Judging from the German Intelligence Reports the surprise effect of the French production was almost as great as that obtained by the earlier German use. It again evaded the gas discipline of the troops, and we find the German staff laying enormous emphasis on this question, which was already very prominent in their general and operation orders. The occasion provided a very striking example of German belief in their absolute predominance in production. They were largely justified in this belief, but it carried them too far. They explained the use of mustard gas by the French as due to the use of German mustard gas obtained from "blind" German shell!
Effect on German Gas Discipline.—British mustard gas was not in use in the field until September, 1918, but the French was a great success, and probably contributed to no small extent to the final allied success in the 1918 campaign. The French termed mustard gas "Yperite" after Ypres, the place where it was first used. As far as such terms can be applied to any weapon, Yperite arrived to spread panic, and terror amongst the German formations. A document captured by the Sixth French Army shows that Yperite used on the 13th June against the 11th Bavarian Division was the chief cause of the precipitate retreat of this Division. The Seventh German Army refers to another bombardment on the 9th of June, in which the casualties exceeded five hundred.
It is curious to note that although the Germans had so preached the superiority of their gases and gas methods, serious blows by the Allies found the German gas discipline unequal to them. It is no exaggeration to say that the use of mustard gas by the French, and later by the British, and the British projector, produced, on each occasion, in the German ranks feelings allied to panic. This is reflected in the many orders which have been captured from army and other headquarters enforcing and even appealing for gas discipline amongst the troops. Thus, almost immediately after the first French use, Ludendorff, chief of the German General Staff, issued a special detailed order on the subject, and the German document captured by the French can be taken as representative. "Our Yellow Cross has caused much damage to the enemy, formerly less protected than now. But as a natural sequence he had developed through it a gas discipline which can certainly be taken as model. On this account enemy troops have been able to cross, at once and without loss, areas which their artillery had just bombarded with gas. We also must train our troops to an excellent standard of gas discipline if we expect to avoid the grave dangers which threaten the fighting forces of our army." By the time of the Armistice France had produced nearly 2000 tons of mustard gas, British and American production was rapidly increasing, so that the output was attaining stupendous proportions. Some idea of the importance of chemical warfare in the campaigns of 1917-1918 can be obtained from the following figures:
Allied Gas Statistics.—Between November, 1917, and November, 1918, France produced more than five millions of her latest type of respirator. The British figure was probably higher. From April to November, 1918, the French filled nearly two and a half million shell with mustard gas. From the 1st of July, 1915, to the latter date more than seventeen million gas shell were completed by the French. In addition to these huge gas shell figures we must remember the chemical operations from projectors and as cloud gas. During the period the British averaged fifty large scale operations of this type per month, sometimes discharging monthly three hundred tons of gas. The total French production of chlorine and poison gas for chemical warfare approached 50,000 tons, a large proportion of which production occurred during 1917 and 1918. The British was of the same order, but German production was at least more than twice as high, showing what great use they made of gas shell. The huge American programme might have reduced the margin, but no limits can be placed on German possibilities and elasticity in production.
Critical Importance of Rapid German Production.—These figures are misleading inasmuch as they give no indication whatever of the relative difficulties and corresponding rapidity of action on both sides. As a general rule, where the German lag between the approval of a substance and its use in the field covered weeks, our lag covered months. Owing to efficient production, chemical warfare was an infinitely more flexible weapon in German hands than in ours. This will be readily understood when we analyse, later, the methods of production of some of the chief German war gases. In general, German development of these complicated substances provided a series of examples of the ease and rapidity of production of organic substances by the dye industry. On the other hand, except in very few exceptional cases, British and French production, although we cast no reflection on the energy or skill of any concerned, was exceedingly slow and costly by comparison. The Germans used mustard gas in July, 1917. We identified it a few days afterwards. But the first fruits of allied production were not in the field for eleven months. British material was not used until a month or two before the Armistice. Further, in this case, we were convinced of the value of the substance almost from the first day of its use by the enemy. We will endeavour to throw light upon this in our review of production.
The period of intensive chemical warfare may be regarded as the proof of the German experiment of 1915-1916. Shed of their trial nature, the chemical weapons played a logical and increasingly dominating part in the campaign. They were surely destined to play a much more prominent part had the period of stabilised warfare continued. Projector cloud gas would have assumed greater importance as a casualty producer. But we will leave such considerations for a future chapter.
CHAPTER V
CHEMICAL WARFARE ORGANISATIONS
We have no desire nor intention to give a detailed historical account of the above. The ramifications, of Allied organisations were so numerous, the number of persons concerned so great, the sacrifices made so heavy, that only an exceedingly lengthy account could hope to do justice to individuals. In addition, such an account would not serve our purpose. We wish to show, as briefly as possible, how the different Allied organisations were bound up in an organic way with the campaign, how they compared with those of the enemy, and what lesson the comparison may contain for the future.
Two facts stand out in such a comparison. We are struck with the extreme simplicity of the German organisations, as we know them, and the great complexity and multiplicity of the Allied departments as we saw them. We must admit from the beginning that we know least of the German home organisations for research and production, but our knowledge is sufficient to reveal their simplicity. The Inter-Allied Commission of Control may, and certainly should, obtain full information, but at present the matter stands as follows.