User:Sbangarth

The use of gas on the battlefields of World War One sparked a moral crusade, denouncing new technologies that were seen to be unfair or immoral. The debate surrounds the reasons justifying why gas seems to belong to its own category of weapons, with its own immoral standing. There are several reasons historians have conjured up to try and explain the distinction between gas and other weapons of war, some moral and some tactical. Whatever the reason, it was these debates that determined the course of action for the allies in WWII: the absence of chemical weapons. First however, some history to the topic and era give readers context to the discussion at hand. Topics such as the history of biological and chemical warfare, the process of new technology becoming conventional weaponry and the Hague Conventions of 1899 will provide this context. Once that has been established, the big questions can be tackled such as what are the tactical uses for gas, why is it seen to be immoral and are these reasons justified. It seems that after analyzing the literature, a deeper, more foundational reason has caused this moral debate. The reasons inhibiting the use of gas of World War II are non-existent and have been constructed by the people of a democratic society. This democratic society then pushed the leaders of Canada to follow the moral conscience of society therefore, banning its use in WWII therefore, never giving gas the opportunity to transform from new technology to conventional weapon. When discussing the topic of chemical warfare, two broad topics can be seen to encompass the arguments against it: morality and tactics. Although the long standing arguments surrounding the use of gas can not be defined by these two concepts alone, most can be defined under the umbrella of morality and tactics. Morality is what the bulk of this essay will focus on due to its complicated but important nature. In talking about why gas was not utilized in the battlefields of the Second World War, morality is a prominent answer as to why. However, in saying that, tactics provide a more logical reason for its absence in World War II. In light of the above statement, it must be made clear that tactics alone do not provide reason enough for the massive debates over the use of gas in war. Morality on the other hand, I will argue, could stand on its own as the sole reason gas was not used in World War II and the discussion of tactics is used as a crutch by military historians.

Two basic questions to be explored are what were the uses for gas in World War One and why was it used? Ignoring the types of gases used for other purposes, the focus is on gas as a weapon. Without discussing each type of gas in full detail, there were several types of gases, some more effective than others. Gas was first used by the Germans at the Battle of Ypres April 22, 1915. At the time, Germany controlled 80% of the chemical industry. So when faced with a stalemate at Ypres, Germany decided to put its control of the chemical industry to use. Germany’s decision to use chemical was partially successful in that it broke the stalemate. Many French soldiers died on that battlefield due to the use of gas. Those who did not pass away fled in fear. This opened up a gap for the Germans to move in. Potentially, if this had occurred, the Germans could have potentially captured up to 50,000 British troops. Luckily for the allies, this was not to be as Canadian troops shifted to fill the gaps until British reinforcements arrived. In this particular instance, gas was used as a tactic to break a stalemate. This worked since gas was a new weapon in this war and gave the Germans an edge against the traditional weapons of war. The basic method was to weaken the enemy by first going in with gas, then infiltrating with conventional weapons to gain territory and capture enemy soldiers.

Depending on the secondary source sought out, gas warfare can be seen as a completely effective and smart strategy utilized in battle, it can be read as just another weapon of war, in a tactical sense, or it may even by portrayed as a bit of a joke. Therefore, there is no consensus as to whether gas warfare is an effective weapon. There is, however, more consensus on whether gas warfare was effective in the First World War. Notice the distinction; there is a difference between what was effective and speculation on what is effective. This becomes importance as the Second World War is discussed. For now, among the historians looked at for the purposes of this essay, it could be concluded that most historians agree that the gas attacks were an effective tactic in World War One. The degree of effectiveness may be exaggerated or deflated in some cases, but more give credit to these attacks. For example…

Although gas can be concluded as an effective tactic during World War I, the same can not be said post-War. Gas was effective because it was a surprise. This was a unique weapon that was unknown to the enemy. Cook mentions that because Canadian and allied soldiers lacked a point of reference they therefore, even when they had some indication that a gas attack was imminent, had no idea what to look for, what chemical would be used, how to avoid it and how to defend themselves. Clearly, under these circumstances, any weapon would be successful for a limited period of time. What happens when you no longer have that element of surprise? For me, this is the major tactical question that arises when trying to reason why gas was not utilized on the battlefields of World War II. Once the allies were able to defend themselves from the effects of gas attacks, its efficiency in terms of perpetuating death was no longer attractive. Gas, unlike other conventional weapons such as guns and other artillery, works to kill or disable by entering the body. This method of killing can be guarded against. By neutralizing the gases through other, less harmful chemical agents or by specialized masks, gas no longer has a way of entering into a soldiers system. Gas under these circumstances becomes a wasted expense as the money poured into creating these weapons no longer achieves the goal of disabling the other side en mass. Some may read this and say, no wonder it was not used in WWII; now fully prepared, gas would no longer aid soldiers in attaining victory. Unfortunately, although everything said above is valid, war against gas is not as simple as identifying the gas used, neutralizing or defending against it and therefore solving the problem.

The term gas warfare is not a single type of weapon that has to be adapted to and therefore overcome; it encompasses several types of gasses, and in this sense is a versatile weapon that may never lose its element of surprise. Different types of chemicals can be utilized to attain a variety of effects. Potentially, through further research and development, chemical warfare could also work in different ways, not just by inhalation. Therefore, one chemical solution would not be able to act as the antidote to all chemical attacks. In this sense, the enemy would always be left guessing as to what gas or gasses would be used against them. For this reason, the tactical defense explaining why gas was not used in the Second World War is null and void. As seen above, gas was effective in battle and through the continuation and development of new gasses and ways to use them, they could continue to be an effective weapon in war. Therefore, my feeling is that military historians who do not appreciate the improvable suggestions forwarded by social historians lean on tactics to provide reason for gas’ absence in WWII. Although morality, unlike tactics is just a social construct, or concept that is immeasurable, it provides a more compelling reason for why gas was not used again in 1941.

To provide some context to the climate of the First World War, the Hague Conventions will be outlined for their contribution to the attitude of war. There were three outlined Hague Conventions. The first beginning in 1899 and two to take place in the year following. The third never took place due to the outbreak of World War in 1914. The individual conventions themselves are not of importance however; it is the discussion and outcomes of these conventions combined that are relevant to this particular paper. The Hague conventions came together after a leak that the Tsar of Russia was proposing an international meeting designed to make the degree of war less devastating. This proposal was precipitated by the ongoing arms race occurring in Europe, created by a new military-industrial complex and the influence of globalization. This new trend in the conduction of war would be potentially costly due to the need for ongoing research and development. For this reason, an agreement made amongst nations to decelerate these advancements would relieve economic and military pressures. Therefore, it was eventually determined that all powerful nations world wide would meet to negotiate the guiding laws of war. It should also be noted here that although the United States did not sign the agreement, both Germany and Britain did.

One of the major introductions to the unified war laws was that of weapons causing “unnecessary suffering”. Obviously one question that needed to be answered was, what was peculiarly horrible? Is dying from a gunshot more unusually horrible than from a grenade? The answer is impossible to generate considering those who have it, took it to the grave, and not many would die from both gun and grenade. Also, those in opposition to the production of new weaponry had to challenge the argument of the alternate side who said that new inventions may make war shorter. Of course, “may” is not a comforting term and it is doubtful that those who resisted the wave of technology were persuaded by speculation. However, these types of questions needed to be answered and justified for all weapons, conventional or new age. In those discussions one particular weapon received consensus for exile: asphyxiating or deleterious gases, or in short, chemical warfare. This is what this essay tries to unravel: the mystery of why gas was regarded, across the board, as an unfair and immoral weapon; was gas realistically morally separated from other weapons, or perhaps the consensus was a result of public consciousness among political leaders. Gas is not a new weapon of war. In actuality, its history is longer than most conventional weapons. To being, the Romans used a form of biological warfare against enemies. Their method was to use the carcasses of dead animals to contaminate the drinking water. This same strategy of demoralizing and weakening the opponents army through biological warfare was used in the American Civil War. In 184BC it is said that Hannibal hid snake in clay pots and threw them down onto enemies ships. In 1346, Tartar forces attacked Kaffa by using their own men infested with the plague, and throwing them over the city walls. This strategy was mirrored throughout Europe running until the end of the 18th century. Most have heard the story of the use of biological warfare in the New World when a Spanish conquistador gave natives smallpox through infested clothing.

In looking at the history, the use of unconventional and arguably immoral weapons in war was common and seemingly effective. Therefore, it is a surprise that the use of chemical weapons in the First World War created such a moral uproar, enough to prohibit its use in the Second World War. In part, this uproar may have been caused because of the breach of the Hague Conventions, but this is not reason enough. Surely, using your own dead men to infest, not only soldiers, but civilians with disease can not be any more morally acceptable than using gas to weaken the enemy. There must be some defining feature distinguishing the two scenarios, or something deeper must be at work. In looking at the words used to describe the gas, and by reviewing literature on why it was seen to be so immoral, perhaps some understanding can take place

The topic of morality is of upmost importance when discussing the use of gas in the First World War and even more important when explaining its absence in WWII. Throughout history many weapons defined as unfair were, in time, accepted as conventional weapons. This is not the case for gas. For some reason it was regarded as unfair, immoral and was attacked for its potential to change the attitude of the battlefield; war would no longer be measured in terms of might or will, but by production and technology. As will be discussed in the remainder of this essay, it is arguable that this had already occurred, and long ago. The mystery surrounding why gas was regarded as a more immoral way of taking out the enemy has been tackled by historians all offering their opinion on why gas was given a different distinction in WWI. Tim Cook gives a brief overview of what are now conventional weapons of war and although it may come as a surprise, many reactions to them were similar to the reactions of gas. Cook gives the modern day gun as an example. When the gun was first introduced to the battlefield, it was regarded as an unfair weapon. Similarly, any new advancement in war materials underwent the same scrutiny. It appears that the introduction of any new weapon was treated in this way because it gave the enemy an advantage. If it were their side who had the advantage, it could only be assumed that these new technologies would not be regarded as unfair and immoral. Over time however, these new weapons gained acceptance and became conventional weapons. This occurred as more nations developed similar weapons and technologies of their own. Once this occurred, these new technologies were glorified for their advantages and effectiveness. What is interesting in the case of gas warfare, is that eventually, both sides ended up utilizing gas in World War One. Yet, it was not used again in World War Two largely because of its moral stigma. The question is, was there something about gas that set it apart from every other weapon introduced into war?

One of the main arguments forwarded to explain the immoral distinction of gas warfare is that it changed the experience on the battlefield in several ways. First of all, the death and injuries caused by the use of gas were explained in a way that seemed to put it on another level of painful and horrible. For this reason alone, it was seen as immoral to cause “unnecessary suffering”. In interpreting this attitude, it seems people believed it was immoral to torture someone before they died. Secondly, there is the argument that gas caused wounds that effected people for the remainder of their lives. This forced victims to have to not only struggle for many years, but to relive the horrible memories from the First World War. The last main argument is that gas provided an inescapable death, hence the name of Tim Cook’s book, No Place to Run. The argument is that gas affected everyone in the location that it was let off. Regardless of a soldiers training, heart, strength and perseverance, when the gas comes, the soldier is enveloped in its wrath. This last point seems to help explain a lot of the hostilities toward the use of gas in war. The above traits were highly valued in soldiers going off to war and those inherited those traits were thought to be prepared for war and withstand death. Gas then became the great equalizer, taking character out of the mix. Although there is value in every one of the arguments made in the above paragraph, none of them are valid in explaining why gas is morally separated from other weapons of war. The concept of unnecessary suffering appears to be a way to save face. It sounds nicer to cause death in a quick, semi-painless manner than it is to cause death in a long torturous one. However, when put into perspective, this is really quite silly. Is there really a difference between a nice death and a bad one in war? Additionally, who is to say that conventional weapons always cause quick, immediate death? Suppose a solider is shot once. His injuries are not fatal in and of themselves, but because he does not receive immediate medical attention, he dies of internal bleeding. Is that more pleasant than dying of gas attacks? Regardless, it should not be the goal to provide the enemy with a quick death. The ultimate point to be made is that death is death. Regardless of whether it happens immediately, in a month, or in a year, the outcome is the same. Slow deaths may even have a practical purpose; those who observe them may lose morale and this may also build fear. Additionally, the longer the death takes, the more likely it is that they will receive medical attention. If their condition is bad enough to perpetuate death, the enemy wastes resources and therefore money; this really only plays into the hands of the enemy.

Secondly, the argument that the gas attacks are set apart because they caused lasting wounds that solders lived through, but had to battle with for the remainder of their lives also has a few problems. Gas in this sense is no different from any other conventional weapon of war. A soldier who’s limb is blown off may live, but has to live with the debilitating circumstances of his injuries for the rest of his life. There are countless injuries that were survived, but that were faced lifelong, causing the soldier suffering through altered ways of life, and the constant reminder of his past. Therefore, gas is not unique in this sense.

Lastly, the argument that gas is the ultimate equalizer in the sense that no one escapes from it is two-fold; the special case of mustard gas will be looked at below, but other gasses in general are no different from conventional weapons in this case either. Tell me how a soldier escapes from an artillery bombardment, gunfire, grenades, or any other weapon. If they could escape death by these means, they would obviously do so. A soldier is either hit or not, and romanticized beliefs that the character and skill of a soldier determined whether he lived or died, went out with modern day weapons such as gas, bombs and artillery. Additionally, gas is even less dangerous in the sense that it is one of the only weapons that can be guarded against. Gas masks and gas proof clothing prevent the effects of gas on the individual. There are no magic protectors for bombs, guns or other weapons. Therefore, when safe-guarded against, gas is actually the only escapable death.

In only one point in researching for this paper did I think that historians advocating the moral subordination of gas, may have been on to something and this was in the case of mustard gas. Mustard gas is able to remain effective for up to one week in the location it was released. Additionally, it is effective in small concentrations, therefore the odor is barely detected, and it destroys an individual’s sense of smell after inhaling it for two to three minutes, rendering a soldier incapable of recognizing further gas attacks. Mustard gas also affects both the body and respiratory system, therefore necessitating both a gas mask and “gas-proof” clothing. Particularly on the body, it is slow moving and gradually dissolves through the body; sometimes the burning is not noticeable until one hour to two days after exposure to the gas. Although it is impossible to recognize the effects of mustard gas until it actually appears, the gas needs to be removed from the body within five minutes; obviously, this is a difficult problem to consolidate. Because of this, exposure to the gas is usually fatal.

To illustrate the strength and effects of mustard gas, the author of War Gas Cases: First Aid Treatment, Alden Waitt, recalled a personal experience with the gas. On one occasion, he and an associate were experimenting with mustard gas when a small amount of it got on his hand. The associate ran to retrieve gasoline which neutralizes the effects of mustard gas, while Alden ran his hand under water to help remove some of it. When removing the mustard gas with gasoline, each new stroke has to be done with a new cloth, preventing any mustard gas caught in the gasoline to be placed back onto the skin. Less than a half hour later, Alden noticed a burn mark in the clothes of his knee. He then realized that a drop of gasoline, with mustard gas in it had dropped onto his knee. He immediately repeated the procedure with gasoline and proceeded to take several hot soapy baths. By the next day, he had a burn two inches wide and one-quarter inch above the skin of the knee. This was not even one drop of mustard gas; this was a diluted drop. Additionally, this was treated immediately and with the proper materials. Imagine the circumstances of a solider under the attack of mustard gas. The proportion of mustard gas in the air would not be diluted, but still small enough that is it generally not detected by scent. Secondly, the soldier would not be aware that he has been affected by the gas until there are physical burning signs, in which case too much time has passed. On top of all that, soldiers generally do not have the proper materials to neutralize the gas and treat the wounds. As mentioned above, these circumstances would normally result in death.

This gas is obviously effective in its objective to perpetuate death and its sly nature helps to explain why gas would be set apart as a special, immoral weapon of war. The strongest reason for why this gas may be regarded as unfair or immoral is because it can go undetected. No other weapon acts in this way: soldiers can hear gunshots and other artillery, and for weapons that can not be heard, they can at least be seen. Without seeing or smelling the gas, soldiers are dying and not even knowing it, unable to receive treatment in time. This leaves the solider absolutely defenseless. A soldier who is shot or wounded by another weapon knows they have been wounded and can receive treatment, not the case with mustard gas. There is something very underhanded and exceptionally immoral about this tactic of killing or wounding that can be understood.

Although the case of mustard gas was quite persuasive, after taking the time to analyze the arguments for why this gas is regarded as an elevated, immoral weapon, it is possible to counter these arguments. As mentioned by one of the above authors, it is possible to fend from the effects of mustard gas through the use of gas masks and gas-proof clothing. Although this may be expensive for the military and limiting for the solider, the solider is not left defenseless. In actuality, the solider is almost safeguarded from this particular kind of attack. It is not possible to safeguard soldiers from any other type of attack. Additionally, the moral issue of death arises again. To win a war, one side must put the other in a situation where they can no longer hope to win, whether that is by cutting off supplies, by attrition or by economic pressure. By escalating the number of deaths suffered by the opposing side, the odds of winning become better. Regardless of how death is brought about, death is still occurring. Death by fist, arrow, bullet, gas is still death. In this sense, gas is the most efficient way of winning a war when the other side is unaware.

For this reason, I believe it is the romanticized views of war and the soldier that contributes to gas’ immoral standing. The words efficiency and war are not traditionally linked. Although short wars were and are preferred to longstanding ones for practical purposes, there is a type of heroicism linked to the ability to “battle it out”. Soldiers were seen to withstand hardship, pain and losses and were glorified for it. By using a gas such as mustard gas, the face to face interaction is eliminated. Therefore, one side can take out the other side without the risk of injury or loss. Without question, tradition is always romanticized and rarely mirrors the ways things actually were. This is also the case for war: traditional ethics of war are not necessarily better. For the purposes of winning a war, it is actually the opposite; efficiency is the best method for winning a war. It ensures the gain without the pain.

The above arguments are not enough to explain the elevated immoral status of gas warfare, and why it was not used in the Second World War, it is only fair to assume that something bigger is at work. This idea is not backed by any intellectual, it is just that: an idea. However, something has to explain why other weapons that were originally regarded as unfair or immoral became conventional weapons and gas was not. The proposed idea is deeply rooted in the foundations of North American society; the explanation is in the concept of democracy. Although the New World was founded on the principles of democracy, in particular Canada, chanting “rep by pop,” an actual working democracy was a slow process. It is arguable that true democracy still does not exist within Canada. Regardless, Canada resembled a democracy more and more as time went on. Therefore, the need to satisfy the public only grew greater throughout the years. The evidence of a growing democracy can be found in the essence of polling; throughout the war years, there were many polls asking the public about different issues. It should also be noted that there was a wartime election in 191.

These things are significant when trying to explain why gas was not utilized in battlefields in WWII. Because of the more democratic-like environment in the 20th century, Canadian officials, like British officials had to consider the voice of the public; this includes the moral voice of the public. After using gas in the First World War, as seen above, it was regarded as an immoral and unfair weapon. Therefore, when weighing the pros and cons of its use in WWII, politicians needed to consider the opinion of the public, especially considering the war time election that was to take place in 194.. Therefore, this public moral voice guided politicians in their decision not to use gas in the Second World War. This is what separates the morality of a gun and the morality of gas. It took time for guns to become an accepted weapon of war, and they were not regarded as such until their value in war was truly understood. The same can therefore be assumed for gas. It takes time for weapons to become conventional weapons of war. It can be concluded then, that the only moral distinction between conventional weapons and gas, is the one the public placed on it. Had gas been used again, and it proved to be a truly tactical benefit, it may have taken the same path as the gun. Unfortunately, we will never know, because this was not the case; gas was not utilized in World War II. The mystery surrounding the immoral perception of the use of gas in warfare is in short, puzzling. Although historians have attempted to define what characteristic of gas gives it this stigma, they fail to truly explain its unique status. The concept of chemical warfare is not a new one and as seen, has been used from the time of the Romans as a tactic to defeat the enemy. Also shown, is the transformation of new technology labeled as unfair or immoral, to everyday weapon. Gas however, never took on this transformation. Through the discussion of tactics and morality, historians have tried to explain why. It seems that the explanation for its immorality can not be found in the characteristics of gas itself. Conversely, the interplay of an ever-increasing democracy may have influenced the abolition of the use of gas in World War Two. Feeling the pressure to satisfy the public, Canadian leaders followed the moral guiding of its citizens therefore, not giving gas time to transform from unfair weapon to conventional weapon. Therefore, the immoral status given to gas warfare is not justifiable or reasonable. Rather, it is a social construct that was never changed because of the unique democratic climate.