Riddle of the Rhine | Page 8

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.