The use of chemical weapons in WW1
100 years ago, a catastrophic war raged in Europe. Both sides of WW1 were able to use new technological advances to gruesome effect, devastating the European countryside and leaving millions dead. Among the many horrors experienced by soldiers fighting on the front were chemical weapons. Chemical weapons were not new to warfare, and this issue had, in fact, been addressed at The Hague convention of 1899, which prohibited the use of shells meant for the “diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gasses.” Additionally, both sides expressed distaste towards such weapons; on the topic of chemical weapons, General Karl von Einem of the German third army wrote “war has nothing to do with chivalry any more. The higher civilization rises, the viler man becomes.” Similar sentiments were echoed by contemporaries on the entente, with British lieutenant General Charles Ferguson calling chemical weapons “a cowardly form of warfare.” Yet, despite such detestation toward poisonous gasses, they became one of the most indelible features of the battlefield from 1915-1918.
It appears paradoxical that weapons that were so reviled gained so much prominence in the war, but the reason for their widespread use becomes evident upon further observation: both sides would prefer not to involve chemical weapons in the war, however if one side were to use it and the other were to abstain, the side with the poison gas would gain a distinct advantage. This situation results in the use of chemical warfare to be a dominant strategy for both sides, making it a Nash Equilibrium for both belligerents to use it. One British officer succinctly summarized the situation when he stated that “owing to the repeated use by the enemy of asphyxiating gases in their attacks on our positions, I have been compelled to resort to similar methods.”
The effectiveness of chemical weapons is debatable, with only 6000 British soldiers being killed by poison gasses over the course of the entire war. However, the use of chemical weapons forced both sides to spend resources issuing gas masks and training soldiers on how to protect against it. Additionally, it was an extremely effective psychological weapon. Soldiers were terrified of poison gas, so its use against them greatly decreased morale. In many cases, just the possibility that poison gas could be used caused great fear and anxiety. The accounts of the few that had actually been exposed to toxins released by the enemy appears to have spread like a virus throughout the ranks on both sides. In fact, there was one case in which a soldier who had a sore throat reported that he had been gassed, causing a widespread panic that resulted in more than half of his regiment being evacuated as gas casualties. Similarly, many accounts of chemical warfare, notably Wilfred Owen’s chilling poem “Dulce et Decorum Est,” were written by people that do not seem to have even been exposed to such weapons. Fears of chemical weapons seemed to have percolated throughout the whole army network, with smaller, more close-knit regiments more prone to panics due to rumors of direct contact with poison gasses.
Thankfully, because of the even greater stigma on chemical weapons arising from the war, and increased efforts to regulate their use, chemical weapons are not employed very often today. Additionally, other technologies in warfare seem to have proven to be more effective than poison gas, so the payoff for using such weapons no longer appears to offset the consequences of breaching international agreements governing ethical practices in war.
Source:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31042472