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) Ric Pelvin 2) Gervase Phillips ------------- 1) Ric Pelvin From: Richard.Pelvin@awm.gov.au Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 08:43:27 +1100 A new study of chemical warfare in WWI is: Albert Palazzo, _Seeking victory on the western front: the British army and chemical warfare in World War I_, Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska Press, 2000. Ric Pelvin ------------- 2) Gervase Phillips From: "G.Phillips" <G.Phillips@mmu.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 13:37:08 +0100 On Thu, 4 May 2000 15:15:20 +0100, I had written: > 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; Can I correct a silly error of mine? The RAMC report suggested that German casualties were greater than BEF and French combined but not "twice as great". Sorry! Gervase Phillips Admissions Tutor, History Department of History & Economic History The Manchester Metropolitan University G.Phillips@mmu.ac.uk ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Still haven't registered to review books? --> http://www.ksu.edu/history/h-warbook/ Want to manage your H-War subscription? --> http://www.h-net.msu.edu/lists/help/ Have you seen H-War on the Web lately? --> http://h-net2.msu.edu/~war/ ************************************************* *************************************************
|