September 23, 1921] 



SCIENCE 



265 



Germany had been, for years previously, 

 sedulously linked up in the service of the war 

 which Germany was deliberately planning — 

 probably, in the first instance, mainly for the 

 supply of munitions and medicaments. We 

 may suppose that it was the tenacity of our 

 troops, and the failure of repeated attempts 

 to dislodge them by direct attack, that led 

 to the employment of such foul methods. Be 

 this as it may, these methods became part of 

 the settled practise of our enemies, and during 

 the three succeeding years, that is from April, 

 1915, to September, 1918, no fewer than eight- 

 een different forms of poison — gases, liquids 

 and solids — were employed by the Germans. 

 On the principle of Vespasian's law, reprisals 

 became inevitable, and for the greater part 

 of three years we had the sorry spectacle of 

 the leading nations of the world flinging the 

 most deadly products at one another that 

 chemical knowledge could suggest and techni- 

 cal skill contrive. Warfare, it would seem, 

 has now definitely entered upon a new phase. 

 The horrors which the Hague Convention 

 saw were immanent, and from which they 

 strove to protect humanity, are now, apparent- 

 ly; by the example and initiative of Germany, 

 to become part of the established procedure of 

 war. Civilization protests against a step so 

 retrograde. Surely comity among nations 

 should be adequate to arrest it. If the League 

 of Nations is vested with any real power, it 

 should be possible for it to devise the means, 

 and to ensure their successful application. 

 The failure of the Hague Convention is no 

 sufficient reason for despair. The moral sense 

 of the civilized world is not so dulled but 

 that, if roused, it can make its influence pre- 

 vail. And steps should be taken without delay 

 to make that influence supreme, and all the 

 more so that there are agencies at work 

 which would seek to perpetuate such methods 

 as a recognized procedure of war. The case 

 for what is called chemical warfare has not 

 wanted for advocates. It is argued that poison 

 gas is far less fatal and far less cruel than 

 any other instrument of war. It has been 

 stated that " amongst the ' mustard gas ' 

 casualties the deaths were less than 2 per 



cent., and when death did not ensue complete 

 recovery generally ultimately resulted. . . . 

 Other materials of chemical warfare in use 

 at the Armistice do not kill at all; they pro- 

 duce casualties which, after six weeks in 

 hospital, are discharged practically without 

 permanent hurt." It has been argued that, 

 as a method of conducting war, poison-gas 

 is more humane than preventive medicine. 

 Preventive medicine has increased the unit 

 dimension of an army, free from epidemic 

 and communicable disease, from 100,000 men 

 to a million. " Preventive medicine has made 

 it possible to maintain 20,000,000 men under 

 arms and abnormally free from disease, and 

 so provided greater scope for the killing 

 activities of the other military weapons. . . . 

 Whilst the surprise effects of chemical war- 

 fare aroused anger as being contrary to mili- 

 tary tradition, they were minute compared 

 with those of preventive medicine. The 

 former slew its thousands, whilst the latter 

 slew its millions and is still reaping the 

 harvest." This argument carries no convic- 

 tion. Poison gas is not merely contrary to 

 European military tradition; it is repugnant 

 to the right feeling of civilized humanity. 

 It in no wise displaces or supplants existing 

 instruments of war, but creates a new kind 

 of weapon, of limitless power and deadliness. 

 " Mustard gas " may be a comparatively in- 

 nocuous product as lethal substances go. It 

 certainly was not intended to be such by our 

 enemies. Nor, presumably, were the Allies any 

 more considerate when they retaliated with it. 

 Its effects, indeed, were sufficiently terrible to 

 destroy the German morale. The knowledge 

 that the Allies were preparing to employ it 

 to an almost boundless extent was one of the 

 factors that determined our enemies to sue 

 for the Armistice. But if poisonous chemi- 

 cals are henceforth to be regarded as a regu- 

 lar means of offence in warfare, is it at all 

 likely that their use will be confined to 

 " mustard gas," or indeed to any other of the 

 various substances which were employed up 

 to the date of the Armistice? To one who, 

 after the peace, inquired in Germany con- 

 cerning the German methods of making 



