HUMANE OR INHUMANE?
A good deal of abuse has been showered on chemical warfare
methods by those who understand very little about them.
It has been claimed by such that gas is particularly atrocious.
Feeling on the matter has been so strong in certain
quarters that the fact that all war is particularly vile
and atrocious seems to have been completely lost sight of.
Let us take up this matter in a rational way. In the first place,
what do we mean by the atrocity or inhumanity of a weapon?
We can either appeal to the imagination or the reason, in the
first case, by visualising the battlefields, or, in the second,
by making a cold analysis of the casualties caused by gas.
Nature of Gas Casualties.--Every normal person who experienced
and survived the throes of the different stages of the war,
and of the different gas surprises, mainly German, which were
sprung upon us, finds it difficult to think out, or express,
a cool and balanced view on the question of poison gas.
But such a balanced view is most important for the future.
It must be remembered that the official protests in 1915 arose
on the grounds, to use Lord Kitchener's words, that "they
employed these poisonous methods to prevail when their attack,
according to the rules of war, might have otherwise failed."
Had the rules of war permitted their use, we should, no doubt,
have been protected. But these protests, submerged in popular
sentiment, became an outcry against the atrocity of the new weapon.
This, a just criticism at the time, became inaccurate
when the Allies reacted, methods of protection developed,
and the specific tactical uses of gas were realised.
The view of the peculiar atrocity of gas has outlived the truth
of war experience with regard to it. We agree that chemical
warfare is atrocious. But it is no exception, for thus are all
the aggressive methods of warfare. Indeed, when we attempt
to interpret atrocity in terms of available casualty statistics,
we find that gas is slightly less atrocious than the other weapons.
We must either incline to this view or dispute the figures,
which are authoritative. Consider the American figures.
These will he more truly representative than our own,
because their troops were only exposed during the later
and more developed phases of the war. Of the total strength
of the A.E.F., the number gassed was about six per cent., wounded
by rifle and machine-gun fire about one per cent., wounded
by high explosive one and a half per cent., shrapnel wounds
three percent., and bayonet wounds less than one half per cent.
But although enemy gas caused more than 70,000 casualties, yet of
these only one and a half per cent. were fatal, while the total
number of deaths for all types of casualties was thirty per cent.
Thus against the American army, measured by casualties produced,
gas was by far the most effective, and yet by far the least
deadly weapon. What can be more atrocious than the actual cone
of tens or even hundreds of dead and wounded invariably left
before an untouched machine-gun emplacement in an assault?
What is more horrible than the captured first line trench after
its treatment by the preparatory bombardment, or the mutilation
of men peacefully sleeping in billets behind the battle front
and thrown, broken and bloody, through their billet walls
under the wheels of passing transport, as one has seen them?
The whole experience of real war is beyond adjectives.
But, leaving impressions, let us turn to facts.
With regard to the future and from the point of view of atrocity,
gas has a hopeful outlook as compared with other weapons.
This may seem a curious statement to make, but consider the following.
We cannot envisage advances in the use of explosives in shell or bomb
to render them more humane. Explosives, if their development be pressed,
can only become more violent, with a wider range of action.
Chemical warfare may follow the same lines, but it has
the unique possibility of developing on more humane lines.
The vesicant action of mustard gas produced huge casualties with
relatively little permanent harm. Chemicals may be found which
temporarily influence human functions, enabling military objectives
to be attained with a remarkably small amount of pain and death.
In a fair review of the whole situation, this possibility cannot
be overlooked. It is more than possible that a League of Nations,
compelled to employ an element of force in its eventual control
of peace, may find its most effective and humane weapon in some
chemical development. However visionary these views may appear,
they are not unjustified as scientific possibilities.
Analysis of war gas casualties reveal two main trends.
As the struggle became more intense the number of casualties multiplied.
They were considerable during the first period of cylinder attack,
and the rate remained steady until the beginning of the mustard
gas period. From the summer of 1917 to November, 1918,
there were more than ten times as many gas casualties as for
the preceding three years of war. But the percentage mortality,
the number of deaths amongst each hundred men attained,
decreased considerably. As high as twenty-five per cent.
during the early cylinder attacks, it decreased to two and a
half per cent. for the huge number of mustard gas cases.
Yet mustard gas was an exceedingly important military factor.
It illustrates the possibility of development on these lines,
but we must by no means disregard the atrocity of chemical warfare,
and safeguards are required for the future.
We cannot do better than conclude by quoting from General Hartley's
report to the British Association. He says:
"The general impression that gas is an inhumane weapon is derived partly
from the German breach of faith in using it contrary to the Hague Convention,
and partly from the nature and number of casualties in the earliest cloud
attacks which were made against unprotected troops. Under the stress of a
long war the individual is apt to forget the physical and mental sufferings
it involves, unless he is daily in contact with them, but a dramatic
occurrence such as that of the first gas attack forces on the imagination
the brutal significance of war--the struggle for victory by killing--and the
new weapon is judged as inhumane, like gunpowder in the fifteenth century.
If we accept war as a possibility, the most humane weapon is that which leads
to a decision with the smallest amount of human suffering and death.
Judged from this standpoint, gas compares favourably with other weapons during
the period when both sides were fully equipped for offence and defence.
The death-rate among gas casualties was much lower than that among casualties
from other causes, and not only was the death-rate lower, but a much
smaller proportion of the injured suffered any permanent disability.
There is no comparison between the permanent damage caused by gas,
and the suffering caused to those who were maimed and blinded by shell
and rifle fire. It is now generally admitted that in the later stages
of the war many military objects could be attained with less suffering
by using gas than by any other means.
Sargent's Picture.--"The judgment of future generations on the use
of gas may well be influenced by the pathetic appeal of Sargent's
picture of the first `Mustard Gas' casualties at Ypres, but it must
not be forgotten in looking at that picture that 75 per cent.
of the blinded men he drew were fit for duty within three months,
and that had their limbs and nerves been shattered by the effects
of high explosive, their fate would have been infinitely worse."
Need for Safeguards.--We have continually referred to the need
for safeguards instead of mere reliance on prohibition.
Such views and facts as the above should be more generally
known in order that very worthy sentiments may not impel us
to adopt an unsound solution for future peace. However alarmed
and revolted we may have been in 1915 and later during the war,
it is essential to take a balanced view in the present critical
period of reconstruction.