Talk:Poison gas in World War I/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I understand english wiki creates articles from the western view

But there is little to no information on the Eastern use of gas attacks when compared with the Western. "Oh, a hundred here or so on the western front died from attacks, blah blah oh and something about tens of thousands killed on the eastern front with the first real use of gas attacks but w/e".

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that more information on the use of gas along the eastern front would be beneficial, especially von Hutier's use of mustard gas at Riga, September 1, 1917.—RJH (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Check this sentance

Because it was possible to develop effective countermeasures to gas attacks, it was unlike most other weapons of the period.

Is this really what was meant to say? It seems contradictory to the rest of the article in that it's generally sold as a very effective war tactic. Even if this was the intention of the writer, shouldn't it be reworded a little, because you can't just say that it was impossible to develop effective countermeasures to other weapons of the period. I know very little about WWI history so I leave it to you guys, but it is a very difficult sentance to swallow. theanphibian 03:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Diphosgene

No mention of diphosgene, used at Verdun and elsewhere? Gdr 15:18, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Help stamp out redundancy and repetition!

The main page version of this article reads:

The Use of poison gas in World War I was a major military innovation of the First World War.

Such redundancy strikes me as sloppy, but maybe it's just me... :)

TJSwoboda 00:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Use of poison gas beyond WWI

I don't mean to be contentious or perhaps overly literal in my reading, but does this statement strike anyone else as very flawed?

No subsequent conflict has made such large-scale use of poison gas as the First World War.

Certainly the "conflict" between the Nazis and Jews involved large-scale use of poison gases. Were they not, in fact, used on a massively larger scale in concentration camps than in the battles of WWI? Obviously this article is WWI-specific, so a detailed description is probably inappropriate. It seems like some mention should be made, though. Alternatively, the wording could be changed: "No subsequent combat", perhaps. Just a thought. HorsePunchKid 02:59, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

The article is called Poison gas in World War I. I do not believe this section belongs in the article. Matt Adore 22:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

s/gas/electric

On 16:31 29 May 2005, 64.230.8.213 replaced gas by electric:

In 1915, when electric was relatively new, less than 3% of British gas casualties died.

does it make sense??

Phosgene "18 times more powerful than chlorine"

Phosgene is called "18 times more powerful than chlorine". What does this mean? Does exposure to phosgene kill 18 times more rats in the lab than exposure to chlorine? Or does phosgene strip 18 times more electrons off a reactant? I'm removing the reference for now; please do re-insert it if someone can explain what the sentence means. Tempshill 17:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd guess it means it takes 18x more chlorine to kill 1 man than phosgene, or an equal amount of phosgene will kill 18x more men--but I'm by no means expert... Trekphiler 06:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Dramatic success?

The article reads Gas never reproduced the dramatic success of 22 April 1915, yet according to the article, that gas attack resulted in around 300 British deaths and no consequence of military success. The line is belied by the very large casualty numbers later in the article. Can an expert rewrite the sentence? Why does someone think it was a dramatic success, never again reproduced? Tempshill 17:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

My reading says that on 22 April 1915, chlorine cleared 7 kilometres of the front line of defending troops. (RJP 19:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC))

Move

Please don't reflex-revert. The move was to remove excess wordage from the title. "The use" is self-evident and the article is not disambiguated from any other article about poison gas in WW I.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Poison gas was this effective?

this article here is extremely heavy on the incredible horrors of gas, and the high casualty rates. The Australian high school history books, the world book encyclopedia and the several WWI biographies I have lying around my room all indicate that chemical agents worked well at first due to the amazing above-referenced surprise factor, but became much less effective once troops were educated and countermeasures were developed. the psychological effect was still immense, but gas did not in the end acheive any decicive results. Tempshill touches on this disparity above.

while the information in the bulk of this article appears extremely compelling with its statistics and first hand accounts, it seems to give a different view of the effectiveness of gas than is present elsewhere. most other accounts will state that gas was a horrific weapon that was even more terrible due to its failure to acheive any substantial military objectives. like aerial bombardment of civilian cities in the second world war, people learned to adapt and got on with things. It may be advisable to have this article edited to reflect this. As it stands the casual reader could be expected to beleive that gas was a dazzling wonder weapon, the article even going so far as to label WWI as the "chemists war". this plays down the monstrous role that other world war one military developments like the machine gun, tank, and aircraft had in shaping the conflict. --Fruity Bix 15:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The "chemists' war" thing is very common, but it doesn't just have to do with gas. But in general, you are correct; all the info packed in does distort the overall strategic impact of gas, which was limited.--ragesoss 16:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

delivered by artillery shell, gas was quite an effective neutralization weapon, especially for counter battery purposes. particularly yellow cross would contaminate equipment and prevent the enemy gunners from using their equipment once CB slackened on ceased. Also fewer chemical shells were needed than HE shells to effectively silence an enemy battery. the CB fire could commence without previously registering guns, which increased the effectiveness of a surprise barrage and the nature of gas compensated for the reduced accuracy when firing completely with the "predicted fire" method.

Dead-cat (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Move some contents to Gas Mask article?

There is more history of the gas mask in this article then there is in the Gas Mask article under 'History and development of the gas mask'. Wouldn't it make sense to merge the two, at least to make sure there is no redundancy or contradiction?

Revert

Reverted one step due to vandalism; 86.143.126.50 01:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

IG Farben?

The article mentions that the chlorine gas was obtained from IG Farben, but the Wikipedia page on IG Farben says that the conglomerate itself was a WWII creation. The assumption, therefore, is that all companies which become IG Farben were equally involved in this, but this assumption does not appear to hold water. AGFA existed at the time and produced the necessary components to have a chlorine-based by product. Cassella wasn't founded until 1925, well after the first major use of gas in WWI. It wasn't until I got to BASF that I found it, along with Hoechst and Bayer, founded IG Farben. More research is needed to determine just which companies created the chlorine used for the chemical weapons. Chemische Werke Hüls and Chemische Fabrik Kalle were both founded too late to have been involved, as well.

Obi2Kenobi 08:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hitler & Gas

If there were a competition for the most blind, stupid, incredible statement in all Wikipedia, if not the Net as a whole, this would have to win hands down:

"[Hitler] refused to employ poison gas weapons in World War II."

Needless to say I am excising that imbecilic statement like a piece of putrid flesh. If you need to ask why, you are not fit to edit Wikipedia articles or even own a computer. --Jquarry 03:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... perhaps it should be re-worded to say "Hitler refused to employ poison gas weapons on the battlefield during World War II..." then add that he had no problem using it to exterminate civilians. Sound like a reasonable compromise? And stay calm, eh? Esseh 22:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Jquarry - see below. I added the sentence back, with caveats. Hope that's OK. Esseh 02:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement about Hitler not allowing CWs to be used in WW2, because he was a victim of them in WW1 is not uncommon, but do we have reliable information that this was the actual reason? For example, did the military even request the use of CWs? I know of no such request. Markus Becker02 15:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Markus: I finally found a couple of quotes:

In the late autumn of 1944, Hitler abruptly intervened in the matter of gas masks... With great haste a program was set up to protect the entire population from... gas warefare. [In response to fears the British might use it first.] Although production rose to 2,300,000 per month [emphasis mine] it would be some time...

...our production [of gas] - until the... industry was bombed - amounted to 3100 tons of mustard gas and 1000 tons of tabun per month. [emphasis mine] Our side must have accumulated... more than the British...

Robert Ley,... a chemist... [told me] "You know we have this new poison gas... The Führer must do it. He must use it. Now he has to do it! When else! This is the last moment. ..." I remained silent. ... Goebbels... asked some of my associates in the chemical industry... then urged Hitler to employ the novel gas. Hitler, to be sure, had always rejected gas warefare; {emphasis mine) but now he hinted at a situation conference... that the use of gas might stop the Soviet troops. He went on with vague speculations that the West would accept... [it] ... against the East. When no one... spoke up... Hitler did not return to the subject. Undoubtedly, the Generals feared the unpredictable consequences. ... Keitel, to be sure, obtained an order from Hitler not to reduce poison gas production under any circumstances.

Speer, A. (1970). Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. (Translated by Winston, R. and Winston, C.) Macmillan, NY, pp. 413-414. (Original published in 1969 as Erinnerungen, Verlag Ulstein.) Library of Congress #70-119132

Another quote:

...On the night of 13/14 October Hitler was caught in a British gas attack. The poison deprived him of his sight and on the following day his ability to stand. He was sent back to recover at Pasewalk - and it was there that his war ended.[1]

Does that help? Shall I add the references? Esseh 01:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

One last quote:

In 1918 a German corporal by the name of Adolf Hitler was temporarily blinded by a British gas attack in Flanders. Having suffered the agonies of gas first hand, his fear of the weapon would prevent him from deploying it as a tactical weapon on the battlefields of the Second World War.[2]

Esseh 18:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense now. I had a feeling that's what the author had intended... but you know, getting caught up in the heat of the moment and all that :-/ --Jquarry 02:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Chlorine

Hi all. I've updated the section on the chemistry of chlorine gas with a couple of refs. Let me know what you think. Esseh 22:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust

I just deleted the sentence "Nevertheless poison gas technology played an important role in the Holocaust", because Zyklon B was an insecticide, not a chemical weapon.Markus Becker02 00:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Um.... Markus Becker02, I would suggest putting that sentence back. Zyklon B (prussic acid gas, I believe) was, indeed, used as an pesticide, but chlorine is used as a disinfectant, too. (Check your bleach bottle.) It's not about what it was designed for, but more about how it was used. For example, strichnine is a rat poison (Warfarin), but is used medically (as the anti-clotting agent Coumadin), and can be used to poison people. Zyklon B was designed as a pesticide, but was used by Nazi Germany as a poison gas. Also, Zyklon B was not the only gas used; so was carbon monoxide (exhaust fumes from internal combustion). Esseh 01:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I reverted it for you. Feel free to discuss it with me here, or on my talk page. All the best. Esseh 01:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it was a poison gas in the sense that it is toxic, but the article is about chemical weapons in WW1. Zyklon B was never used as a chemical weapon and in WW1 cyanides turned out to be ineffective in that role. Furthermore the poison gas technology for the holocaust did not require any of the delivery systems developed in WW1, the cans were opened by hand and dropped in the gas chambers by hand, too. Just the way it was used for legitimate purposes. The conclusion is far fetched to say the least.Markus Becker02 02:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, has anyone noticed that the Holocaust was WWII, and the article is on WWI?--LWF 02:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Markus Becker02, you're right. But see my latest change - that Hitler never deployed gas on the battlefield, but did use gas against civilians (more eloquent there, I hope). That way, it's just the use of gas that matters, without getting into delivery systems and such. Sound reasonable? (Oh, and the article is entitled "Poison gas...", not "Chemical weapons...", and really doesn't go too much into the delivery systems. In 2dn Ypres - no shells, they just opened stopcocks on canisters!) Esseh 02:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. We all still really need hard refs for much of this. Help me out here, and I'll try to help you guys out, too, OK? Esseh 02:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. LWF, you're right, of course, but the line in question is a two-sentence result-of, and so does, I think, fit in Esseh 02:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right, the article is entitled "Poison gas...", not "Chemical weapons...", but that´s just an old fashioned expression, the content it IS about chemical weapons. And the connection between CWs used on WW1 battefields and an insecticide used to kill civilians in WW2 is rather non existant.Markus Becker02 13:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Markus Becker02, you're right, but there IS a connection between chemical weapon use in WW I and Hitler's refusal to use them in WW II. His use of gasses against civilians just shows that he had no problem with using chemicals as weapons (he used them on civilians), but just with using them on the battlefield, where someone might retaliate! That's what I tried to show with the one sentence (a consequence of gas use in WW I) I added. Esseh 14:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Call to arms (fix bayonets and don your masks)!

Being a flagrent newbie here, I just noticed that this article was demoted from FA to B-class. Shame! Can we all work together to get this back up to (FA) shape? From my reading, what is mostly missing is some serious referencing of statements made. I don't have access to too many history tomes of that era myself, but I do have some idea of what should be referenced. I could police (oooh, I hate that word)... ummm... read it over, and suggest where refs are needed (IMHO), for you all to fill in, if that would help. If not, feel free to tell me to butt out :o (and I will), either here, or on my talk page. Best to all, and hope I didn't gas on too long ;) (Sorry.) Esseh 02:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Invalid references

The following references are to broken links:

They should really be replaced with something valid. Does anybody object if I comment them out and insert {{fact}} templates? or perhaps somebody has some valid URLs? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. — RJH (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The French Attempted To Drink Mustard Gas?

I highly doubt the french were stupid enough to try to drink something that came out of an artillery shell, is a dark yellow colour, smells of horse-radish, and is surrounded in blistered-skin corpses. I think that that statement should be taken out until some actual reference can be found, especially if you're gunning to be an A article again. 207.6.249.142 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect this is just poor phrasing. I think what's intended here is that since the substance would settle into low areas and the trenches were filthy and constantly wet, things would easily get contaminated, not that the French would deliberately try to drink what they thought was the mustard gas byproducts. Still, the claim obviously either needs clarification or citation (or both). Xihr (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find this in any sources whatsoever, and I don't think keeping it is the right thing to do at all. I'm going to remove it until a legitimate source comes. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 15:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A.D.M.S.

Anybody know what this means? I don't think it's the "American Donkey and Mule Society" or "Adaptive Database Management System". My best guess was "Adjutant Director of Medical Services".—RJH (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)