THE YPRES TIMES
Edwin Pye.
11
31st January, 1915; and again on the western front near Nieuport in March and at
Hill 60 on 16th April, 1915.
A German official communique, dated 17th April, read"Yesterday east of
Ypres the British employed shells and bombs with asphyxiating gas." Denial and
exposure of this was forthcoming in Sir John French's report of April 19th "The
statement in a recent German official communique that we had been using asphyxiating
gases in the Ypres district is false, and was doubtless made to justify the use of these
gases, which have been freely employed by the enemy in his attacks on Hill 60."
Dr. Rudolph Hanslian, in his treatise, Der Chemische Kreig, submits that
Germany did not violate the Hague Convention until May, 1916, when the "Green
Cross" shell was introduced.* He states: "Her (Germany's) shells and gas mines
used previously to May, 1916, contained a high proportion of high explosive and a
small charge of purely irritant substances. Neither these nor her gas-cloud attacks
the latter a logical development of the traditional 'smoke-out' operation, and not
even mentioned in the Declarationcan be considered as infractions of the agreement."
In further support of his contention, Dr. Hanslian strives to justify German's
actions; he states: "Let us consider the provisions of the Hague Convention, 18th
October, 1907. Article 23 (a), taken from the Declaration of 28th July, 1899, forbids
the use of poison or poisoned weapons. This is intended to prohibit the use of poison
in the customary sense, that is to say, the poisoning of wells and food supplies, and
of poisoned weapons such as are employed by savage races. Had any intention
existed to forbid the use of poison in any other form, such intention would have been
clearly expressed.
"Article 23 (e) forbids the use of arms, projectiles, or materials, calculated to
cause unnecessary suffering. If any of the weapons that first came into use during
the war can refute the charge of unnecessary suffering, that weapon is gas. There
remains for consideration whether the suffering inflicted by gas goes beyond the
intended limits. Statistics on the subject of gas casualties show that such is not
the case. German records show that between 1st January, 1918, and 30th September.
1918, for which period exact figures are available, out of about 58,000 cases treated
for gas poisoning, only 1,755 died; approximately three per cent. French data
(Clemenceau, Secret Session at the end of August, 1918) show us that of 14,578
gas-cases treated in the first ten days of August, 1918, 424 had died; approximately
2.9 per cent. Furthermore, ultimate recovery from gas-poisoning is in most cases
complete, and permanent disability rare. The percentage of mortality in cases of
gun-shot wounds amounts frequently to as much as twenty-five per cent. Article
23 (e) therefore does not enter into the argument."
The Doctor, however, unwittingly refutes his statement when, later on, he refers
to the first gas attack. He continues "The sector attacked was occupied chiefly by
a French colonial division. The gas cloud struck terror and confusion into its ranks,
and produced 15,000 casualties, including five thousand dead."
(Ex-5th Bn. C.E.F.)
Later, a more deadly gas was used which, when inhaled in strength, caused the organs of
the victim to become blistered throughout his body, and slow and agonising death followed. This
was the "Mustard Gas"also called "Yperite" on account of the Germans' initial use of it in
the Ypres Salientfirst used on 12th July, 1917.
