POISON GAS IN MODERN WARFARE

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 89, 9 January 1935, Page 3

POISON GAS IN MODERN WARFARE

4 Deadly Weapon of Future POSSIBILITIES DEFINED BY EXPERT It is often stated that poison gas will be the main feature of warfare in the future, and that such vast strides have been made in chemistry since 1918 that it will be possible by the aid of aircraft to decimate a nation’s population within a few days of the outbreak of war. The statement has been made that a single bomb dropped on Piccadilly Circus would destroy all life between Regents Park and the Thames. While this is no doubt an exaggeration. London is undoubtedly only a few minutes from the coast by air, and raiders of the future might well do very considerable damage by the use of gas. It is in consequence a subject of considerable , interest, and one on which there is little accurate information available to the layman. With the intention of giving to a public which has of recent years been asked to accept in ignorance any number of sensational fantastic forecasts as to the chemical warfare of the future, an accurate and detailed account of the poison gas campaign conducted by both German and Allied armies during the Great War has been copiled by the man who raised, trained and commanded the British Special Brigade, and conducted the whole of its operations. Major-General C. H. Foulkes, C. 8., C.M.G., D. 5.0., in his book "Gas” (Blackwood, 30/-), not only tells the story of the special brigade, but describes the exact possibilities and limitations of poison-gas and paints a. vivid picture of the horrors of chemical warfare, a grim warning for the future.

Gas Attack at Ypres.

The first use of gas was when, in April of 1915, the Germans made a gas attack on French-African troops in the north-east of the Ypres salient. Sir John French, described the effect of the gas as being so overwhelming that the whole of the, positions occupied by the French divisions was rendered incapable of any resistance. Fumes and smoke obscured everything; hundreds of men were thrown into a stupor, and after an hour the whole position had to be abandoned, together with 50 guns. At first gas was discharged from shells almost entirely, but later, in 1918, a much more effective method was perfected by the British, that of attack by gas. clouds. Numbers of trucks containing gas cylinders were massed at railheads close behind the lines, and when the wind set down toward the enemy trenches the area between the cylinders and the enemy lines was entirely evacuated. The discharge was electrically effected. A quite unprecedented volume of gas rolled down-wind toward the enemy, and prisoners reported that although the Germans were at that time on the alert against gas attacks, the losses in their ranks were heavy. Although these attacks required careful and complicated organisation, they were becoming increasingly popular toward the end of the war.

Had there been no cessation of hostilities it is considered, probable by

Major-General Foulkes that the whole character of warfare would have changed. The opposing armies would no longer have been able to remain in close proximity. No Man’s Land would have widened until miles separated the lines, hand-to-hand fighting would have been practically eliminated; and long-range guns would have become the weapon of the day par excellence. Concealment and camouflage would have been imperative, since a dozen shells or a single bomb containing mustard gas could compel the instant evacuation of almost any fort. Even villages far behind the lines would have been rendered untenable by gas sprays from aircraft. No further stabilisation of the armies would have been possible. This must be taken as an indication of the nature of future warfare.

The late Lord Balfour said at the Washington Conference in 1922, and his remark is equally applicable today, that the use of gas would shake the confidence of mankind in the sanctity of treaties for years to come. Other military and poltical authorities are agreed that no nation fighting for its existence will deny itself the use of the latest and most powerful weapons, however horrible and revolting. Those who believe that war between civilised communities can be abolished find little comfort in history, and Signor Mussolini said recently: “History teaches us that war is a phenomenon accompanying the development of humanity ; war is to man what maternity is to woman.” Be that as it may, It is in Major-General Foulkes’s opinion better to be armed than unprepared for the worst; nations that abandon the habit of war are not likely to improve their chances of ultimate survival. It seems more profitable to work for the abolition of war itself than to attempt to limit the use of any particular weapon, as for instance, poison gas.