Talk:Chemical weapons in World War I

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleChemical weapons in World War I is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 29, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 29, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
March 21, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 22, 2005, April 22, 2006, April 22, 2007, April 22, 2008, April 22, 2009, and April 22, 2011.
Current status: Former featured article

Cross Blue, Cross Blue![edit]

Anybody feel a need to mention Blue Cross, the British codename for sneezing agent diphenylchloroarsine (sez Fuller's Military History of the Western World, p277n1) Trekphiler 07:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Blue Cross (Blaukreuz) (or, the "Color Crosses" (Green, Yellow, White) generally) were german codes.--84.163.115.34 (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Cross was actually completely ineffective in use. It needed careful atomisation to work, which, with the crude detonation of an artillery shell containing BC, simply did not happen. 86.168.181.230 (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tons[edit]

The use of 'tons' in this article needs clarification. If the figures are taken from historical documents the Germans will presumably mean tonnes, (US: metric tons) and the British will mean Imperial long tons and American readers may assume their short tons are being referred to. Blaise (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the numbers are aproximate, it does not matter. Over precise converstions are irritating. Tuntable (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More than irritating, they are incorrect, because they imply a precision that is not there. ABehrens (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nits[edit]

Technically, the chemical warfare agent called "mustard" isn't a gas, it's a liquid that was explosively disseminated as an aerosol. It's a contact hazard and if breathed in, will scorch the esophagus, but it should not be called "mustard gas." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amauroni (talk • contribs) 20:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be interesting to add a sentence to clarify this in the article.—RJH (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estimated production of gases (by type)[edit]

The following table from the "1915: More deadly gases" has been tagged as unsourced since June 2008. I haven't been able to find a confirmation for these figures, so I'm moving the table here:

Estimated production of gases (by type)[citation needed]
Nation Production (metric tons)
Irritant Lachrymatory Vesicant Total
Austria-Hungary 5,080 255 — 5,335
Britain 23,870 1,010 520 25,400
France 34,540 810 2,040 37,390
Germany 55,880 3,050 10,160 69,090
Italy 4,070 205 — 4,275
Russia 3,550 155 — 3,705
USA 5,590 5 175 5,770
Total 132,580 5,490 12,895 150,965

Sorry.—RJH (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of gas: In the text of the Wikipedia article mainly the Germans are named as using gas. I read - shall try to reconstruct the source - that the Allies in fact used more gas than the Germans. The explanation is that the wind in northern France is mostly south east thus giving the Allies a advantage in the use of gas. Apart from this, the article is rather one sided, only naming the German army using gas and that taking the amount of gas produced by Britain and France, is rather unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaap Jan Brouwer (talk • contribs) 12:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gas used on Eastern Front[edit]

I am always supprised by the number of casualities listed for the Eastern front, as the Eastern front was much more spread out (less Soldiers per kilometer) than the Western front. In addition to this there was one less year of combat. I have read that the Central Powers tested Chemical Weapons in the Eastern front, but ruled them out as ineffective for use on this front becuase of the distances involved. What I think would aid this article is the amnount used on this front and Emperial Russia's reaction to the use. Paragoalie (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed inconsistent statement[edit]

I removed the following as in direct contradiction of the phosgene section, and I think is also plain wrong. Tuntable (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mustard gas caused the most gas casualties on the Western Front, despite being produced in smaller quantities than inhalant gases such as chlorine and phosgene.
To me that's fair. The sentence does not appear to reflect the article content and it is not backed up with a reliable citation. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loos 1915[edit]

The text says the British gas was a disaster but the German official history says that in the 117th Division sector, troops were affected by temporary impairment to "complete eradication of cmbat effectiveness", fifteen companies were destroyed and 22 guns lost, the situation here and on the 7th Division front beoming a crisis. The remnants of the division withdrew to the second position. p288. Could it be that British sources didn't look far enough on the other side of the hill?Keith-264 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon (GAWF 1915) wrote that it had an effect in the 14th Divison area p208-210 as well as that of the 117th Division p212-224Keith-264 (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Palazzo, "Seeking Victory on the Western Front", pp 53 - 77, for a more nuanced and accurate description of the British gas attack across the WHOLE of their lines.86.168.181.230 (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did any country use shells to deliver asphyxiating poisonous gases before June 3, 1915?[edit]

Did any country use shells to deliver asphyxiating poisonous gases before June 3, 1915? That is the date that San Marino entered the war, and Hague Conventions of 1899 would no longer have forbidden chemical weapons in shells to be used as San Marino was not, and still is not, a signer. Zginder 2013-10-10T06:12:27Z

Correction San Marino was and still is neutral. The "declaration" on June 3, 1915 was Ally propaganda. The US entered the war on 6 April, 1917. The US did not and still has not ratified part IV,2 of the 1899 convention, but by that time the treaty was already broken. Zginder 2015-03-03T01:20:23Z

Second Battle of Ypres[edit]

The Germans released Chlorine gas in huge volumes at this battle, again using the prevailing winds to carry the gas across the battle lines. It proved very successful and opened a huge gap in the battle lines..... why is it not mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.123.80 (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the worst gases is called B.B.C. !!![edit]

In a letter from WW2 that I am transcribing, my Father, writing to my Mother in 1941about his training in Gas Warfare, writes "One of the worst gases is called B.B.C. !!!" ( he was a writer!) I cannot find information about this gas to insert as a link, because of the "Noise" created by "BBC"! Can anyone let me have information about this gas? Dan93c — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan93c (talk • contribs) 17:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a joke on his part - "gassing" being a roughly contemporary slang term for talking a lot 62.196.17.197 (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The British code for Mustard Gas was "BB". There may have been variants as perceived that meant a suffix was added, hence BBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.181.230 (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did the US use chemical weapons?[edit]

- United States 1,400 tons (although they also used French stocks)

- Though the United States had never used chemical weapons in World War I

The first statement implies that the US did use chemical weapons. One of these inconsistent statements needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.121.70 (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chemical weapons in World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chemical weapons in World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British Gas attacks on Russian revolutionary troops during Russian Civil War?[edit]

There's a claim on the page (and several others) to the effect that the British used adamsite against Russian revolutionary troops in 1919 as part of the Russian Civil War. I've been trying to find a good source for this, but all I've found is this (or a very similar) sentence; sometimes the gas mentioned is different; there are no specifics regarding dates or other info. Does anyone have a source that gives any detail to back this up? I'm a bit concerned that it may be something that got mentioned here, and then repeated elsewhere, without any real basis for it. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Albert Palazzo, Seeking Victory on the Western Front: The British Army and Chemical Warfare in World War I (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2000), 159, http://www.questia.com/read/96748159/seeking-victory-on-the-western-front-the-british.
  2. James W. Hammond, Jr., Poison Gas: The Myths Versus Reality (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999), 13, http://www.questia.com/read/15311388/poison-gas-the-myths-versus-reality.
  3. https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/01/winston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons
  4. http://trudoros.narod.ru/english/churchill.htm

--Demostene119 (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chemical weapons in World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chemical weapons in World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ENGVAR[edit]

Per this old version, the article was first written in British English. Per MOS:RETAIN, it should continue with that spelling unless there is a compelling reason to change it. --John (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the amateur post[edit]

I don't edit Wikipedia, so I'm sorry for not knowing what I am doing. However, as I am researching this topic, I am concerned by the initial claim that use of chemical weapons in WW1 was a war-crime. "The use of poison gas by all major belligerents throughout World War I constituted war crimes as its use violated the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Asphyxiating Gases and the 1907 Hague Convention on Land Warfare, which prohibited the use of "poison or poisoned weapons" in warfare." This is because I am sitting in front of an article written by Edward Wright for "The War Illustrated", published July 1915, titled "The Horrors of the Poison War", wherein it explain that use of gas was not a war crime, despite common public sentiment, because, unlike the Germans, the British had refused to sign the 1907 Treaty banning its use, and that in any-case entrance by other non-signatories like the US (who also refused to sign in 1907) and Turkey made the treaty null by its own terms.

If the British did not sign the Treaty, then the quoted section seems factually incorrect. How could it be a war-crime when half the party signed it, and the clauses of the agreement excluded the circumstances of the war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.159.164 (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: War and the Environment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 May 2022 and 6 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Niamh Calder (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Karanaconda (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niamh Calder[edit]

Added section that went into further detail about the Protocol (who signed, what the treaty entailed and required of signing nations). Started discussing chemical Weapons Convention and International ban of chemical weapons after World War 1.

Added section discussing the disposal of chemical weapons after World War 1. Went into detail about how chemical weapons were disposed in ocean and seas. I briefly mentioned effects on the environment and health impacts.

Added a couple sentences to unexploded weapons and effects. Discussed effects of chemicals used in shells. Niamh Calder (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niamh Calder[edit]

Added two pictures, one of the weapons being disposed of, and pictures of soldiers who has been exposed to harmful gasses.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chemical_weapons_in_World_War_I&oldid=1218274056"