Chemical Warfare in World War I: A Multi-genre Analysis
California State University Dominguez Hills
December 11, 2010
English 350: Advanced Composition
Dr. Cauthen
Table of
Contents
FAQ…………………………………………...1
Rhetorical Analysis……………………………2
Newspaper Article…………………………….3
Soldiers Diary…………………………………4
Help Wanted Advertisement………………….5
Textbook Section……………………………...6
Death Notification
Letter……………………...7
Introduction of
Chemical Warfare FAQ
Introduction of Chemical Warfare
When was poison gas introduced as a weapon?
Poison gas was introduced during World War I on April 19, 1915
at the First Battle of Ypres near Belgium.
Who introduced poison gas as a weapon?
Germany was the first country to utilize chemical weapons successfully. It is hard to
believe it has been nearly ninety-five years since the German’s deployed gas at the Battle of
Ypres, and yet even today, the thought of chemical weapons still strikes fear in the heart of
combatants and civilians alike.
How was poison gas first deployed?
Chlorine cylinders were first utilized to administer the poison gas on the battlefield. “As the
development stages of chemical warfare progressed so did the technology and in 1914 German
physicist’s Fritz Haber suggested the idea that chlorine gas be discharged from cylinders.”1
Following the First Battle of Ypres were the Allies prepared to
retaliate with chemical weapons?
No, “the British had limited scientific knowledge as well as resources to produce chemical
agents, only one firm in the country, the Castner-Kellner Alkali Company, could expand its
output of liquid chlorine to produce bulk supplies.”2
When did the Allies officially introduce chemical weapons?
By September, a group of Royal Engineers, advised by prominent scientist had accumulated a
sufficient amount cylinders filled with chlorine gas. Thus, the British first used poison gas at the
Battle of Loos in September 1915.3
However, Frances efforts at retaliation was hindered by the weak state of their chemical industry,
“which could produce little chlorine and thus forced French military scientists to consider other
alternatives, including a very early move toward toxic gas shells.”4
As for the United States, they did not actively pursue the development of chemical weapons until
after they entered the war in 1917.
As the title suggests, Charles Heller’s Chemical Warfare in World War I: The American
Experience 1917-1918 analyzes the American combatants experience with chemical warfare in
World War I. Even though Heller’s work was published three years before Fritz Haber’s The
Poisonous Cloud, Haber’s is still considered the scholarly standard for the study of the
introduction, development, and organization of chemical warfare. This is due to the fact that the
Americans did not play a very significant role in the development and organization of chemical
warfare, simply because they did not enter the war until 1917. As a result Heller’s analysis of the
introduction, development, and organization of chemical warfare fails to examine many of the
crucial elements of the historiography of chemical warfare, which occurred prior to the
Americans involvement in World War I. Furthermore, once the United States became involved
in World War I “President Wilson's efforts to maintain strict neutrality during the first two years
of the war hampered the Army's planning for defense”5 and as a result the United States
“preparations for chemical warfare lacked a sense of urgency.”6 Heller explains, “the same day
war was declared, the Council of National Defense formed a Committee on Noxious Gases.”7
Heller’s criticism that the United States was not prepared for chemical warfare coincides with
Haber’s argument that “several branches of the war department had been involved and had
proceeded independently so that there had been much conflict, many delays, and a few links with
research and development.”8 As a result, Heller suggests, “ignorance, shortsightedness, and
unpreparedness extracted a high toll at the front, a toll that the United States with its intellectual
and technological resources should not have had to pay.”9 Heller’s work has contributed
significantly to the historiography of chemical warfare by providing much needed insight into
the limited scholarship regarding the American’s experience of chemical warfare during World
War I.
German’s Advance at
Ypres Introduce
Poison Gas!
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
German forces break through allied lines as harsh fighting continues outside
of Ypres, Belgium
Ypres, Belgium April 20 – “Heavy fighting has been in
progress on the British front in Belgium, where the
Germans attacked at four points around Ypres”10. German
forces pushed back Britain’s 1st infantry battalion in
the North using poison gas to deter Allied forces. The
fighting escalated yesterday around Noon as German
artillery forces bombarded French troops near the town
of Ypres, destroying a landscape that just days earlier
was picturesque European countryside.
Prior to the German attack, not much was known of the
effects of asphyxiating gas. According to a field
report, “The bomb, which is about the size of a
football, explodes and fills the air with a dense
yellow smoke.”11 The effects of the poisonous gas
administered by German forces causes the victim to
choke and become disoriented on the field of battle,
which proved to be extremely effective in suppressing
the French troops. Today, I headed to the field
hospital as I wanted to see the effects of this new
weapon for myself. “I witnessed French troops come into
the base hospital who were still suffering from the
effects of the gas they inhaled yesterday at Ypres.”12
In a telegram sent to the war department, The Earl of
Ypres Sir John French suggests “The quantity produced
indicates a long and deliberate preparation for the
employment of devices contrary to the terms of the
Hague Convention, to which the enemy subscribed. The
false statement made by the Germans a week ago, to the
effect that we were using such gases, is now explained.
It was obviously an effort to diminish neutral
criticism in advance.”13
Thus, if preventive measures are not taken to
counteract the use of poisonous gas on the battlefield
the cause-and-effect relationship of a very sudden and
extremely complex technological innovation” and it’s
effects on the combatants will prove to be crucially
important in determining the outcome of this war. There
is no cause greater than this war; Allied forces are
already at a disadvantage when it comes to the research
and development of Chemical warfare. Since Germany was
the first to successfully introduce chemical weapons on
the battlefield, they do not have to worry about
temporary solutions to the defense of gas.
- September 21Arrived in Loos this morning, a small rural town in the French countryside. The town is quiet and I imagine
would be beautiful if it were not in the middle of a war. We are being told to keep watch day and night as the Germans
are said to be close.
- September 22Woke up this morning to a beautiful clear day, it seemed as if I could see for miles in any direction and still
no sign of the Germans. My regiment had been ordered to cooperate in a “subsidiary operation in which we will fight
around the Northern outskirts of Loos on the left og the French attack on Artois.”14 I have night watch tonight, rumor has
it that if we encounter the Germans anytime soon we will deploy small cylinders filled with poison gas.
- September 23 Today has been extremely cold. I have ever been this cold before. Camp is as busy as ever a report from command
said that my infantry division is to be an instrumental part of the “biggest Anglo-French offensive of the war to date.” 15
If intelligence is correct, the offensive should begin in a few days.
- September 24 Rain continues to pour down from the heavens, I am beginning to think GOD does not want us hear. Despite the
rain we drilled for several hours this afternoon. The state of the men is getting more miserable as the days go by.
-September 25–
German howitzers have been bombarding our position since sunrise, tearing the landscape all around us to pieces.
There is a sense among the men that this is the beginning of something big, it seems like this encounter with the German’s
could be a major turning point in the war.
- September 26The battle continues to rage, I have been stuck in the trenches all night, the pounding of the howitzers reminds me
of a twisted nursery rhyme. I witnessed a burst of dense yellow smoke near the advancing German lines; it looks as if we
have finally introduced chemical warfare.
- September 27 It is hard to determine if the use of poison gas had been a success, early field reports suggest that we have suffered
just over 50,000 casualties, and over 2,600 gas related casualties.”16 It seems to me that the casualty numbers are too
high to suggest that our first attempt at chemical warfare was a success, but rather it was a failure.
ATTENTION:
Scientists Needed
The British Army is in urgent
need for academic scientists who
specialize in chemical research
and development.
Are you familiar with the
systematic organization of
laboratory research?
Do you thrive under pressure?
Do you want to help your
countries war effort?
Then apply today!
Report to the headquarters of
your Majesties Army located in
London, England.
The development of anti-gas defense systems occurred differently in Germany, Britain, and
France. Moreover, most historians argue that between the three, the latter was by far the least
successful of the group. “The Germans made much faster progress with their mask because they
were not distracted by interim solutions.”17 Thus, the Allies’ initial retaliation effort was
hindered by the British lack of chemical resources, to retaliate using the same technology and
brutality as the Germans had wielded at Ypres was seen as no easy task. In fact, many scholars
suggest “ links with manufactures had to be strengthened; and, some coordinating body of
makers and users with a leavening of academic chemists was urgently required to develop the
entire chemical warfare effort.”18After nearly three months of development, the British retaliated
at the battle of Loos using 168 cylinders of chlorine gas. “Britain’s first attempt at a large-scale
gas cloud discharge at Loos is seen universally by historians as a failure.”19 Nevertheless, both
British and German forces pursued the development of defenses with more intensity following
the battle of Loos20.
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Department of the Royal Army
Headquarters, British Army European Command,
Buckingham Palace, London SW1A 1A
Mr. and Mrs. Erickson
19 Sutherland Street
LONDON
EC1Y 8SY
UNITED KINGDOM
Mr. and Mrs. Erickson
It is with deep regret to inform you your son, Lance Corporal Ralph
Erickson 1st Infantry of the Royal Army died 24 October 1914 in action at the
battle of Ypres near Belgium. The nature of your sons death is not entirely
clear, however it is thought that he may have been a victim of German poison
gas which was administered by Germany in direct violation of the Hague
convention at the Battle of Ypres.
Your son’s death will not go in vain as “the countless cruel
technological innovations in weaponry of humankind, such as poison gas have
come to be stigmatized as morally illegitimate”21 by the Allied forces. By the
end of this war we will do everything in our power to outlaw the use of
chemical weapons as a form of modern warfare.
It is great sorrow that I have to deliver this news to you, as I know
it brings much grief into your families lives. Understand this, your son
performed his duty and service to his country honorably as he was
instrumental in the allied victory at Ypres. “I sincerely hope the knowledge
that Ralph was an exemplary soldier and died while serving his country will
comfort you in this hour of great sorrow.”22
1
Ludwig Fritz Haber, The Poisonous Cloud: Chemical Warfare in the First World War (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1986), 27
2
Edward M. Spiers, Chemical Warfare (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1986), 19.
3
Johnson, John A. "Chemical Warfare in the Great War." Diss. Villanova University, 1990, 94.
Johnson, 98
5
Charles Heller, “Chemical Warfare in World War I: The American Experience, 1917-1918” (September 1984)
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Heller/HELLER.asp (accessed 11 December 2010).
4
6
Heller.
Heller.
8
Haber, 143
9
Heller.
10
"The Germans Pierce British Lines." New York Times 21 Apr. 1916. Print.
11
"Ypres Lines Hold Fast." New York Times 27 Apr. 1915. Print.
12
Ibid.
13
Horne, Charles F. "First World War.com - Primary Documents - Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett on the Battle of Sari Bair,
6 August 1915." First World War.com - A Multimedia History of World War One. 22 Aug. 2009. Web. 11 Dec.
2010. <http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/saribair_bartlett.htm>.
14
Lloyd, Nick. "Lord Kitchener and ‘the Russian News’: Reconsidering the Origins of the Battle of Loos."
Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 Dec. 2010.
15
Lloyd, 346
16
Donald Richter, Chemical Soldiers: British Gas Warfare in World War I (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press,
1992), 86
17
Haber, 71
18
Haber, 52
19
Haber, 55
7
20
Haber, 57
Richard M. Price, The Chemical Weapons Taboo (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1997), 1
22
U.S. Army. "Death Notification." Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Fowlke. 14 Mar. 1968. MS.
21