Gas war during the First World War

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Soldiers of the Russian Expeditionary Corps with gas masks on the Western Front, dated 1916/17

During the gas war during the First World War , around 120,000 tons of warfare agents of 38 different types were used, whereby around 100,000 soldiers died and 1.2 million soldiers were wounded. As the beginning of gas warfare during the First World War and the systematic use of poison gas as a chemical weapons , the use of valid chlorine gas by German troops on 22 April 1915. Launched by the Paris police developed for civilian use tear gas bromoacetate showed in its application by French troops hardly any effect in August 1914. In contrast to chlorine gas, it was not fatal and actually only intended for police use. The trigger for the gas war was thus the deployment prepared by Germany. In the following years of war, the Central Powers and the opposing Entente used ever more effective chemical weapons in the escalations that rocked each other. Despite the effects of the poison gas and its terrible reputation, the death rate was extremely low at just under one percent of all World War II deaths. In hindsight, poison gas is considered an ineffective and useless weapon.

chronology

Beginning of the gas war

Use of tear gas

German gas cannons
Gas attack using a blowing process

As in France, plans for the use of tear gas and nitrogen gas were drawn up in Great Britain . Tear gases such as chloroacetone and benzyl chloride , as well as gases such as sulfur dioxide , were considered for use. With their help the enemy should be driven out of their cover into the fire area of ​​the conventional weapons.

Despite the use of tear gas by France, it was not until the Germans used the deadly chlorine gas on April 22, 1915 that the gas war actually began.

So-called cartouches suffocantes (cartridges for suffocation) were developed for the police in France as early as 1914 . These cartridges , which had to be fired with a signal pistol, were filled with 200 g of ethyl bromoacetate , which, however, was almost ineffective in the open area. However, this tear gas was effective in attacking fortifications and in urban warfare. Thus, the French soldiers used the police rifles and their ammunition produced from 1912 onwards. Due to the shortage of bromine, the ethyl bromoacetate was then replaced by chloroacetone, which was also put into grenades and projectiles.

On the German side, there had been attempts with the potentially deadly phosgene shortly before or after the start of the war, with bombs being dropped from aircraft on the Meppen firing range. Due to technical problems, however, it was initially left at that. Major Max Bauer , artillery specialist and head of the "Section II for Heavy Artillery, Mine Throwers, Fortifications and Ammunition" of the Supreme Army Command, had then proposed in September 1914 to the Prussian War Minister and Chief of the General Staff, Erich von Falkenhayn , that a " To compensate for the explosives gap “by using precursors such as chlorine gas as chemical weapons in the production of explosives . Bauer was thinking of projectiles that were supposed to “damage the enemy or render them incapable of fighting by trapped solid, liquid or gaseous substances”. That was the start of the use of chemical warfare agents on the German side: Falkenhayn took up the suggestion immediately. He asked Walther Nernst for his opinion. Nernst agreed to work and also won Carl Duisberg , chemist, co-owner and general director of the then paint factory Friedrich Bayer & Co (FFB) in Leverkusen , for the project . The War Ministry set up the Nernst-Duisberg Commission in October 1914, to which Fritz Haber belonged. From a scientific point of view, it was to become decisive for the research and development of chemical weapons, supported by other Nobel Prize winners such as Emil Fischer , James Franck , Otto Hahn , Gustav Ludwig Hertz , Max Planck , Johannes Stark and Richard Martin Willstätter .

As early as October 1914, on the basis of tests by the commission at the Meppen firing range near Cologne, the "Ni bullet" was developed, which when detonated released a powdery combination of dianisidine chlorohydrate and dianisidine chlorosulfonate (Ni mixture), which irritated the eyes and airways should and was given the cover name "sneezing powder". Organized by Duisberg, large numbers of these grenades were produced in a few days and, under Nernst's supervision, were used for the first time in the war on October 27, 1914 on the western front near Neuve-Chapelle. But there was no significant adverse effect on the opponent. Grenades containing the liquid, slowly evaporating eye irritant xylyl bromide and, as they were based on research by the chemist Hans Tappen, were called " T grenades " and later, were similarly ineffective during the front-line deployment on January 31, 1915 on the Eastern Front near Bolimów near Warsaw Bullets with other irritants. The shooting of irritant grenades was soon supplemented at Nernst's instigation and replaced by the shooting of large drums or canisters filled with irritants. He developed suitable pneumatically driven mine throwers for this purpose and was convinced of the effectiveness of this weapon when it was first used at the front on July 30 and August 1, 1915 by examining captured opponents.

Fritz Haber propagates chlorine gas

Haber had already proposed at the end of 1914 that the potentially lethal chlorine gas should be blown off the opposing positions from pressure bottles. Haber pushed for chlorine because it was very toxic and available in sufficient quantities. In this way, BASF was able to profitably utilize the large quantities of chlorine gas, which was a waste product. The daily production of chlorine was already 40 tons at this time. Furthermore, it could be transported safely. Some officers and chemists have questioned the use of gas, but not for ethical and moral reasons. The wind dependency when blowing off and not blowing off itself was criticized. However, since no other method of application on the front was as mature as the blow molding method, it was used despite the prevailing westerly wind on the western front. The Bavarian Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria also warned (on March 1, 1915) that “if it were to prove effective, the enemy would resort to the same means and, with the prevailing west-east wind direction, blow gas against us ten times more often than we against him ”. But it was assumed that the Allies, especially France, lacked production capacities. Haber noted after a chlorine blow-off test:

“The gas blew off according to the regulations, then the devil plagued us and we both rode 'tentatively' into the drifting gas cloud. At the moment we had lost our bearings in the chlorine mist, an insane cough set in, the throat was as if constricted [...] in dire need the cloud lifted and we were saved. "

This quotation from Haber was used very often to justify the use of chlorine, to show that chlorine is not lethal, but only strongly irritating, and that Germany has not violated the Hague Convention by using poisonous gas.

In a field post letter from the German major Karl von Zingler , presumably based on rumors, it is claimed that the first German use of chlorine gas of this kind took place before January 1915: “ Rousselare January 2, 1915 [...] It is no better in other theaters of war and the effect of our chlorine is said to have been very good. 140 English officers are said to have been killed. It's a terrible weapon […]. ” However, no further confirmations are available for such an action at this early stage.

The first secure use of chlorine gas took place on April 22, 1915 by a special unit , consisting mainly of volunteer students, in the Second Battle of Flanders near Ypres and is considered to be the actual beginning of the gas war.

The chlorine gas was delivered to the Western Front in 6,000 40 kg bottles and 24,000 20 kg bottles. (Chlorine is liquefied (20 ° C: vapor pressure 6.7 bar) in steel bottles, as it - anhydrous - does not attack iron.) From March 10, 1915, the boundary conditions for the use of the gas in the southern Ypres arc were met but postponed due to technical problems, enemy fire, repairs and installation of additional bottles in the north arch near Ypres. The preparations were finally completed on April 11, 1915. On April 22, 1915 at 6:00 p.m. the gas was blown off in a north-easterly wind (map of the front line). General Berthold Deimling gave the order for the operation - contrary to the advice of all his regimental commanders, but technically supported on site by Haber and other scientists. Deimling (from 1913 in command of the XV Army Corps ) was known as the butcher of Ypres . His troops let 150 tons of chlorine gas blow off in a favorable wind direction. A 6 km wide, 600–900 m deep gas cloud formed and drifted towards the French troops. The consequences were more than a thousand men casualties on the Allied side and several times more seriously injured. German stormtroopers, who themselves were protected only with gauze pillows soaked in sodium thiosulphate and soda solutions, launched a successful attack. In Germany it was celebrated as "Ypres Day", even Lise Meitner congratulated "on the great success".

Haber's wife Clara Immerwahr , the first German chemist and pacifist with a doctorate in Germany, protested in vain against her husband's poison gas program.

After the German troops had achieved a small military success with this gas attack, some of the concerns about poison gas were now off the table. Against the British at Loos-en-Gohelle on May 1st, 6th, 10th and 24th further blow attacks took place. During the First World War, the Germans carried out around 50 blow attacks, in which the changing wind direction sometimes also endangered their own troops. The peak in terms of volume of the blowing attacks was on January 19 and 20, 1916. During this attack, 500 tons of chlorine were blown off near Reims . After what was probably the most effective blow attack by the Austro-Hungarian Army against the Italians on June 29, 1916, around 5,000–8,000 deaths occurred near St. Michelle del Carso . All warring nations, especially Germany, stopped blowing attacks in favor of newly developed gas bullets. This should enable gas to be used independently of wind and weather.

In a further step, the Nernst-Duisberg Commission ensured that phosgene was added in increasing concentrations to the chlorine gas that was blown off . As soon as the German soldiers were provided with protective masks, which protected against chlorine gas and phosgene, through work by Richard Willstätter , the routine use of phosgene as an admixture to chlorine gas was possible without risk for the German side. This happened for the first time at the end of May both on the western front against French soldiers and on the eastern front near Bolimov on the Bzura , where 240 tons of chlorine gas with up to approx. 5% phosgene had already been blown off. Further attacks of this kind on the Russian front took place on June 12th and July 6th, 1915. Otto Hahn later reported on the deployment of June 12th, 1915 as follows: “At that time I was deeply ashamed and inwardly very excited. First we attacked the Russian soldiers with gas, and when we saw the poor fellows lying down and slowly dying, we wanted to make it easier for them to breathe with our rescue equipment, but without being able to prevent death. "

Another big blow attack on the western front with a chlorine-phosgene mixture took place on December 19, 1915 near Wieltje in Flanders against the British with 180 tons of poison gas.

In addition, chloropicrin mixtures were blown off, the first attack with chloropicrin being carried out by the Russians.

Fritz Haber judged the use of chemical warfare agents after the First World War as follows: "The advantage of gas ammunition comes to the fore in trench warfare because the gas warfare agent penetrates behind every earth wall and into every cave where the flying iron splinters cannot enter"

Allied answer

French use of poison gas and flamethrowers against German trench positions in Flanders in 1916
German infantry during a gas attack in Flanders in 1916

The Allies, especially the British, were surprised by the German use of chlorine at the front, despite the intelligence available. From those days in January 1915, the British began preparing for their gas war, but it was not until September 25 of the same year that they were able to respond with 150 tons of chlorine with their first blow attack on the Germans at Loos . The British quickly realized that they would have to use mixtures with higher toxicity to render the enemy's protective measures useless. On January 9 and 19, 1916, the British used a mixture of 80% chlorine and 20% sulfur chlorides in their blown attack at Fromelles . Like the enemy, they used mixtures of chlorine- chloropicrin and chlorine-phosgene in later attacks.

In the summer battle of 1916 (June to November) the British carried out around 110 blown attacks, mostly with a 50:50 mixture of chlorine and phosgene. A total of 1,160 tons of gas were blown off during the summer battle. An attempt by the British on July 14, 1916 to use 1,670 hydrogen sulphide bottles in addition to 240 chlorine bottles failed because the German bombardment destroyed several bottles and poisoned their own people. Some of the hydrogen sulfide was also ignited by tracer ammunition , which is why it was no longer used in subsequent attacks. During a large blown attack on October 26, 1917 near Dixmuiden , 1,000 22.5 kg gas cylinders with chlorine-phosgene were used. In a blow attack on May 24, 1918, the British blew off a chlorine-phosgene mixture. Furthermore, the British carried out ten further blow attacks with around 27,000 gas bottles in 1918. A total of 88,000 bottles of gas were used in the 300 or so British blows. Blowing off was one of the main uses for poison gas among the British.

The French are different: they only had the irritant perchloromethyl mercaptan , which was used in hand grenades. However, this was very inefficient, so new methods were researched. The unused by the British, but also in French grenades used acrolein did not lead to the desired goal. In April 1915, the French used artillery shells on the Somme in the Mametz - Montauban area , which the German troops could not initially identify and were only referred to as "stink bombs". On April 25, 1915, it was possible to recover an unburned shell. Lieutenant Wolfgang Gruber from the staff of the 2nd Infantry Regiment "Kronprinz" , a civilian chemist, was able to determine during an investigation that the grenade was filled with two layers, a yellow one ( picric acid ) and a white one, a mixture of potassium chlorate and a waxy one organic matter. During the burn, chloropicrin developed , which after inhalation led to coughing, runny nose and stomach pain.

Since there was almost no chemical industry in France, six chlorine plants were built with British help in August 1915, and in the spring of 1916 additional plants were opened. The first chlorine blowing attacks could not begin until February 15, 1916 near Reims . However, unlike the British, the French did not rely on the blow-off technique, but instead used the grenade as their main weapon . During the war, 13,193,000 grenades ( caliber 7.5 cm) and 3,930,000 grenades of higher caliber were fired, 1,140,000 hand grenades were thrown. In total, around 17 million gas projectiles were used from July 1, 1915 to November 11, 1918. The gas grenades, which were also used by the German army, had a surprising effect, as the plumes of gas smoke in the midst of the clouds of smoke from normal grenade explosions could no longer be made out, at least visually.

Russia , however, was initially unable to counterattack with gas and was dependent on British supplies. In contrast to Germany, which was constantly testing and using new warfare agents, Russia's industry was only capable of producing chlorine, chloropicrin and phosgene. The first big blown attacks in Russia came on 5th / 6th. September and on 24./25. October 1916 at Kunilowo . In contrast to the other war participants, such chaotic and counterproductive departments had been created in Russia that no uniform gas protection could be introduced to protect their own troops.

Italy used the warfare agents chlorine, chloropicrin, phosgene, cyanogen chloride , bromoacetone , benzyl iodide and, towards the end of the war, yperite . Initially only the warfare agents phosgene, chloropicrin, hydrocyanic acid and xylyl bromide were used. In December 1917, the first chlorine production plant went into operation, as did the first factories for phosgene and chloropicrin production. Mustard gas production started in August 1917 .

The Americans, who only entered the war later, were able to fill 4 to 6 million projectiles a month with poison gas. After the gas war broke out in 1917/18, the United States Army used hydrocyanic acid grenades in addition to the other poison gases .

Chemical weapons use peak

On the German side, chemical warfare agents were originally used because it was feared that the supply of raw materials for the manufacture of explosives would not be sufficient. However, thanks to the ammonia synthesis developed by Haber, such a gap did not arise. The year 1918 was the climax of the gas war on both sides. In that year, an average of every third shell was filled with warfare agent. Unlike in previous years, however, the availability of gas warfare agents on the part of the Germans was exhausted.

Legal assessment

The Hague Land Warfare Regulations of 1907 had been ratified by the Central Powers as well as by the Entente states and the USA before the beginning of the First World War and were therefore already binding for these states at the beginning of the war. However, some lawyers have denied that the Hague Land Warfare Regulations prohibit the use of chemical warfare agents without exception. According to their interpretation, Article 23 in section a) "Poison or poisoned weapons" only prohibits the poisoning of objects such as water, food and soil, and the shooting of poisoned arrows, but not of projectiles that release poison. And section e) “Unnecessary suffering” allows the use of chemical weapons if this is “necessary” for a military advantage. Furthermore, irritants did not fall into this category and were therefore allowed without restriction and were combined with potentially lethal warfare agents , alone or in the context of colored shooting .

Techniques for using toxins

The Central Powers

Germany

The German tactic was to achieve the highest possible gas concentrations in the shortest possible time. Diphosgene (green cross) was increasingly used, which was mixed with 50% phosgene in order to achieve longer, lethal concentrations, since diphosgene breaks down into phosgene. At the end of April 1917, Grünkreuz-1 was used, which consisted of diphosgene and chloropicrin in various proportions. Initially, the gas grenades were not equipped with an additional explosive charge, but this was changed at a later date in order to achieve a combined effect of gas and fragmentation.

Austria-Hungary

Austria-Hungary used poison gas in the First World War on the southern front against Italy from the summer of 1916. Emperor Franz Joseph , who had previously refused to approve the use of poison gas, was changed because of the misinformation that Italian troops had been the first to use poison gas.

The first gas attack by Austro-Hungarian troops took place on June 29, 1916 in the area of ​​Mt. S. Michele before the 6th Isonzo battle . The poison gas was released into the opposing positions in the "blowing process" from pressure bottles using wind conditions. The use of poison gas had already been considered before the First World War. In 1912, Lieutenant Colonel Adolf von Boog suggested the introduction of gas ammunition. In 1916, after poison gas had become widespread as a weapon, Boog claimed authorship in a letter to the Austro-Hungarian Army High Command.

With the greatest consequences, poison gas was used on the southern front in October 1917 at the start of the 12th Isonzo battle . Instead of the " B " and " C " warfare agents previously used by Austro-Hungarian troops , which the Italians no longer feared, the method of " Buntschießen " using gas cannons from the western front was used. To support an Austro-Hungarian attack, German pioneer units used gas cannons with 70,000 green and blue cross grenades containing the substances chlorine arsenic and diphosgene, which were new on the southern front, in the Battle of Karfreit on October 24, 1917 . The gas cannons were fired to fill the Naklo Gorge south of Flitsch with 5-6 tons of green cross. An entire Italian unit died here. Major Graf von Pfeil and Klein Ellguth , the commander of the German Pioneer Battalion 35 , which commanded the gas cannon attack at Flitsch, described the effect: “Already 10:15 am. the gorges were found completely gas-free and a perfect gas effect was determined. Only a few living, seriously ill Italians were brought back from the foremost enemy position; in the ravine itself, the entire crew, around 500 to 600 men, were dead. Only a few had put on the masks, the position of the dead suggested sudden gastrointestinal death. Dead horses, dogs and rats were also found. ” This made it much easier for the German and Austro-Hungarian associations to break through the Italian front. The psychological effect was also devastating. A great many Italians surrendered to the attackers, and morale dropped drastically. The Italian front had to be withdrawn as far as the Piave ; French and British units were transferred to this front for reinforcement.

In June 1918 Austria-Hungary attempted a final offensive to cross the Piave . The poison gas attack carried out was unsuccessful, however, because on the one hand the Italians were better equipped against gas attacks and on the other hand some of the chemical weapons had been stored for too long and thus lost their effectiveness.

The Allies

The Allies, on the other hand, relied on lower concentrations for long periods of time, which was intended to undermine the opposing morale. For example, phosgene grenades were fired with tear gas mines to simulate a pure tear gas attack, which resulted in the protective masks not being put on because tear gas was considered harmless.

France

The French relied on a mixture of different gas projectiles in order to achieve the highest possible effectiveness. Attempts to use grenades with hydrocyanic acid (mixed with arsenic trichloride , tin tetrachloride , chloroform ) and grenades with the highly toxic cyanogen chloride failed because they evaporated too quickly and did not achieve the required combat volumes. Phosgene and diphosgene were also used in addition to chlorine in various mixing ratios. In addition, it was widespread to generate weak concentrations at which there were almost no acute symptoms and therefore soldiers saw no reason to take protective measures.

British Empire

180 loaded British Livens projectors at Dernancourt , France on June 14, 1918. The scattered junk serves as camouflage.

In addition to the blown attacks, the British also used gas bullets. In 1917 they invented a new way of using gas bullets , the Livens projector . Gas bottles were shot out of tubular batteries with a 45 ° incline. These bottles were then dismantled using an explosive charge so that the gas (mostly phosgene, also chloropicrin / tin tetrachloride ) could flow out. The first major operation of this type took place on April 4, 1917 , when 2,300 projectiles , i.e. 32 tons of chlorophosgene, were fired; this method made it possible to achieve a very high concentration. It was also a very inexpensive method of gassing the enemy. The biggest attacks were

  • at the Battle of Cambrai on 19./20. January with 4,200 live projectiles and 3,100 gas mines
  • in the battle of March 21, 1917 near St. Quentin with 3728 live launchers and 2960 gas mines
  • in the Battle of Lens with 929 gas mines.

General

On average, around 1000 projectiles, ie 13-14 tons of warfare agent, were used for an area of ​​one to two hectares in a conventional gas cannon. The number of gas deaths here was about twice as high as with phosgene-filled artillery shells due to the higher combat concentration. In addition, the British began to use chloropicrin because they believed they had found a weak point in the German gas filter. This gas should have an even greater effect by adding 20% tin tetrachloride . From April 4 to 9, 1917, at the Battle of Arras , a mixture of 75% chloropicrin and 25% phosgene was used.

Because of the great success of the gas cannon method, it was adopted by the Germans and used for the first time from October 24, 1917 at the start of the 12th Isonzo battle against the Italians in the Battle of Karfreit, alongside 70,000 green and blue cross grenades. However, the effect of the German gas cannon bottles, despite the ingenious and ingenious filling, did not achieve the effectiveness of the English launchers, as the volume of the bottles was too small compared to the English ones. Large quantities of gas grenades were fired on both sides, with those of the Germans mainly filled with diphosgene and those of the Allies with phosgene.

New developments

In the middle of 1917, the Germans developed and used other warfare agents. These were blue cross ( diphenylarsine chloride ) and yellow cross or mustard (bis (2-chloroethyl) sulfide).

  • Blue Cross was developed to penetrate enemy gas masks and force them to remove the mask. This substance, known as mask breaker or Clark (Clark 1 and Clark 2), was shot together with other substances in order to expose the opponent to the deadly substances such as phosgene etc. by removing the mask. This method was called Buntschießen or Buntkreuzschießen. Blaukreuz was fired for the first time on June 10-11 , 1917 near Nieuwpoort .
  • Yellow Cross, on the other hand, represented a completely new development in gas combat. While the other compounds used were lung poisons, Yellow Cross was a contact poison that acted through the skin. Yellow cross was designated as "Lost" (Germany, named after the chemists Wilhelm Lommel and Wilhelm Steinkopf ), Mustard Gas or Senfgas (England) and Ypérite (France, named after the city in Belgium where it was used by the French troops in September 1917 used for the first time). It was first published on 12./13. Used against the British in July 1917, just after the Blue Cross was first used. Around 125 tons of mustard were shot in this first attack. As a result, around 2,000 injured and 50 to 60 dead had to be reported. During the first three weeks of Lost's operation, the British had around 14,200 injured and 500 dead. Although the number of deaths in a lottery was very low at 1.8 to 2.5%, considerable physical damage was to be expected and, with it, soldiers lost for months. It was also due to the lottery that around every sixth Briton died from gas weapons. Also unlike all other warfare agents, Lost adhered very well to the area and stayed there for weeks and months, which made a very simple defensive defense possible, since it is difficult to evaporate.
Effect of a gas attack ( Battle of Fromelles , 1916)
In November 1917, contaminated, so no longer accessible rooms were created in the forest of Bourlon near Cambrai . “Mustard gas, released in the winter of 1917, poisoned the soldiers in the spring of 1918 when the ground thawed. In this way, entire areas of a battlefield could be sealed off. ”The techniques used to develop warfare agents were not the development of new poisons, but only the mass production of chemical compounds that had long been known. According to Haber, the French produced 1,937 tons by the end of the war. From the beginning of June 1918, the French started using this weapon. When the French attacked the 16th Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment on October 14, 1918, the 29-year-old Adolf Hitler was poisoned and temporarily blinded.

Gas protection

German Empire

Operating crew of a German heavy anti-aircraft machine gun equipped with gas masks

After Wolfgang Gruber had identified the gas developed by the French "stink bombs" as chloropicrin on April 25, 1915 in Guillemont , he proposed sulphite liquor, also known as caustic sulphite couleur or sugar couleur , as an antidote in his report to the 1st Royal Bavarian Division in front. However, this could not be obtained under the war conditions in a nearby sugar factory. On May 9, 1915, a doctors' convention on the subject of gas protection took place in Combles . There it was suggested that every officer, deputy officer and machine gunner should have an oxygen machine. However, since such a vehicle weighed 15 kilograms, this was not practical under battle conditions. Then on May 11th, Lieutenant Gruber set up a laboratory together with the medical officer of the 2nd Infantry Regiment to test gas control methods. During their experiments, the two found that the best thing to do immediately was to put water-soaked ceilings in front of the entrances and viewing hatches of the shelters so that the chlorine gas could react to hydrochloric acid before it got into the soldiers' lungs. By May 26, 1915, all of the division's shelters were equipped with buckets of water and curtains that were to be made wet in the event of gas attacks. Sulphite liquor was later given out.

Richard Willstätter was responsible on the German side for the further development of gas protection, in particular of gas masks . The equipment of the German units with the first generation of the gas mask could begin in autumn 1915. It was a face-covering model made of rubberized material, in which the inhaled and exhaled air still went through a replaceable filter. In order to relieve the filter, in later models the air was only filtered when inhaling, while the exhaled air left the mask through a valve.

Initially, the gas mask had a single-layer filter to protect against chlorine, consisting of a kieselguhr layer (diatomite), which was soaked with 40% potash solution and powdered with activated carbon . This filter was replaced at the beginning of 1916 by a three-layer insert, in which the diatomite was also soaked with piperazine and urotropin . This filter protected against phosgene and the toxic formaldehyde produced during phosgene degradation . This filter was also effective against other warfare agents such as chloropicrin. This model was later delivered with an additionally reinforced layer of activated carbon.

The tightness of the masks has been continuously improved. From 1917 masks were made of gas-tight impregnated and oiled goatskin produced. This leather was chosen because of its suppleness and special tightness, since goats do not have sweat glands.

In addition, clear glasses coated with special gelatine were used to prevent fogging; Glasses made of unbreakable cellon were also made and used. In some cases, the mask material was cut so generously that the wearer could press special "wiping lines" with their fingers from the outside inwards against the glasses if the glasses were fogged up. Special visual aids that could be worn under the mask were designed for people who wear glasses. Instead of brackets, which would have made the fit and thus the tightness of the mask difficult and impaired, these visual aids had adjustable textile straps.

In March 1918 a filter was introduced which, with a much larger layer of activated carbon, was even more effective against phosgene, chloropicrin and hydrocyanic acid. In order to also ward off mask-breaking agents, a snap-on lid attachment with insertable filter paper was used. However, this offered no effective protection against the Blue Cross (Clark group), which was also used by the own troops, instead it increased the breathing resistance. Only Germany used piperazine to bind formaldehyde during phosgene degradation, which offered increased effectiveness in gas protection.

For horses that were exposed to poison gas attacks, especially when transporting ammunition, masks made from feed sacks were used in the German army, which were pulled over the nostrils and contained absorbent substances such as damp hay .

France

In France, the development of the gas mask was less homogeneous than in Germany; it began with a makeshift protection made of a gauze bandage soaked with sodium thiosulfate and only ended after several intermediate steps over the apparatus M 2 , in which cellulose acetate was supposed to prevent the glasses from fogging up - With the final Masque ARS With two valves and a three-layer insert (cotton / activated carbon / activated carbon- soda lime , soaked with tin oxide , which was dissolved in glycerine ) it was similar to the German mask, but without pendulum breathing. This mask could be issued to the troops in November 1917.

Great Britain

British soldiers with gas masks in 1916 during the Battle of the Somme

Before developing any gas protection, British soldiers used gauze bandages and strips of gauze that they soaked in their own urine and held in front of their nose and mouth. In particular, these defensive measures were used in the 2nd Battle of Flanders against chlorine gas. The ammonia contained was supposed to mitigate the effects of the chlorine gas, but this was extremely inadequate. It was only after these deplorably inefficient experiments that more effective protection was adopted.

First, a face-covering mask, called a hypo-helmet , was used, inhaling through the filter soaked with sodium thiosulphate or sodium hyposulphate, exhaling through a tubular lip valve. From the summer of 1915, in addition to sodium thiosulphate , the fabric was also soaked with sodium phenolate , soda , soap and glycerine . This mask was improved in 1916 with the addition of Urotropin .

The first real gas mask was the Large Box Respirator , the further development of which was the Small Box Respirator . This mask consisted of a filter in a layer system made of activated carbon / permanganate- soda lime beads / activated carbon. From April 1918, this mask was supplemented by a cellulose- wadding filter, which protected from the mask breaker Blue Cross. From September this cotton wool was installed inside the filter.

United States of America

US soldier and horse with gas mask

Due to a lack of technical skills in gas mask production, the USA first resorted to the English Small Box Respirator , a revised version of which they received in February 1918. Shortly before the armistice, the US also produced much improved French masks, as well as the 1919 mask, which offered effective protection against mask breakers.

Italy

Italy tried to manufacture its own gas masks, but these failed due to ineffectiveness and weight. That is why English and French masks were used.

Various gas masks from the First World War

Other methods

US Army Mobile Detox Station, 1918

The gas protection of the nations involved included not only protection by means of masks, but also a gas early warning system. In the style of mines, various war animals were used as a kind of early warning system in the First World War , as they react much more sensitively to the corresponding gases than humans. Domestic cats are very sensitive to phosgene, to protect against hydrogen cyanide and carbon monoxide were canaries kept. The Americans kept snails in cages because they give off a milky secretion with very small amounts of mustard gas ( mustard ).

Despite the functioning of the technology, discipline within the army was essential. On the German side, in particular, there were training courses that taught and described how to put on masks correctly and how to behave.

Excerpt from a leaflet on gas combat

l. Trust your mask. It protects you if it is well missed, is in good condition (without holes, cracks, etc.) and you know how to use it safely and quickly.
2. Trust the insert and do not change it during a gas attack. It absolutely protects you in the gas fight, even if it lasts for hours.

Main agents, production quantities and mode of action

Names for warfare agents

There were special names for the most important warfare agents, which were spread by marking the grenades and gas containers with colored crosses. The colored crosses were primarily intended as an indication of the effect of the warfare agent in question on the enemy, and less as an exact chemical content.

Blue cross

Blue cross was used as the name for warfare agents of the Clark group . These substances, used as " mask breakers ", were irritants that acted on the nose and throat. They penetrated the respiratory protection filters and caused severe nausea, so that those affected had to take off their gas masks, which left them defenseless against other poisonous gases.

Yellow cross

Yellow cross served as a collective name for various skin-damaging warfare agents ( contact poisons ), such as hydrogen cyanide or mustard gas / mustard .

Green Cross

Grünkreuz was used as a collective name for various lung-damaging agents such as chlorine , phosgene , diphosgene and chloropicrin .

Red cross

Red cross or " nettle " was a name for warfare agents made from halogenated oximes . They are highly irritating substances with a wide range of toxic effects that have a particular effect on the upper respiratory tract and also have lung-damaging and skin-damaging properties.

White cross

White cross was used as the name for eye-damaging warfare agents such as tear gas from bromine and chloroacetone , which were among the first chemical warfare agents used in the First World War.

Colored shooting

The simultaneous use of various chemical warfare agents in order to increase their effectiveness was referred to as Buntschießen or "Buntkreuz". In the late phase of the First World War in particular, warfare agents were often used in combination with poison gas grenades . Strongly irritating warfare agents such as blue cross first penetrated the filters of the gas masks and forced the wearer to remove the gas mask. Lung-damaging agents such as green cross used at the same time caused the death or incapacity of those affected.

Production quantities of the warfare agents

During the First World War, a total of 132,000 tons of warfare agents were produced, of which 113,000 tons were used. A total of 45 different warfare agents were used and 1,200,000 people were injured, 91,000 of whom died as a result of these warfare agents.

Effect of the war gases

Gassed - Depiction of victims of a gas attack by John Singer Sargent , 1918
Chlorine gas

Chlorine is a lung warfare agent. When in contact with water, chlorine forms hydrochloric acid and this has a strong irritant effect on the mucous membranes, respiratory tract, eyes and digestive tract. Chlorine has a corrosive effect on the body's proteins . Death from pulmonary edema .

Phosgene

Phosgene is a lung warfare agent. On contact with water, phosgene decomposes to CO 2 and hydrochloric acid . This breaks down the lungs and causes death from pulmonary edema.

Chloropicrine

Chloropicrine is a lung warfare agent. As with other lung warfare agents, death occurs through the formation of pulmonary edema.

Diphosgene

See phosgene , heat breaks it down into two phosgene molecules.

Mustard gas / mustard

Mustard gas ( mustard ) is primarily a skin poison , but it also has a lung toxicity. Mustards are colorless in the pure form and odorless liquids. The designation as a gas for these substances does not apply in the strict sense. The name "mustard gas" comes from the typical smell of mustard or garlic of the not highly purified product . Lost penetrates textiles and all kinds of materials. This warfare agent is eye, lung and skin damaging. Lost disease hinders cell division , inhibits white blood cells and also leads to blindness .

Prussic acid

Hydrocyanic acid , like mustard gas / mustard, is a contact poison that can also be inhaled. The acid anion of hydrogen cyanide, the cyanide ion (CN - ), inhibits the respiratory chain within the body and leads to internal suffocation .

Clark group

Clark is an irritant that irritates the throat . It is also an emetic . He forces you to take off the gas mask (in order to then inhale the actually deadly gas).

Conclusion of the gas war

This article or the following section is not adequately provided with supporting documents ( e.g. individual evidence ). Information without sufficient evidence could be removed soon. Please help Wikipedia by researching the information and including good evidence.
Members of the British 55th Division blinded by tear gas during the Fourth Battle of Flanders on April 10, 1918

Hundreds of gas attacks were carried out during the war and several million gas grenades were fired. The numbers of those poisoned and dead, including the long-term consequences that the gas war ultimately demanded, can only be quantified very imprecisely. In general, it can be assumed that of the 10 million dead in the war, around 90,000 (i.e. 0.9%) were due to the effects of chemical warfare agents, more than half of which occurred in Russia alone. Of the approximately 25 million other war victims , approximately one million were poisoned by gas. Despite the terrible effect, the death rate was very low. Some historians assume that during the war on the entire Western Front, all warring factions only suffered 18,000 deaths from poison gas. In connection with incalculable risks such as changing wind directions, poison gas is considered a strategically useless weapon.

The use of poison gas did not have the expected effect and was most effective at the beginning of the gas war, when no protective measures were in place. In particular, due to the later ever better training and equipment of the soldiers, the use of gas only led to minor losses among the opposing soldiers. The relatively low percentage of deaths from gas use shows this quite clearly. In contrast, there was a more complex production of gases, e.g. For example, a chemical industry was set up in France to produce chlorine.

One of the massive effects of the use of gas was undoubtedly the psychological pressure it exerted on the soldiers. They had to be constantly attentive in order to put on the gas mask immediately in the event of a gas grenade impact. Also, the ubiquitous danger of gas killing while sleeping was undoubtedly a significant burden. In relative terms, one can note here that on the battlefield, where attacks and / or artillery fire were constantly to be expected, the psychological pressure was enormous anyway. Nevertheless, the gas attack was undoubtedly one of the nightmares of every soldier because, unlike the artillery attack, it could not be evaded preventively. B. by building bunkers. There was no antidote to gas, only protection, namely the gas mask. Furthermore, just wearing the masks, under which breathing and vision were difficult and you sweat heavily - especially in summer - impaired the opponent's fighting ability.

Another argument against the effectiveness of the gas war is the fact that no gas was used during the Second World War . This can only be justified to a limited extent by fear of retaliatory gas attacks. The historian Sebastian Dörfler sees the main reason in the fact that the Second World War was largely a war of movement, whereas poison gas was able to develop its greatest effect especially in trench warfare and trench warfare.

Idioms

The phrase up to the gassing was sometimes used in the gas war.

literature

  • Heinrich Billstein: The First World War. Accompanying book for the ARD television series, contribution to the gas war. Rowohlt, Berlin 2004. ISBN 3-87134-500-8 .
  • Jochen Gartz: Chemical warfare agents. Pieper and The Grüne Kraft, Löhrbach 2003. ISBN 3-922708-28-5 .
  • Simon Jones: World War I Gas Warfare Tactics and Equipment , (Elite 150), Oxford 2007. ISBN 978-1-84603-151-9 .
  • Dieter Martinetz: The gas war 1914–1918 - development, manufacture and use of chemical warfare agents. Bernard and Graefe, Bonn 1996. ISBN 3-7637-5952-2 .
  • Otto Hahn : My life . (See chapter First World War , pp. 111–129). Edited by Dietrich Hahn. Piper Verlag, Munich-Zurich 1986. ISBN 3-492-00838-0 .
  • Rudolf Hanslian: The German gas attack near Ypres on April 22, 1915. A study of the history of war. Verlag Gasschutz und Luftschutz, Berlin 1934.
  • Rudolf Hanslian: The chemical warfare ES Mittler & Sohn, Berlin 1927.
  • Volker Hartmann: Medicine in the gas war. 100 years ago: Use of chlorine gas near Ypres. In: Military Medical Monthly. Volume 59, 2015, pp. 159-163.
  • Gerit von Leitner : The Clara Immerwahr case. Life for a humane science , Munich 1993, ISBN 3-406-37114-0 .
  • Paul Voivenel, Paul Martin: La guerre des gaz , Bernard Giovanangeli Verlag 2004.
  • Wolfgang Wietzker: Poison gas in the First World War. What could the German public know? Akademikerverlag AV, Saarbrücken 2012. ISBN 978-3-639-41896-5 .

Web links

Commons : Gas War During World War I  - Collection of pictures, videos and audio files

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Federal Agency for Civic Education , Information Portal War and Peace: Chemical Warfare Agents in Action ( online ), accessed on July 21, 2018.
  2. ↑ Müller, R.-D., Encyclopedia First World War, 2003, s. v. Gas War, p. 519.
  3. ^ Karl Heinz Roth : The history of IG Farbenindustrie AG from its foundation to the end of the Weimar Republic . In: Norbert Wollheim Memorial at the JW Goethe University, 2009. [1] (PDF; 333 kB)
  4. ↑ a b Margit Szöllösi-Janze : Fritz Haber, 1868–1934: A biography . Verlag CH Beck, 1998, ISBN 978-3-406-43548-5 .
  5. ↑ Lukas Zimmer: When "defeat" became "destroy". Shame doesn't smell. ORF.at. January 30, 2015. Accessed February 9, 2016.
  6. ^ Patrick Coffey: Cathedrals of Science: The Personalities and Rivalries That Made Modern Chemistry . Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-988654-8 .
  7. ↑ To produce explosives, ammonia and nitric acid had to be produced independently from atmospheric nitrogen. For ammonia production according to the Haber-Bosch process, hydrogen is required, which could be produced by chlor-alkali electrolysis. During electrolysis, the chlorine gas is produced in equimolar quantities.
  8. ↑ Aksulu, N. Melek: The letters from Karl v. Zinglers from the First World War. Nobilitas - Journal for German Aristocracy Research, Volume 41, May 2006, p. 57.
  9. ↑ Langemark ( English ) World War One Battlefields. Retrieved April 16, 2019.
  10. ^ Georg Feulner: Natural sciences: data, facts, events and people . Compact Verlag, 2008, ISBN 978-3-8174-6605-4 .
  11. ↑ Hans Günter Brauch : The chemical nightmare, or is there a chemical weapons war in Europe? . Dietz Verlag, 1982.
  12. ^ Carl Duisberg, Kordula Kühlem (ed.): Carl Duisberg (1861-1935): Letters from an industrialist . Oldenbourg Verlag, 2012, ISBN 978-3-486-71283-4 .
  13. ^ Klaus Hoffmann: Guilt and responsibility: Otto Hahn - conflicts of a scientist . Verlag Springer, 1993, ISBN 978-3-642-58030-7 .
  14. ↑ Helmut Gruber (Ed.): Ridge walks. Memoirs of Wolfgang Gruber (1886–1971). Carl Hanser Verlag, Munich 2018, p. 183.
  15. ^ Margit Szöllösi-Janze: Fritz Haber, 1868–1934: A biography . Verlag CH Beck, 1998, ISBN 978-3-406-43548-5 .
  16. ↑ a b Austrian State Archives : Online Documentation 1914–1918. 100 years of the First World War , including section 1916 Isonzo battles ( online ), accessed on April 28, 2017.
  17. ↑ a b c d e f g h Austrian State Archives : Online documentation 1914–1918. 100 years of the First World War , including the gas war section ( online ), accessed on January 17, 2015.
  18. ↑ a b c Manfried Rauchsteiner : Die Gaswerfer von Flitsch , in: Die Presse , print edition of October 20, 2007 and online edition of October 19, 2007 , accessed on January 17, 2015.
  19. ↑ Jack Horsfall, Nigel Cave: Bourlon Wood. (Battleground Europe), Pen & Sword Books, 2001, ISBN 0-85052-818-6 . (on-line)
  20. ^ Robert Harris, Jeremy Paxman: A Higher Form of Killing: The Secret History of Gas and Germ Warfare . Arrow, London 2002, ISBN 0-09-944159-4 .
  21. ↑ Helmut Gruber (Ed.): Ridge walks. Memoirs of Wolfgang Gruber (1886–1971). Carl Hanser Verlag, Munich 2018, pp. 183–185.
  22. ^ Winston Groom: A Storm in Flanders: The Ypres Salient, 1914-1918: Tragedy and Triumph on the Western Front . Grove Press, New York.
  23. ^ First World War. Leaflet on the gas war. first-weltkrieg.net. Retrieved February 9, 2016.
  24. ↑ Dieter Wöhrle : The new chemical weapons convention , in: Wissenschaft & Frieden (1, 1993), viewed on March 18, 2013.
  25. ↑ SPIEZ LABORATORY: Mustard gas fact sheet (PDF; 244 kB), accessed on February 4, 2017.
  26. ↑ https://www.sueddeutsche.de/leben/historie-hoellische-wolke-1.2447818