View the H-War Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-War's May 2000 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in H-War's May 2000 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the H-War home page.
REPLIES: 1) Donald Richter 2) Ruediger Overmans 3) Michael McGuire 4) Gervase Phillips 5) Warren Whitby ------------- 1) Donald Richter Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 18:53:35 -0400 From: Donald Richter <richter@ohio.edu> Have you read my own book titled _Chemical Soldiers, British Gas Warfare in World War I_? Donald Richter Department of History Ohio University Athens OH ------------- 2) Ruediger Overmans From: "Overmans" <overmans@uni-freiburg.de> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 08:19:14 +0200 Dear Mr. Francis, Try: Urlanis, Boris: _Wars and Population_, Moscow: Progress Publishers 1971. He has a chapter on the gas losses. Best wishes Dr. Ruediger Overmans ------------- 3) Michael McGuire Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 09:47:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Mcguire <mimcguir@bu.edu> Just a minor note. First Ypres occurred in 1914. Second Ypres was the battle in 1915 in which the Germans employed gas warfare. Sincerely, Michael McGuire ------------- 4) Gervase Phillips From: "G.Phillips" <G.Phillips@mmu.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 15:15:20 +0100 The following figures are from Geoffrey Noon, "The Treatment of Casualties in the Great War", in Paddy Griffith (ed), _British Fighting Methods in the Great War_ (Frank Cass, 1996). Year % of BEF Casualties caused by gas 1915 5.79 1916 1.34 1917 9.29 1918 18.22 Total 185,706 (9.7% of all casualties) Fatalities 5,899 (3.1% of all fatalities) The big jump in 1917 is caused by the introduction of mustard gas and the high percentage in 1918 accounted for, in most part, by the high concentrations of incapitators (tear and blister producers) used during the spring offensive. The figures give me pause for thought that Tim Cook was wholly correct to take me to task for somewhat downplaying the significance of gas. German casualties are far harder to quantify; the extent to which lightly wounded men (a category which would have included many gassed soldiers) were, or were not, included in German casualty figures is, of course, the basis of much debate about comparative casualty rates on the Western Front. Interestingly, Noon reports a post-war RAMC study which concluded that the Germans had suffered twice as many gas casualties as the BEF and French combined; a consequence of prevailing winds, poor resparators, poor counter-measures and the sheer scale of Allied chemical warfare operations. Amongst all the heated debate over comparative casualty figures, I have never seen this particular conclusion queried specifically. Perhaps in the 'tit for tat' of chemical warfare on the Wesern Front the Germans came off particularly badly; and maybe that partially explains their reluctanc to initiate chemical warfare in the next conflict. Cheers, Gervase Phillips Admissions Tutor, History Department of History & Economic History The Manchester Metropolitan University G.Phillips@mmu.ac.uk ------------- 5) Warren Whitby From: wwhitby@att.net Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 14:39:49 +0000 You may also want to look at the number of soldiers who died postwar from the effects of being gassed. One of my ancestors, Clarence Alexander, was in Battery B, 65th Coast Artillery and was gassed during (I believe) the Meuse-Argonne offensive. Even though he survived, his lungs were ruined. After the war, he suffered from numerous lung-related health problems and was forced to live with his relatives, who could care for him. He finally died in 1932 of pneumonia. Warren Whitby wwhitby@worldnet.att.net ************************************************* *************************************************
|