EVENTS AFTER WORLD WAR I

At the conclusion of World War I, the world had been introduced to chemical warfare on an unprecedented level. While there were groups that thought that humanity had learned a lesson from the cruel nature of chemical warfare, others prudently went to work on improved chemical defense (Vedder and Walton, 1925). The thoughts of many professional military officers were that future wars would be fought under the new paradigm of chemical warfare (Vedder and Walton, 1925; Vedder, 1926; Smart, 1997). New gas masks were developed and training in chemical environments was introduced (Vedder and Walton, 1925; Vedder, 1926; Joy, 1997). Textbooks and manuals, such as those written by US Army Colonel Edward B. Vedder (Figure 2.6), were introduced to the military medical community (Vedder and Walton, 1925). In addition, the civilian medical community gained valuable insight into toxicology and animal models from the events of World War I (Vedder, 1929; Johnson, 2007). Despite the first-hand experience with chemical warfare, some countries, including the USA, struggled to adequately fund their offensive and defensive programs during demobilization (Smart, 1997). It did not take long for chemical warfare to appear in other conflicts. Chemical agents were used to subdue rioters and suppress rebellions. The British used chemical agents to suppress uprisings in Mesopotamia by dropping bombs in cities throughout the area in the early 1920s (Coleman, 2005). The Soviet Union used chemical agents to quell the Tambov rebellion in 1921, and France and Spain used mustard gas bombs to subdue the Berber rebellion during the 1920s (Werth et al., 1999). Italy and Japan used mustard in small regional conflicts (Joy, 1997). The Italian conflict in Ethiopia was noteworthy because

mustard was sprayed and dropped from planes and the agent’s use was considered by some to be significant
to the Italian victory (Smart, 1997). This use demonstrated the contemporary thought that allowed chemicals to be viable alternatives to traditional combat. The Japanese also used chemical weapons during the 1930s against regional foes. Mustard gas and the vesicant Lewisite were released on Chinese troops and were also used in South East Asia (Coleman, 2005). Lewisite is an arsine which was usually produced as an oily brown liquid that was said to have the odor of geraniums (Spiers, 1986; Hammond, 1994). It was developed in the USA by Winford Lee Lewis in 1918 and was found to be effective at penetrating clothing. The USA produced approximately 20,000 tons of Lewisite but only used small quantities of the chemical in World War I (Coleman, 2005). Dimercaprol, more commonly called British anti-Lewisite, was developed as an effective treatment for the vesicant (Goebel, 2008). In the inter-war period, mustard was a key concern in defensive planning (Coleman, 2005). New stores of mustard were produced in many countries. Work continued on many fronts to improve protective equipment. For example, the US Chemical Warfare Service introduced the M1A2 mask, an improvement of the M1 mask (Smart, 1997). In the Geneva Protocol of 1925, 16 of the world’s major nations pledged never to use gas as a weapon of warfare; it was not ratified in the USA until 1975 (Hammond, 1994). There has long been vigorous debate on the merits of treaties with nations balancing the military needs versus the potential irrational concept of chemical warfare (Vedder, 1926).

THE FIRST SUSTAINED USE OF CHEMICALS AS AGENTS OF WARFARE

The talk and rhetoric of the late 19th century should have prepared the countries involved in World War I for chemical warfare. However, that was not case (Smart, 1997). World War I clearly demonstrated the deadly and destructive nature of chemicals in modern warfare. Both alliances in the war experimented with novel forms of warfare, to include chemical weapons, and followed the lead of their advisory (Hay, 2000). It is little wonder this war is known as the ‘‘chemist’s war’’ (Fitzgerald, 2008). Initially, the French used gas grenades with little effect and were followed by the German use of shells filled with tear gas (Joy, 1997). The Germans, capitalizing on their robust chemical industry, produced shells filled with dianisidine chlorosulfate (Smart, 1997). These shells were used in October of 1914 against the British at Neuve-Chapelle but had little effect. In the winter of 1914–15, the Germans fired 150 mm howitzer shells filled with xylyl bromide (Smart, 1997). The xylyl bromide shells were fired on both the eastern and western fronts with disappointing effects. Despite the inauspicious start of chemical warfare on both fronts, efforts were continued to develop new uses. It would soon be evident that chemical warfare would be devastating on the battlefield (Coleman, 2005; Tucker, 2006). Fritz Haber, a German scientist who later won the Nobel prize in Chemistry, had proposed the possibility of releasing chlorine gas from cylinders (Joy, 1997). Chemical warfare was attractive to Germans for two reasons: the shortage of German artillery shells and the ability to defeat the enemy trench system (Smart, 1997). After consideration and debate, the Germans released chlorine in April 1915 at Ypres, Belgium (Coleman, 2005). The German military was not prepared for the tremendous operational advantage the chlorine release provided. It did not take long for the British and French forces to respond in kind to the German offensive (Vedder and Walton, 1925; Joy, 1997; Smart, 1997; Coleman, 2005). In the fall of 1915, a British officer, William Livens, introduced a modified mortar (Figure 2.1) that could project gas-filled shells of chlorine or phosgene, the two agents of choice at that time (Joy, 1997). Both chlorine and phosgene caused extreme respiratory problems to those soldiers who were exposed (Vedder and Walton, 1925; Joy, 1997; Smart, 1997; Coleman, 2005; Hurst et al., 2007) (Figure 2.2). 

As the USA entered the war in the spring of 1917, an obvious concern of the military command was the effect of chemical warfare on standard operations. Chemistry departments at universities were tasked with investigating and developing novel chemical agents (Joy, 1997). Protective equipment (Figure 2.3) and basic studies of the biological effects of chemical agents were assigned to the US Army Medical Department (Joy, 1997). In the fall of 1917, the Army began to build an industrial base for producing 

chemical agents at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland (Joy, 1997). As the effects of chlorine and phosgene became diminished by the advent of gas masks (Figure 2.4), the Germans turned to dichlorethyl sulfide (mustard) at Ypres against the British (Joy, 1997). As opposed to the gases, mustard remained persistent in the area and contact avoidance was the major concern (Joy, 1997). It is worth noting that almost 100 years after it was first used on the battlefield, mustard still has no effective treatment and research continues for effective therapeutics (Babin and Ricketts et al., 2000; Baskin and Prabhaharan, 2000; Casillas and Kiser, 2000; Hay, 2000; Schlager and Hart, 2000; Hurst et al., 2007; Romano et al., 2008). It has been estimated that there were over one million chemical casualties (Figure 2.5) of World War I with almost 8% being fatal (Joy, 1997). The Russians on the eastern front had a higher percentage of fatalities when compared with other countries in the war, primarily due to the later introduction of a protective mask (Joy, 1997). The relatively low mortality rate of chemical casualties in World War I demonstrated the most insidious aspect of their use, the medical and logistical burden it placed on the affected army. The eventual Allied victory brought a temporary end to chemical warfare. In 1919, the Treaty of Versailles prohibited the Germans from productio and use of chemical weapons.