The First World War caused a major shift in military stratagem. The last major conflict involving world powers was the Crimean War, which occurred nearly sixty years previously. Many of America’s high brass were trained on the battlefields of Cuba and the Philippines during the Spanish American War; a conflict where the United States was renowned for its elite cavalry unit the “Rough Riders”. New technologies, such as tanks and machine guns, were used on such a massive scale that the tried and true tactics such as infantry and cavalry charges sought nothing but setbacks and major casualties. The battlefield went from being a duel between honorable opponents to a brutal hell for millions of foot-soldiers in the trenches. Paranoia of the enemy and scenes of the bloated bodies of comrades killed by the enemy created a dim horror scape. However, the most feared enemy was something that could not be seen, merely known for its distinctive sweet, spicy scent: mustard gas.
In the early days of World War I, gas attacks were used sporadically with little efficiency, until April 1915, when German chemists discovered an efficient gas delivery system. Chlorine gas was unleashed on unwitting French forces. The surprise attack left most soldiers vulnerable to the whims of the gas.
…show more content…
Images of men suffocating and clawing at their throats in the blue-green chlorine mist marred letters home. The Allies soon began developing protective equipment for soldiers, but the psychological effects of using weaponized gas proved too much of a tactical advantage in combat. This created a veritable arms race between the Axis and the Allies. Both sides wanted to create a more efficient, lethal gas that could penetrate the protective equipment of opposing forces. This “gas war” reached a penultimate moment in 1917.
German forces launched nearly one-hundred-ninety tons of Mustard Gas into the battlefield of Ypres, Belgium, marking a new chapter in gas warfare. Previously, gas was used to gain tactical advantage or suppress enemy forces. Mustard gas was designed with more malicious intent. It was used in coordination with another gas known as “Blue Cross”. Blue cross was created with the intention of penetrating charcoal filters in gas masks. The chemical would then cause such severe irritation to the nose and throat, that soldiers would tear off their gas masks to cough or vomit. Subsequently, they would be exposed to the more caustic mustard
gas. Blue cross was used with little effectiveness, although some soldiers reported a burning sensation in the nose and throat or sneezing when exposed to while wearing protective equipment. Mustard gas was shown to be far more effective. It even showed the ability to penetrate certain kinds of gas masks. It saturated wool military uniforms, causing men on the front lines to be forces to strip their clothing to avoid prolonged exposure. Mustard gas accounted for many more casualties and severe psychological damage to the exposed compared to other gasses used throughout World War I. This caused American chemists to synthesize a similar gas en masse. Both sides used this type of chemical warfare until the conflict’s conclusion, where the use of the chemical weapons was outlawed by the Geneva Convention. The effects of Mustard Gas were devastating, however not always immediately apparent. On average symptoms appeared twelve to twenty-four hours, however some individuals did not express symptoms of exposure until more than seventy-two hours after exposure. Symptoms start with irritation and swelling to the exposed areas, which would lead to severe rashes and blisters. Inhalation would result in the complete destruction of the mucus membranes in the throat and lungs, causing victims to suffer from pneumonia and other breathing difficulties. Exposure to the eyes would result in permanent blindness. Most victims would survive, albeit highly disfigured. The two percent of soldiers that would parish painfully in a span of nearly a month. Later examinations suggest that survivors of gas attacks were significantly more likely to develop lung cancer.
- - -, ed. "The Anti-War Movement in the United States." English.Illnois.edu. Ed. Oxford Companion to American Military History. 1st ed. Vers. 1. Rev. 1. Oxford Companion to American Military History, 1999. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. .
As we move into the Twentieth Century the similarities are almost identical. The First World War has shaped not only modern warfare but even produced global attention to the brutal and inhumane death toll of the war. As stated in the Geneva Protocol, which prohibited the use of chemical weapons in warfare, which was signed in 1925? While this was a welcomed step, the Protocol had a number of significant short comings, including the fact that it did not prohibit the development, production or stockpiling of chemical weapons.
When we think of weapons that the soldiers used in War World I we think of them as defense. But what is sort of ironic is that the same weapons the soldiers used to protect them selves were the same weapons that killed them. "The development of poison gases took on a new urgency during 1914-18." (http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/index.htm) Poison gas was a lethal or incapacitating gas used as a weapon in warfare. It was used extremely between the years of 1914-1918 in order to torture enemies during war. Another major weapon used during the war was the machine gun. "The machine gun was a fairly primitive device when general war began in August 1914." (http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/index.htm) The machine gun is an automatic weapon that fires rapidly and repeatedly without requiring separate squeezes on the trigger each time. This weapon was one of the most affective weapons and murdered the most enemies. These weapons were similar to the weapons that Remarque described in the novel All Quiet on the Western Front.
The world’s history is majorly shaped by mega wars that happen both inside and outside the boundaries of individual nations. Almost every sovereign state in the world had to forcefully liberate itself from its colonizers and oppressors mainly through warfare. For instance, America had to fight a long and exhausting revolutionary war against the British before it could attain its independence in 1783, likewise is the fate of many other nations. It is important to understand the two distinct types of wars that exist and their implications. Guerrilla warfare and the conventional military warfare are two types of war that are very different in their execution and military approach. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the similarities and differences existing between the American war in Vietnam and the American Revolution (Vetter, 1997).
World War I is marked by its extraordinary brutality and violence due to the technological advancement in the late 18th century and early 19th century that made killing easier, more methodical and inhumane. It was a war that saw a transition from traditional warfare to a “modern” warfare. Calvary charges were replaced with tanks; swords were replaced with machine guns; strategic and decisive battles were r...
The First World War witnessed an appalling number of casualties. Due partly to this fact, some historians, developed the perception that commanders on both sides depended on only one disastrous approach to breaking the stalemate. These historians attributed the loss of life to the reliance on soldiers charging across no-man’s land only to be mowed down by enemy machineguns. The accuracy of this, however, is fallacious because both the German’s and Allies developed and used a variety of tactics during the war. The main reason for battlefield success and eventual victory by the Allies came from the transformation of battlefield tactics; nevertheless, moral played a major role by greatly affecting the development of new tactics and the final outcome of the war.
Julianna Claire, an award winning poet once said, “War makes men act like fools, and makes fools pretend to be brave.” War is a very difficult and dangerous game. There must be a just cause to fight for, supporters on either side of the war, and clear plan on what the war ought to look like. Though, as much as countries plan their strategies and perfect their tactics, war never seems to go how people think it should. War creates heartache, makes countries question their governments, and changes the lives of the soldiers who fight in them. One such story that address the damages of war, is Ambush, by Tim O’Brien (1946). In this short story, Tim O’Brien tells a story of a young man fighting in Vietnam who kills a member of the Vietnam army. Robin Silbergleid, a neurosurgeon in Seattle, Washington, who minored in
Adams, Michael C. C. The "Best War Ever: America and World War II" Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD 1994. Bailey, Ronald H. The Home Front, U.S.A. Time-Life Publishing, Chicago, IL. 1978 Bard, Mitchell G.
Even though half of a century separates us from the unforgettable event, it left horrible memories especially in those who saw, felt and experienced World War II which was waged on land, on sea, and in the air all over the earth for approximately six years. Whether it’s a battle, hospital, or holocaust, there are so many stories from the survivors, who can teach us not only about the profession of arms, but also about military preparations, global strategies and combined operations in the coalition war against fascism.
Chemical Warfare in WWI World War I was beginning to invent new ways to produce more casualties to the enemy’s force and reduce the probability of losing Soldiers from their own line of defense or offense. They did this by conducting extensive research in chemical warfare. At the same time, it will motivate the troops and win the hearts and minds of the people of their country if they had new ways of ending the war quickly. Chemical warfare affected tactics and techniques of warfare and almost changed the outcome of World War I. (LTG Carl E. Vuono) The French were the first to start experimenting on chemical agents in 1912.
Web. The Web. The Web. 05 Feb. 2010. http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/gas.htm>.
The actual business of physical injury had added the more subtle process of slaughter of morale, a far more difficult, but none the less effective, method of warfare. The Germans have for a long time preached it. They practiced it from the first, 'frightfulness' being merely the German interpretation of the theory of the destruction of morale. Bernhardi lays as much stress upon it as upon perfection of maneuver. The Allies, perhaps keener students of psychology, substituted persuasion for brutality, and developed a system of military propaganda that has never before been equaled.
Warfare was in a state of transition. Older commanders and generals in the French and British militaries were very cavalry and infantry focused. These commanders believed that cavalry, infantry, and artillery would assure victory in any circumstance, against any foe. They clung to the static tactics of the bygone World War I era. World War I had been fought primarily on French soil, and the military as well as the government never wanted that to happen again, therefore they wanted to reinforce their main border against any future German. Little did they know that only twenty two years later they would be bested by German forces in a way that would shock the world. This research will be analyzing many important assumptions, oversights,...
World War Two was marketed to the civilians of every nation as a cataclysmic struggle requiring unprecedented public sacrifices and involvement, and in the early years of the war, the fear of defeat, invasion and scenarios all too horrific to comprehend motivated Americans to sacrifice, work hard and build the staggering infrastructure that produced the Allies to certain victory. In these early years of the War (1941-1942), propaganda did not need to be more than fear-mongering, yet America was not yet fully invested in open warfare. American airmen, sailors, Marines and soldiers were fighting and dying, but the vast majority of the American military- to say nothing of its civilian p...
The First World War is considered one of the deadliest conflicts in history, its more than nine million casualties exacerbated by the advancement in war technology. However, the physical damage the war inflicted on its participants pales in comparison to the emotional scars seared into the minds of these young men. The modest percentage of veterans who had survived the carnage still returned home ruined by the bloodshed. Not only did these warriors have to cope with the trauma that inevitably came with simply being involved in the war, but also with the threat of the rival side weaponizing their subconscious to turn on themselves. The introduction of organized psychological warfare changed the face of combat in a much deeper level than machine guns, poison gas, or tanks and aircrafts ever could. Psychological warfare, or psywar, was used throughout the Great War to ultimately influence the behavior of whoever or whomever it is targeted towards, and, along with other sources of trauma, forced those whom enlisted to detach themselves from their emotions, transforming them to empty shells of their former selves.