wore on, the suffering of those who had been gassed increased as the phosgene ate into their lungs."
Gassed
by Pierre Berton
Mod
Vicious and evil.When I was in (76 - 96) we trained fairly extensively on defense against NBC (nuclear, biological, or chemical) weapons. They terrified me. All weapons are malign; but those designed to disable and cause a prolonged death are, to me, in a different category. Mustard gas, chlorine, and phosgene are terror weapons every bit as bad as napalm or the flamethrower - to me gas would be worse, bad as the flame weapons are. Forced to choose between the gas effects just cited by Aussie Rick or napalm, I'd rather burn.
A very brief, I promise, side note away from World War I, but on this same technology - I recently learned from a documentary about the planned invasion of Japan at the end of World War II that our plan included massive bombardment of Japanese cities with mustard gas, despite the revulsion aroused by memories of its use in World War I. So we almost turned to those weapons again a generation later. No doubt if nuclear weapons had been available in World War I, one side or both would have used them too.
And contrary to then-SecDef Dick Cheney's testimony to Congress that our troops did not encounter chemical weapons in the 1991 Gulf War (in the context of denying that Gulf War Syndrome was real and arguing against disability benefits for its victims), the sergeant major of the 7th Marine Regiment told me that during the drive through Kuwait they'd been hit with mustard gas, confirmed with test kits by their NBC defense team.
I think you are right James, the shock of napalm to the human system would hopefully render your unconscious within a matter of minutes (still dreadful to think about though) but gas takes hours to days to kill you. I recall reading about the Japanese Army experimenting with biological weapons during WW2, using it against the Chinese and Allied prisoners-of-war.Unit 731: Japanese Army's Secret of Secrets (no book cover) by Peter Williams
Publishers blurb:
Inspired by an ITV documentary, this book attempts to clear up one of the last secrets of the Second World War - how a Japanese bacteriologist researched biological weapons that would win the war for Japan. The details of the experiments which took place in the unit are horrifying. Japanese soldier-scientists carried out freezing, ballistics and live vivisection experiments on Russian, Chinese, American and British prisoners. The book raises some other questions regarding experimentation in China, Singapore and Burma and whether Britain knew of the full extent of Japanese biological warfare activities.
I will stop here so not to go too far off thread.
I've recent come across three relatively new books covering air power and aerial combat during the Great War that may interest other readers who have a passion for the air war during WW1.
by Jon GuttmanDescription:
When World War I began in August 1914, the airplane had already proven its worth as an intelligence gathering "eye-in-the-sky." Aircraft soon became indispensable to armies on both sides, and the attempt to drive enemy planes away began in earnest. Local air superiority was incorporated into battlefield strategy, and the use of aircraft to conduct offensive operations would change warfare as dramatically as the first firearms 300 years before. In The Origin of the Fighter Aircraft, historian Jon Guttman tells the engrossing story of how one of the most amazing inventions became an integral component of warfare. The first true fighter plane whose primary function was to destroy enemy aircraft--whether scouts, balloons, bombers, or other fighters--emerged at the end of 1915, and with it a new glamorized "knight of the air" was born: the ace, a pilot who brought down five or more opponents. From 1916 on, as the combatants relied on airplanes more, flying tactics and strategy, including mass formations, were developed for what would become a deadly struggle for complete air superiority. By 1918, the final year of the war, air battles could be as sprawling as those on the ground.
Balancing technical description, personalities, and battle accounts, and heavily illustrated, The Origin of the Fighter Aircraft reveals that by the end of World War I, most of the fundamentals for modern aerial combat had been established.
by E. R. HootonDescription:
The colossal impact and effect of World War 1 has provided a historical watershed of which almost every aspect has been studied and revised. Yet there is one aspect which has remained an enigma - air power. This book helps resolve many unanswered questions. Ironically, less is known about the air war, especially over the Western Front, than the campaigns of the armies of ancient Rome. Yet the technological development of the aeroplane, in air power and in air power's use as an offensive weapon between 1914-18, accelerated at a pace which has never been matched. Few histories of World War 1 air power have focused upon the strategic air campaign, especially against England - fewer still those based upon documentary evidence which describe the course of operations and the events which shaped them; but the events of 1916-18 have been so little studied that mythology has become accepted fact, including myths in many now famous 'standard works'. "War over the Trenches" is the first internationally-researched study to portray how air power really evolved and how it was really used to support armies during the massive and devastating battles on the Western Front. E.R. Hooton examines how air power was deployed en masse for the first time over Verdun and its subsequent use over the Somme in the second half of 1916; how reconnaissance and measures of co-operation with artillery were developed and refined; and, the recovery of Allied air power during in the autumn and summer of 1917 following months of attrition and in the final, great German offensives of 1918. This could often be a grim war, whose participants were directed in the air - frequently to their deaths - by commanders on the ground. "War over the Trenches" is based on exhaustive research conducted in archives in France, Belgium, the UK, the USA and includes German material which has never before been published. It provides the most insightful, exciting and radical reassessment of First World War air operations ever published.
by John SweetmanDescription:
In 1917, David Lloyd George declared that airmen were 'the cavalry of the clouds - the knighthood of this war.' This romantic image was fostered post-war by writers of adventure stories and the stunts of Hollywood filmmakers, and yet it was far from the harsh reality of life of an airman. From their baptism of fire in 1914 carrying out reconnaissance and experiencing the first dogfights, to the breakthrough in 1918 which claimed heavy casualties, the aerial defenders of Britain were continually tested. In Cavalry of the Clouds John Sweetman describes the development of British air power during the First World War on the Western Front, which culminated in the creation of the first independent air force, the RAF. By making use of the correspondence of airmen and ground staff of all nationalities, he illustrates the impact this new type of conflict had on those involved and their families at home. Extensively researched and handsomely illustrated with contemporary photographs, Cavalry of the Clouds is an essential reference work for any student of military history.
Reviews:
"This is a first-class history of the Royal Flying Corps on the Western Front ... extensively researched and well illustrated, this work draws on a wide range of personal correspondence." - Great War Magazine, May 2010
"A very good overview of the air war ... well researched from National Archives material and an extensive bibliography." - Cross & Cockade, Summer 2010
Well I have started reading; "The Origin of the Fighter Aircraft" by Jon Guttman and so far it has been quite good. As the title states the book concentrates on the birth and development of the fighter aircraft. For those who want a more in-depth view of the development of the air arm as a whole should look at; "The Great War In The Air: Military Aviation from 1909 to 1921" by Jr. John H. Morrow.
by Jon Guttman
by MORROW JOHN H
Here is a funny story from; "The Origin of the Fighter Aircraft" which covers an incident involving the French ace, Nungesser, who has just picked up a new Nieuport 16 aircraft for his squadron:“While ferrying it to N.65’s aerodrome at Malzeville on November 26, he celebrated over Nancy by flying around the church steeples, looping over the town square and zooming as low as 30 feet down the main street. Upon landing he got a dressing-down from his commander, Capitaine Louis Gonnet-Thomas, who caustically remarked that he should be terrorizing the Boche, not his fellow Frenchman.
Nungesser obeyed in his own way – he refuelled his Nieuport, flew over the lines, buzzed a German aerodrome and returned to report: ‘It is done, mon capitaine!’ His reward was another eight days under house arrest.”
by Jon Guttman
Here is another account from; "The Origin of the Fighter Aircraft" which was taken in the period of 1916 during the ebb of the ‘Fokker Scourge’:“The inability of the Fokkers to keep British reconnaissance, artillery spotting, and bombing planes from violating their airspace and the incessant misery they brought down on the heads of the German troops holding the line did not go unnoticed. A frequent oath heard among them was, ‘God punish England, our artillery and our airmen’.”
by Jon Guttman
Bentley wrote: "Well if you do visit the museum in that area, the films are unbelievable. I just visited there last year."I just found this series. In France, much more thought to the first world war, as in Germany. Here's the WW II and the Nazi time are more important. Almost all movies with scenes of battles from the WW I are fakes. These films were simulated in combat areas or military training areas. Thus, they show for all the brutality is not the reality. Only the shots behind the front or in hospitals are original images.
Bentley wrote: "Gas:(...) By April, however, the Germans had a killing agent available in quantity, in the form of chlorine. A "vessicant," which causes death by stimulating over-production of fluid in the lungs, leading to drowning, the material was a by-product of the German dye-stuff industry, controlled by IG Farben, which commanded a virtual world monopoly in those products. They were working to put the gas into cylinders for use in the trenches. ,..."
The name of IG Farben is wrong here. 1916 was founded by six German chemical companies, the "Interessengemeinschaft der deutschen Teerfarbenfabriken". "Teerfarbenfabriken" (Teer = tar)produce colors from coal and other chemical substances. Thus Germany was independent of imports. This foundation came from the loss of foreign companies, such as existence in the United States. The "IG Farben" was founded in 1925th. Today's companies Bayer and BASF were then co-founder of IG Farben and in 1945 they were again released from the community.
Mod
I just found this series. In France, much more thought to the first wo..."
Baseni, the ones at Verdun were real; I beg to differ.
Mod
(...) Baseni, I cited countless sources and links in message 25 which I believe were accurate. When countering another's sources and links, it i..."
First, you are welcome about the correct translation.
Second, the same firms that became part of the trust or association in 1925 were the same ones producing chemicals, gun powder, explosives, TNT for World War I (as the quote stated - "BASF, Bayer, Hoechst, and other German chemical and pharmaceutical companies previously very active during World War I").
Just because a group changes their name in terms of creating a profit pool and a trust does not change who they are individually.
Same companies - under an umbrella or trust name.
I do not really see your reason as why they got together. In fact, without them the 3rd Reich would not have been able to conduct World War II. They courted Adolf Hitler for very good reason to increase their profits.
Third, I disagree strongly with your assertion that there is no connection with IG Farben and World War I. The connection that folks are making or have made is that these same companies were independent and then to protect themselves under one umbrella or trust; they formed an association. The same zebra - the stripes have not changed.
Yes, there have been many cartels and even some of the drug companies had associations - that is true. But we are talking about IG Farben and the companies that made up that association; all who for the most part were involved with explosives, TNT and making gun powder, etc in World War I previously. They branched out to more serious and deadly war products in World War II (gas used at the concentration camps as one product) and many others.
Bentley wrote: "Baseni wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Well if you do visit the museum in that area, the films are unbelievable. I just visited there last year."I just found this series. In France, much more thought to..."
In the Musée de l'Armée in Paris similar films are shown, they look very real. The propaganda of the time but wanted to see certain films. The primitive cinematography and the desires of the war propaganda were the reasons for the mock filming.
Bentley wrote: "Baseni wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Gas:(...) Baseni, I cited countless sources and links in message 25 which I believe were accurate. When countering another's sources and links, it is important that you provide your own. Did you look at the sources in message 25? ..."
The "Association of Common Interests", thank you for the correct translation, was in WW I an association of independent firms. The union was reached by the lack of raw materials. New inventions made possible the substitution of imports by domestic coal.
1925 under the umbrella of BASF, combined a large number of companies, they lost their independence. The new company called IG Farben. IG Farben in Germany is seen almost exclusively in connection with the 3rd Reich. Therefore, the interconnection in WW I, also called "Kleine (little) IG Farben", but there is no legal connection to the later IG Farben.
There have been since 1929, a cartel agreement with the Standard Oil of New Jersey. This compound was also unresolved in WW II, although Germany and the United States were enemies.
Mod
I just found this series. In France, mu..."
Maybe some are, but the ones I saw and have seen are actual footage. I think the horrors of World War I and World War II are well known and not propaganda. Some say falsely that the Holocaust was propaganda and that is to me also horrendous. And Baseni, please do not assume what we have seen here (our group members) or what I have seen personally.
Mod
(...) Baseni, I cited countless sources and links in message 25 which I believe were accurate. When countering another's sources and links, it i..."
See message 78; I think by accident I combined one of my previous responses. But that post will do.
Bentley wrote: "Baseni wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Baseni wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Well if you do visit the museum in that area, the films are unbelievable. I just visited there last year."I just found this series. ..."
Hi Bentley, I think the WWI was much worse than the pictures show it. There are usually shown fighting scenes. Normal life in the trenches with his dirt, mud, vermin and hunger can not be shown. How is one to show what a soldier experiences, if only for several days follow shells? The biggest psychological burden of the German soldiers was the fear of becoming buried in the shelters. It was probably just on the other side.
Recent studies prove the subsequent production of the films. At home, the horrors of war can not be shown as brutal. In Germany, they were convinced by the fall of 1918 that the war is won.
Mod
I actually saw footage of the actual trenches; this footage is readily available and may in fact have been added to our World War I folder.
I believe we even have footage of a poor soldier who was shell shocked. After seeing some of these shelters; I can imagine that fears of being buried was a real fear.
Odd how propaganda can make folks believe anything. And of course so many died in the trenches that there were few to refute whatever was being said on either side.
Bentley wrote: "(...)I believe we even have footage of a poor soldier who was shell shocked. After seeing some of these shelters; I can imagine that fears of being buried was a real fear.(...) ..."On the Alpine front Austrians and Italians have tried to target the enemy buried by snow avalanches. Here they built whole tunnel systems to undermine your opponent and then buried from explosions. To the burden of the trench was still the big chill.
Mod
It was in the German army a Cuirassiers regiment "Emperor Nicholas I of Russia" (Brandenburg) No 6. The regimental commander was up to the war beginning in 1914 the Russian Tsar. The German Emperor, the English king and the Russian Czar were cousins, and then in the war such a hatred. Simply incomprehensible.
Mod
I agree. The war was seen in Germany as a short-term event. The population truly believed, until Christmas 1914 the war was over. No one expected a war in trenches and the millions of victims. the military was still living in the old tradition, this one can see the colorful uniforms and spiked helmets. Model was the 1870-71 war in which Germany fought against France.
Here is a new book released this month about the air war.No Empty Chairs: The Short and Heroic Lives of the Young Aviators Who Fought and Died in the First World War
byIan Mackersey(no photo)Synopsis
In the spring of 1917, when the world's first great air war was at its height, the British squadrons were losing 200 pilots a month, and British pilot life expectancy was eleven days. The aeroplanes the pilots flew were rudimentary open-cockpit biplanes, with a single machine bolted to the wood and fabric wing intended for shooting down the equally frail German planes. This book tells the story of that first great air war, illustrating its devastating emotional impact on the participants and their families in a narrative enriched by the private correspondence that flowed between them, and diaries, reports and interviews. The aerial combat tactics that the sacrifices of those First World War aviators created became so tactically effective that they were used to deadly effect in the Second World War.
When we think of WWI, the weapons that come to mind often don't include the grenade. The web-site noted below gives the history of the grenade and how it played a major and deadly part in trench warfare.http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry...
I've been reviewing many of the past WWI topics and this one caught my eye. My grandfather served in the Royal Field Artillery during the early battles of the war. I was fortunate to be given his war journal. I'm posting an excerpt from his journal that describes his experience being gassed.
April 26th, 1915
"As we made our way back, we didn't get far when the shelling started again. We ran for our previous little shelter and gained it just in time. Shells were bursting very near and I said to Collins, ―What a stink and stronger smell. My eyes were watering and we all three began coughing. We decided to chance it and go anywhere away from where we were.
After an exciting half hour we got to the guns, but by that time I felt very sick. Afterwards we learned from an officer that it was due to the gas shells the Germans were using.
After reading this passage I wondered the type of gas he was exposed to. I doubt that it was chlorine because He was in the town of St Jean, which isn't close to where the Germans released the chlorine gas. An officer told him that it was a gas shell, but according to WWI experts, the Germans had not yet perfected gas shells. So what gas was he exposed to and how was it delivered?
The Germans did use tear gas in artillery shells as early as 1915......that was before they started using the poison gasses. It appears that they didn't work very well especially in cold weather.........but that might be the gas to which your grandfather was exposed.
I'm currently reading "Echoes of Armageddon, 1914-1918" by B. Cory Kilvert Jr. On page 94 the author writes, "On April 24th St. Julien was gassed" "Two nights later, Billy Congreve, a British staff officer and the son of General Sir Congreve, VC, walked up at night from Ypres toward the 15th Battalion's trenches northeast of St. Jean." "With him went his Canadian friend from the staff his brother." "Along the way, they both inhaled some of the gas, which by then was dissipating." So this supports the journal entry but it doesn't identify the gas. I would assume that it was chlorine but it was dissipating. 
Frederick wrote: "I've been reviewing many of the past WWI topics and this one caught my eye. My grandfather served in the Royal Field Artillery during the early battles of the war. I was fortunate to be given his..."
B. Cory Kilvert Jr.
From his symptoms I believed that tear gas might be the gas. Chlorine gas dissipated within a short period of time so I find it difficult to believe that it would have traveled that far. This is one of those mysteries where the answer died with those that experienced it.
I just had a thought. The discussion is WWI technology, which automatically brings to mind advancements, such as flame throwers, gases, artillery, machine guns and other weapons. This technology improved an army's ability to kill, but the horrific loss of life was due to the inability to adjust military tactics. Military leaders used mass numbers of soldiers to over power technology.
You make some good points. You factor in generals that are ingrained with old tactics, one of which you mention Frederick, throwing mass numbers of men.Crazy and tragic.
You know something was wrong with the military leadership/tactics when the loss of 10,000 men in a battle was considered minimal and acceptable. The British going over the top carrying a Lee-Enfield against the machine guns of the Germans was criminal.
message 100:
by
Jerome, Assisting Moderator - Upcoming Books and Releases
(new)
Mod
by Michael Freemantle (no photo)Synopsis:
Chemistry was not only a destructive instrument of World War I, but also protected troops and healed the sick and wounded. From bombs to bullets, gas to anesthetic, khaki to camouflage, chemistry was truly the alchemy of the war. This history explores its dangers and its healing potential, revealing how the arms race was also a race for chemistry, to the extent that Germany's thirst for fertilizer to feed the creation of their shells nearly starved the nation. It answers question such as: What is cordite? What is lyddite? What is mustard gas? What is phosgene? What is gunmetal? This is a true picture of the horrors of the "Chemists' War."
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
German Commerce Raiders 1914–18 (other topics)Military Technology of the First World War: Development, Use and Consequences (other topics)
Zeppelins Over the Wire: A Compilation and Analysis of Rigid Airship News Reports through WWI (other topics)
Sopwith Camel Aces of World War 1 (other topics)
German Trench Mortars & Infantry Mortars 1914-1945 (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ryan K. Noppen (other topics)Wolfgang Fleischer (other topics)
B.Z. Kelly (other topics)
Norman L.R. Franks (other topics)
Wolfgang Fleischer (other topics)
More...
Bentley, you are, of course, correct. The soldiers fighting in WWI would not have had a lot of recourse to defeat the gas and would have to suffer under its effects.
All weapons are capable of inflicting horrific wounds. Why is chemical warfare set apart in that regard? Would I rather have be injured by machine gun? flamethrower? In the end, I may not notice the difference. Does anyone have any insight in this area?