The Riddle of the Rhine: Chemical Strategy in Peace and War

by Victor Lefebure

When, after the first brilliant assault on the Somme on July 1st, we began to lose men, material, and the initiative, in an endless series of local attacks, we were even then regaining it by the home development of the tank. Even before the colossal German effort was frustrated by the first Marne battle and the development of trench warfare, the German laboratories were within an ace of regaining the initiative by their work on cloud gas. After the lull in their gas attacks, when the Germans sought to gain the initiative and a decision by the use of phosgene, the quiet work of our defensive organisations at home had completely countered the move weeks before.

But in all these cases the counter idea could not become effective without large-scale production. This was absolutely fundamental. Had we taken six years to produce the first type of tank, had the Germans failed to manufacture mustard gas within a period of years instead of succeeding in weeks, and had the box respirator taken longer to produce, all the brilliant thinking and research underlying these developments would have had practically no influence on the campaign, for they would have had no incidence upon it. We could go on multiplying examples. But what is the conclusion?

From this rapid development of methods a new principle emerges. The initiative no longer remains the sole property of the staffs, unless we enlarge the staff conception. Vital moves can be engineered from a point very remote in organisation and distance from the G.H.Q. of armies in the field. But there is a critical step between the invention and its effect on military initiative. This is production, which for these newer methods becomes an organic part of the campaign.

But the future is our chief preoccupation. What would be the supreme characteristics of the early stages of a future war? It would be distinguished by attempts of belligerents to win immediate and decisive success by large scale use of various types of surprise. Three factors would be pre-eminent, the nature of the idea or invention, the magnitude on which it is employed, and its actual time of incidence, that is, the delay between the actual declaration of war and its use. Now the invention is of no use whatever without the last two factors, which are entirely dependent on production. When, in 1917, the Allied staffs pressed repeatedly for gases with which to reply to German Yellow Cross, their urgent representations met with no satisfactory response until nearly a year had elapsed. This was not due to lack of invention, for we had simply to copy the German discovery. Failure to meet the crying demands of the Front was due to delay in production.

Any eventual chemical surprise will, under genuine conditions of disarmament, depend on peace industry, for no such conditions will tolerate the existence of huge military arensals. We have already indicated the type of peace-time industry par excellence, which can rapidly and silently mobilise for war. It is the organic chemical industry. Therefore, whatever the war may have taught us as to the value of chemical industry, its importance from the point of view of a future war is magnified many times. The surprise factor is responsible. The next war will only commence once, however long it may drag on, and it is to the start that all efforts of a nation planning war will be directed. It is, therefore, of importance to examine in detail the development of chemical production during the recent war.

A close examination is of more than historical significance, and should provide answers to certain vital questions. German chemical industry was the critical factor in this new method of war which almost led to our downfall. How did the activities of this industry compare with our own production? To this an answer is attempted below, but graver questions follow. Was our inferior position due to more than a combination of normal economic conditions, and were we the victims of a considered policy? If so, who directed it, and when did it first give evidence of activity? An answer to these questions will be attempted in a later chapter.

Significance of the German Dye Industry.—At the end of 1914 the nation began to realise what it meant to be at the mercy of the German dye monopoly. Apart from the immediate economic war disadvantages, the variety and sinister peace ramifications of this monopoly had not been clearly revealed. Mr. Runciman, then President of the Board of Trade, stated with regard to the dye industry: "The inquiries of the Government have led them to the conclusion that the excessive dependence of this country on a single foreign country for materials of such vital importance to the industry in which millions of our workpeople were employed, constitutes a permanent danger which can only be remedied by a combined national effort on a scale which requires and justifies an exceptional measure of State encouragement." Measures were defined later.

In the debate in the House of Commons in February, 1915, on the aniline dye industry, a member prominent in the discussion, referring to "taking sides on the question of Free Trade," stated that, "It was a great pity that this should occur when the attention of the House is occupied with regard to MATTERS CONNECTED WITH THE WAR," and proceeded to draw a comparison between the national importance of the manufacture of dyes and that of lead pencils. Fortunately he prefaced his remarks by explaining his ignorance of the "technical matters involved in this aniline dye industry." These are two out of many references to the pressure due to the absence of German dyes, which illustrate the purely economic grounds on which the issue was being discussed, on the one hand, and reveal the prevailing ignorance of its importance on the other.

Exactly one month later came the first German gas shock. Such statements as the above tempt us to ask who, at this time, realised the common source of the direct military and indirect economic attack. It can hardly be doubted that the existence of the German dye factories was largely responsible for the first German use of gas on the front. We have already seen how, from the first month of the war, the chemical weapon was the subject of definite research. Falkenhayn leaves us in no doubt as to the chief factor which finally determined its use. Referring to difficulties of production, he says, "Only those who held responsible posts in the German G.H.Q. in the winter of 1914-15 . . . can form any estimate of the difficulty which had to be overcome at that time. The adjustment of science and engineering . . . took place almost noiselessly, so that they were accomplished before the enemy quite knew what was happening. Particular stress was laid upon the promotion of the production of munitions . . . as well as the development of gas as a means of warfare." Referring to protective methods of trench warfare, he continues, "Where one party had gained time . . . the ordinary methods of attack often failed completely. A weapon had, therefore, to be found which was superior to them but which would not excessively tax the limited capacity of German war industry in its production. Such a weapon existed in gas."

The Germans had themselves shown us where this production occurred, and Ludendorff supplements our information by telling us how he discussed the supply of war material with Herr Duisburg and Herr Krupp von Bohlen in Halbach, "whom I had asked to join the train" in the autumn of 1916. The former was the Chairman of the I.G., the great dye combine.